[strangecyan]

The idea that Facebook has beaten Snapchat just because they've cloned features is such a weird proposition to me.

Facebook's problem is not that they don't have features, it IS the network that is stopping kids from signing up. Snapchat is a safe haven for creative, throw away content that isn't indexable, searchable, doesn't have a social graph or a permissions model.

[ypeterholmes]

Put differently, the truth is actually the opposite of what this article argues: the vast size of Facebook's network is the biggest threat to their existence. Many people I know are ditching facebook because its become too large a social graph- why would I post something edgy to a network that includes my parents?

[CodeCube]

I fully get that this feature just isn't surfaced very well ... But I don't understand why this isn't facebook's biggest priority, to make their extremely robust permissions system easier to use. As lame as it was in general, G+'s "Circle" feature was really well thought out. I should be able to put all my family in one group, my drinking buddies in another, and my coworkers in another ... and then I can freely share whatever I want with whomever I want.

I've also had plenty of people not trust the permissions. Like, posting pictures from a party, people will freak out when I tag them ... and even when I tell them that I've locked down the album permissions, they don't trust that some error down the line won't expose everything.

[smelendez]

> I should be able to put all my family in one group, my drinking buddies in another, and my coworkers in another ... and then I can freely share whatever I want with whomever I want.

This is basically what people use private groups for. It feels more intuitive than posting everything as a standard post with restricted permissions.

> I've also had plenty of people not trust the permissions. Like, posting pictures from a party, people will freak out when I tag them ... and even when I tell them that I've locked down the album permissions, they don't trust that some error down the line won't expose everything.

No offense, but they may also not trust that you've configured the permissions correctly, or that your definition of "locked down" is one they think is appropriate for the photo or will be appropriate for the photo in a year or ten years.

[CodeCube]

> No offense, but they may also not trust that you've configured the permissions correctly, or that your definition of "locked down" is one they think is appropriate for the photo or will be appropriate for the photo in a year or ten years.

None taken, that's a good point ... upon reflection, I'd probably feel just as hesitant about someone else doing the same thing.

[mrep]

> This is basically what people use private groups for. It feels more intuitive than posting everything as a standard post with restricted permissions.

+1 for this. (My Anecdote as a 23 year old) Everyone posts/looks to/at snapchat. Most use instagram (but only post public stuff rarely as it is for "high quality stuff" which tends to follow the 20/80 rule (20% of the people post 80% of the content (I haven't posted in months))). Facebook groups/messenger are also used by most of my friends for casual group chats and planning events as you can find anyone and it is more private. Facebook news feed/Instagram stories/twitter are used by less than 10% of people I know.

[Terr_]

The sad thing about G+ is that the team took an important feature -- different social contexts -- and ad-centric Google sabotaged it by trying to enforce official-name crap and one-identity-to-rule-them-all.

The reality is that humans want different sub-networks AND different identities to be within them.

I mean, just look at us here on HN: It's so separate from Facebook that it's an entirely different site, your comments here won't ever accidentally show up on Grandma's feed... yet most people here still prefer pseudonyms.

[Para2016]

I used to use FB more but now I keep it just for censoring information about myself. I think there are quite a few people who are there just for that reason.

[Qub3d]

I really like the way Randall put it: "a company trying to become the Walmart of social interaction... eventually becomes the Walmart of social interaction"[0].

By having so many different people from different circles all ready to receive whatever you blast into the social space of Facebook, you either have to really water down your ideas or constantly put out fires.

As CodeCube said in this thread; despite all the problems with Google+, the circles idea of sharing different posts with different groups was something I really wanted as well. Too bad only tech enthusiasts picked it up...

[0]:https://xkcd.com/1320/

[patrickmay]

> why would I post something edgy to a network that includes my parents?

That question really answers itself.

[dpeck]

I don't know how anyone could think of content on facebook as being indexable or searchable. Search is still aweful

[tumblen]

Search for users is bad, but the data is indexed and that index is being used and sold behind the scenes all the time.

[jat850]

I don't know anything about it, but how is it known that this is not the case with Snapchat as well? (I realize you're not the OP in this comment chain, but still.)

[strangecyan]

I assume it is the case with Snapchat, I don't think you can build a service at that scale without collecting some kind of data. The difference, I think is two-fold. We know that Facebook collects, analyses and keeps data and when you use Facebook it feels like it. The other difference is that Snapchat doesn't use that data to make a people or thing recommendation engine, which is what turns people off about Facebook.

[jat850]

Fair answer! I don't use either myself so your perspective on it sheds a lot of light. Thank you.

[lucasmullens]

It's more about that Facebook content is forever. Users know others can see their post years later, causing people to be less willing to use the network.