Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pierreb 5960 days ago
It does expose (by full name) any contact who comments on one of your Buzzes. It's far from being obvious when you are using Buzz for the first time that your comments will be seen not just by the Buzz author; it's also far from obvious initially for the Buzz author that his contacts will see each other if they comment. Finally, it's not clear at all who is seeing what. This all feels fuzzy and insecure as compared to good old email.
2 comments

"It does expose (by full name) any contact who comments on one of your Buzzes."

It's important to note, however, that unless the buzz message was shared with only specific contacts, anyone can comment on it. Sure, it's likely that a commenter is a contact, but it is entirely possible that they aren't a contact and came to the buzz via some other means.

"It's far from being obvious when you are using Buzz for the first time that your comments will be seen not just by the Buzz author"

It's pretty much universal for comments to have the same visibility as the item to which they are attached.

I could see how someone who isn't at all internet savvy might not realize this, but it's hard to say what they expect. For instance, Facebook, filled with the non-internet savvy, is even more liberal with comments, adding to your feed comments made by friends on things posted by non-friends.

"it's not clear at all who is seeing what."

Definitely. It's easy to see why people believe their contacts are being shared when they aren't and it's no surprise that others have accidentally shared their contacts when setting up their buzz profiles.

"It's pretty much universal for comments to have the same visibility as the item to which they are attached."

But Buzz does not even quite work like that. Any commenter can extend the visibility to one of his contacts (a totally different set from the author's contact) by adding a @ reference to them in a comment. So even the author himself does not completely control the access rights.

> Finally, it's not clear at all who is seeing what.

And when people went and figured it out, they have clearly said that they did not consent to that (or at least intend to consent)...which is the problem.