This article talks about how Facebook modified its groups settings. Originally, there was an option for groups to hide posts from the general public, but have the name of the group visible to the public - with that option the names of the members of the group were also public. Then there was the secret option, in which the public would not even be able to find the group - membership was by invitation only. They finally realized they needed to have a group setting that would make a group visible to the pubic, but hide the names of members from the public. I will confess I didn't read the entire article - I read about half-way to learn about this problem with settings. They also added ways for monitors to screen potential group members - I didn't read far enough to see if the details of that were included.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/facebook-emotional-support-groups/572941/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/facebook-emotional-support-groups/572941/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/facebook-emotional-support-groups/572941/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/facebook-emotional-support-groups/572941/
Sorting out community settings, dynamics, privacy, controls, etc., is actually a pretty complex problem. There's only so much of that which is visible to the casual observer, and a lot that you don't fully grasp until you've tried, and failed, at this a few times.
ReplyDeleteThere doesn't seem to be many alternatives for private online groups. Of the alternative platforms we've talked about other than FB and G+, it looks like only two, MeWe and Friendica offer groups at all.
ReplyDeleteI'm not seeing the relevance of this article to Google+ Migration? Am I missing something?
ReplyDeleteJohn Lewis Yes it's relevant. The article considers the implications of a platform offering groups capability. This article is informative about the various subtle but critical factors involved in hosting groups. The article reminds us, there are some very serious human issues at stake which means any alternative we might look for has to be assessed with this in mind, something it's easy to overlook otherwise.
ReplyDeleteBill Brayman And this informs which platform to move to how? Does it list platforms that do it "right"? Is there even a list of platforms or is it just a hit piece on FB?
ReplyDeleteBill Brayman thanks for a good response to John Lewis (edit - had wrong name) regarding the factors that encourage or in some cases discourage group participation. For me, the Groups I belong to in Facebook are more functional than the Communities in Google Plus. I would also say the Groups are better cultivated than my main feed in Facebook - though my main feed might be disrupted by cookie deletion upon exit.
ReplyDeleteI don't really belong to any FB Groups where privacy is an issue, though I think having the posts not visible to the public has prevented trolls from jumping into discussions. In the situations where there have been trolls, strong moderation has been beneficial. With the case of at least one group - New York Times - Australia - the moderator is getting paid to maintain quality interactions. I assume there is a collaborative relationship between Facebook and the New York Times, with the NYT being the higher quality party in this case.
John Lewis I wouldn't call it a hit piece at all - though I only read half-way through because I was more interested in reading about their evolution regarding groups than about using Facebook as a form of therapy. The main point of the portion that I read was "didn't have it right" and "fixed it". Another point in the article is the obvious - the number of Facebook users globally makes finding a niche group easier. But like many Google Plus users, I am not that enthusiastic about Facebook, since I feel they're exploiting our sense of obligation to have a presence there.
ReplyDeleteJohn Lewis It mentions FB as far as that goes, and that's an alternative to g+, such as it is. But that's just the criteria you mentioned. It's relevance to me was more abstract, what do i need to know about any platform, or any set of online social services for online groups.
ReplyDeleteJohn Lewis The considerations are relevant in assessing platforms generally. Regardless if it does or doesn't point to successes.
ReplyDeleteThe most critical engineering case studies are failure analyses.
The case of fb as a successful failure, or g+ as a failed success?
ReplyDeleteI'm moving this to the Discussion thread. Thanks for explaining to me what it was about so I could categorize it correctly.
ReplyDeleteNo matter FB does... Means nothing to me since I totally despise its design and colors.
ReplyDelete