Hacker News Reader

Comment by exodust | Hacker News Reader

The problem with linking to Facebook posts is that non-Facebook users are now greeted with a "sign in or sign up" pop-over that cannot be removed and obstructs the page. This is a relatively recent change. Facebook do not want to be part of the open web, so don't link to them as if they are.

View on HN

This is a public wall post by the creator of Lavabit himself. Would you rather a random third party news site pick it up first before it is reposted here?

I see no problem with Facebook posts if they were created by an authoritative representative of the discussion and that was the primary point of publication (i.e. not a Facebook post pointing to their blog, in which case their blog would be a better place to link to.)

Yep and there is nothing wrong with a public wall post up until 2016 when Facebook decided to restrict read-access to those public pages by way of the annoying nag prompt. Clicking "not now" doesn't hide the nag prompt enough to call the page 'publicly accessible'. Sorry to be off-topic on this, but I feel Facebook is quite arrogant with this behavior, as their users should be in control of the public status of their posts, not Facebook.

You're stretching the definitions of "read-access" and "publicly accessible."

The word you're looking for is "annoying" which is already implied by "nag prompt."

Blocking content deliberately is an accessibility issue, solved only by signing up to Facebook. Not cool when all I wanted to do was read some words, not "use Facebook".

The content is still entirely readable. I'm not arguing that it's not annoying, I'm just saying you're over-exaggerating.

Yeah probably, but then again "entirely readable" is generous considering on my laptop screen 30+% of the page is covered needlessly by a panel with no dismiss button. "Public post" redefined to mean 30% less screen layout than only a few months ago.

You could look at it that way... 2016 rolls in and quietly, Facebook reduces your web publish layout area by 30% without word. If member I'd be asking what's up with that. Answer might be that you are not CEO of your own contributions on fb.

I'm opening this in incognito mode and have no trouble reading it.

We have a different definition of publicly accessible. You can block the annoying nag prompt with your ad blocker.

I'm as upset at facebook as you are, but misleading people into not linking to an original source is a shitty thing to do.

I don't see it as shitty. It is simply not complying with the modus operandi of the owner of the original source (facebook).

I'd rather see http://archive.is/ffjTe or even an image than to be reminded that facebook wants to be the gatekeeper of content.

I do block these pop ups when I can (ublock). But that means you want the average user (not using blacklists, not using whitelists, not even using adblockers) to be reminded that he should login so as not to feel like a criminal.

Oh wait. The average user has a facebook account and is always logged in.

I am not the average user, I am a specific person.

> It is simply not complying with the modus operandi of the owner of the original source (facebook).

The authors intent is irrelevant. They are a monetized product sold to advertisers. Facebook will never act against its own interest of maximizing the size and salability of its graph network.

> Facebook will never act against its own interest of maximizing the size and salability of its graph network.

Agreed.

What I meant to say is, if we don't like the agressive behaviour of "facebook acting in its own interest to maximize the size and salability of its graph network", we shouldn't link to facebook URLs.

https://mbasic.facebook.com/KingLadar/posts/1015713684477503... works, even if logged out :)

I have a tiny css snippet that hides the nagbar for me: https://github.com/captn3m0/.css/blob/master/facebook.com.cs...

http://archive.is/ffjTe

Click "not now"

Right click the persistent banner and select "inspect element" (YMMV on Browser choice).

Set "display: none" for the element's css.

Yes I know there are ways to technically work around their walled garden annoyances, but the principle is more important. The fundamental function of a web link from one page to another should not involve nagging to register or sign in for a service which boasts "free and always will be". I don't think most FB users and business pages are aware that their "public" posts and pages are now obscured by sign-up nag sliders.

Isn't the ability to manipulate the page as we need despite what the server sends, one of the reasons that the "open" web such an important goal?

Yeah, this is bad.

> I don't think most FB users and business pages are aware that their "public" posts and pages are now obscured by sign-up nag sliders.

Unfortunately, I guess most FB users would be more surprised that some people don’t have a Facebook account, not that they are greeted with a signup window.

Fair point.

I was just providing a relatively simple solution to "...pop-over that cannot be removed and obstructs the page."

Disable scripts from facebook.com and the OP reads fine.

Noscript ftw

How is that worse than posting a paywalled link? That annoys me much more...

Isn't it sort of a paywall? Facebook wants your precious eyeballs, or whatever hoodoo it is they deal in.

I adblocked that element a long time ago. Doesn't cause me any trouble anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com