Good luck to Facebook in getting traction with corporate customers with the most atrocious privacy record of just about any company.
Good luck to Facebook in getting traction with techy customers with the most atrocious privacy record of just about any tech passionate.
/s
Just look at any facebook thread and see how many HN readers use it.
The stasi wasn't enough of a lesson.
I've also seen company employees start their own closed, private Facebook groups for work purposes because the in-house services were terrible. (I was joined to one.) It's easier than getting a group of people to sign up for a separate third-party service. (Tried that. Didn't work.)
I assume Facebook noticed this phenomenon and decided to improve on it, and exploit it.
I don't expect most users see a problem because they already trust Facebook with their personal information. And I wouldn't be surprised if users trust it more than Google, which now stands for surveillance-based advertising.
This would probably get them fired in certain companies with responsible information policies.
> I don't expect most users see a problem because they already trust Facebook with their personal information.
Which is wrong as naive in the first place.
> And I wouldn't be surprised if users trust it more than Google, which now stands for surveillance-based advertising.
Facebook stands for social manipulation advertising. Pick your poison.
Sure, but if people followed the rules, almost no work would get done. (In the UK, "working to rule" is a form of industrial action that's only a little short of a strike.)
> Which is wrong as naive in the first place.
Yeah, more than 1.6 billion people are naive and wrong.
> Facebook stands for social manipulation advertising. Pick your poison.
How does that work, then?
Otherwise, there's an ethical difference between sharing information voluntarily, for their own benefit -- which people do on Facebook -- and Google's clandestine tracking, which is for Google's benefit.
Event organization, menu updates, building maintenance updates etc.
You're right that it can't really swallow everything, but it actually helps (users) that it can't. It relegates FB to a casual thing and not a real business tool. Whether or not this is good for Facebook is a different matter, and I agree with your implication that it probably isn't.
Time to start showing recruitment agency ads to the staff members personal facebook accounts.
People (non-techs) don't seem to give a crap.
I think a lot of HN readers don't give a crap too.
Just see any thread about firefox/facebook/google/apple/whatever and HN readers will prefer X because Y.
Where X is a proprietary software or service and Y is a stupid reason.
I don't have the link but a commenter said that they value their privacy very much, but use safari over firefox because it takes 10 ms less to open. Yep!
What's your definition of a stupid reason? "I don't agree"?
That's all. Stupid was the wrong word.
It's much better than Yammer, seems to work as well if slightly better than Google+ and yet remains a huge pain in the arse. But no more so than other company communication tool.
I give it 6 months to a year before it falls into disuse.
Depends on the contract. If they break the contract their wallet's big enough to recompense.