[danbmil99]

"See more of Yann LeCun on Facebook" popup, no access to the page. No, I don't want to create a Facebook account to read a blog post.

Perhaps links to walled-garden pages where you need an account and need to be logged in should be prohibited or at least discouraged.

[kinkrtyavimoodh]

I opened it in an Incognito window and it worked fine. Public posts on FB can be seen without logging in.

[tedivm]

How long did you wait on the page? At first when it loads you can read it just fine, but then an obnoxious pop up appears. There is a little "not now" link on the bottom that will get you back to the post, but I can see how someone would miss that (it's a great example of a bad UI).

[wadkar]

> it’s a great example of a bad UI

I think it’s a good example of UX that encourages visitor to sign up - which is why it exists. A part of what makes it good is precisely what you mentioned: very easy to miss the button

[dizzystar]

Agreed. I think many posters here assume that everyone has an account at FB, WSJ, NYT, and so on. The web search trick doesn't work for all of these situations either.

[qwerty456127]

reg/pay-walled sites are no the only kind that should be discouraged - sites that will track you globally unless you block them globally should be discouraged too IMHO. Facebook fits both categories.

[Momquist]

Disabling Javascript on Facebook allows you to read these public blog posts without any popups, login, or ads.

[username223]

You need to up your crap-blocking game. This bookmarklet can help:

    javascript:(function() {
        (function () {
            var i, elements = document.querySelectorAll('body *');
            for (i = 0; i < elements.length; i++) {
                if (getComputedStyle(elements[i]).position === 'fixed') {
                    elements[i].parentNode.removeChild(elements[i]);}}})()})()

[innagadadavida]

He is monetizing for his employer using his 100+B neuron network...

[nkozyra]

I had an option to click "not now" to dismiss.

[make3]

this will get downvoted as all held, but I really think most socially apt people should have Facebook accounts these days

[grzm]

> "this will get downvoted as all [hell], but"

It'll have a better chance of avoiding down votes if you leave this out. It's against the guidelines:

> "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[kweinber]

“most socially apt people should have Facebook accounts”

This is like saying that most people who know a lot about food should regularly visit McDonalds since it is the most eaten-at restaurant.

I would venture the opposite, people who are socially apt and attuned are probably least likely to be on Facebook... they’ve likely learned enough about it to stay far, far, away.

[etrautmann]

It’s still reasonable to push discussions away from FB and walled gardens in general.

[qwerty456127]

No. E.g. I'm fine with Telegram & Signal + WhatsApp & Skype for the elderly. Having no intention to become a public person, do I really need a public profile on a web site that's whole purpose is to spy on me everywhere, analyse my behavior and contacts, sell the data to others and show me ads?

[bufferoverflow]

I was recently testing video quality of video chats on a relatively shitty connection, and somehow Skype came out way ahead of Whatsapp and Hangouts.

[qwerty456127]

I absolutely believe you. When I actually need to voice-call somebody (e.g. mom, granny or a client company CEO, all the other people I meet prefer texting) I use Skype - it does this much better than any of the competitors. So it sounds fairly probable it does video better than others too.