teaneedz

This. Exactly my take too. Manufacturers are not as tuned in to user feedback as most might think. Many think they know better. No one worth any chops in UX though sees the removal of the audio jack as good. I've read and heard all the arguments in favor of removing the 3.5mm audio jack. Everyone ignores the fundamentals of good UX principles though. Too many companies have a very narrow UX scope though.

TL;DR

Voluptatem aliquam soluta qui

This is bad UX advice - period.

Removing the ".@" syntax is a mistake. I don't always want to broadcast replies. I still don't understand why URLs are still included within the 140 char limit either. Can someone explain that better than the article?

This is a question anyone with a Yahoo! account should be asking.

He has it right - nobody cares. Even when people are made aware, they still don't care. Look at the security debacle of Snapchat, not to mention its lack of ethics. Even when the issues were exposed, the majority of users didn't care. Same with FB privacy. It's not just a matter of awareness. You have to almost throw a wrench at people to wake the majority up.

News and other content will always exist beyond Facebook.

The sad part is watching adtech kill more businesses as it devours its own tail.

Thank you for clarifying the first point. Agreed, the fundamental problem exists beyond tech and software. I guess coming to grips with that lets us use tech as a means to an end - a tool - that can be beneficial. The fact that we're discussing it on this medium shows that software and tech can be positive. The OP probably is looking at the general trend and state of problems tied to flaws in us as humans and other macro influences.

I'm sure that a solution exists that might be even simpler than tDCS. A walk through the woods always helps me ;)

> Agonizing over these things is not a result of some profound grasp of reality and the ultimate causes for XYZ problems that have been around

Since most problems are solved by first recognizing a problem exists, why is the OP's grasp not profound or accurate?

> If you really wanted to pursue tech, you'd be a positive force in it rather than trying to pigeonhole tech/software for ever-present human foibles. It would make more sense to be a part of the evolution of technology

Unfortunately, being a positive force doesn't always change the direction of things if the momentum and direction is toward a wall or cliff.

I'm not anti-tech, but certainly appreciate what the OP has observed.

Personally, I believe the OP has valid concerns. "News" is not the culprit and blocking it is really not a long term viable solution since we will always be surrounded and impacted by the mindset and decisions of those driving tech.

> There is this implicit belief in progress, in particular that tech represents some inherent advancement for the human race.

Reminds me of the Hemingway quote:

“Never mistake motion for action.”

Too often, "progress" suffers from a lack of a moral compass. Quarterly goals push for measurable goals too often linked to short term monetary rewards over what's of real value to humanity.

gottagetaway - you have great observations, but tech is probably just a part of a bigger systemic problem.

Don't let anyone demean your feelings or take on what you've observed.

You mean ad-tech platforms.

"Watching more and more" because it's replacing regular television/cable for many. More video though means less actual content consumed - there's only so much time in a day. Plain text is still preferred by power users due to time, bandwidth, portability, searchability, quotability, accessibility ... ect.

Sure. I didn't remove their source of revenue - their content still displayed for me, minus nefarious tracking, malverts and poor targeting. The solution is to stand up to ad-tech and advertisers and do ads the right way - one that respects UX. Until that happens, publishers are in a no-win situation. Videos won't solve their problem. They will cost more to produce and many will skip them or head to other places with plain text. Millennials are still going to be picky on what they watch. Maybe that generation is still learning the ramifications of ad-tech but this survey from Realtime Generation is interesting. What makes them unhappy:

- Organizations sharing data with third parties (60%). - Movement tracked in-store via personal device for marketing purposes (41%). - Online habits used to provide targeted ads and promotions (50%). - Location data used or shared (54%).

Advertisers are responsible for the current state of declining revenue for publishers because they never understood UX. Ad blocking usage is going to rise and publishers will die or eventually address the issue with advertisers.

Ty. And there it is: "collaborate on new technology and advertising opportunities."

I read that and laughed. I suppose their bed is for Millennials and Advertisers now, but it's kind of interesting that Advertisers still haven't learned.

UX brains cells die though when advertisers get involved.

Since my ad blockers are preventing this article from loading, I'm just going by the Title: bad move Mashable.

I suppose that millennials consume the most videos, but power users rely on text, especially for consumption and sharing.

Advertisers always poisoning things.

Yes, but Wickr keeps it encrypted - salted

And I think that's really the messaging that needs to have some PR light shed upon. Facebook has access to the meta and contact data (confirmation, Moxie?). For all the hoopla over WhatsApp E2E crypto, users shouldn't forget that they may be handing over phone number, contact data and other meta to the largest ad-tech platform with a real name policy.

That's kind of what I was fearing. Would love to see an official response from Moxie on the meta and contact data handling of WhatsApp's implementation.

I also wonder how Facebook will monetize WhatsApp with e2e now.

How is the WhatsApp contact list data handled? Is it completely encrypted too or does Facebook have access to it?

Not pirating since one has no indication if or what type of ad-tech is being used a site. It just takes one click to end up with malicious code or a UX headache. The website owner is responsible and does not even require an email from users (more wasted time) since the data will already show what's happening. If the site owner is too dense to comprehend the issue or importance of UX, then c'est la vie.

Why a good VPN is pretty much a requirement now. I've been using F-Secure's products and really love seeing all the blocking it does.

The PM is responsible for the requirements. If my PRD fails to be explicit or is not involved in the QA process, the PM needs to take ownership. Yes, everyone is responsible for the UX, but the PM especially.

This was always a worse-case scenario to me - Verizon buying core Yahoo! I deleted my Yahoo account awhile back because I figured whoever ended up buying Yahoo would be looking at the purchase through myopic ad-tech vulture eyesight.

Yahoo user data will not have a happily-ever-after ending for anyone who still Yahoo!'s

Doesn't bug me as much as the Netflix attack against VPNs - which is akin to asking users to turn off their firewall or AV nowadays.

Yep. I haven't even attempted to click on a Forbes link (shared, or recommended) in ages. Any site that still serves interstitials also gets promptly sent to the pits of despair or dev/null.

Find an alternative to ad-supported business models maybe. Isn't much of this data used by/for the advertising industry?

[Encryption, Privacy Are Larger Issues Than Fighting Terrorism, Clarke Says : NPR](http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470347719/encryption-and-priva...)

Disgraceful is a good word for sweeping this huge social issue to places it's less seen.

Yep, there's plenty of blame to go around. I hope we don't become desensitized to the sufferings of others by moving "problems" out of eyesight though.

> Google's opponents don't need to generate outrage.

We just don't seem to have an issue with "outrage" when the topic involves encryption. I don't see an issue with this article bringing to light bad practices.

If this article opens up a broader discussion, involving any business participating in such disgusting practices, all the better.