Why Not Everyone is a Fan of the New Facebook Groups
Facebook Groups Draw Mixed Reviews
Some people really like Facebook's new Groups feature. Influential tech blogger Robert Scoble could hardly praise the feature enough. He used the phrase "massively cool" more than once in his description. He's not alone. Many are welcoming the opportunity to separate their friends into different groups and communicate in different ways with them (like chat, email lists, and integration with third-party apps).
Some are less than thrilled with the new feature, however.The feature was announced during an event based around the concept of giving users more control, but it appears that more control doesn't necessarily mean complete control. Jason Calacanis, for example, found out the hard way that anyone can be added to a group, regardless of whether or not they actually opted in (hat tip to Matthew Ingram). The group creator has the ability to make the group open, closed, or secret.
Calacanis found out he was added to a Facebook group for NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association), along with TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington. At Calacanis.com, Jason posted an email he sent to Facebook informing them of what happened. He closed with, "If you guys want to run these new features by me before you launch them, I can probably save you from a couple of privacy law suits each year."
This is really the kind of thing you would think Facebook would want to avoid after all of the privacy brouhaha earlier this year. Of course not everyone is going to have people adding them to questionable groups, but if it can be done, some people just aren't going to be comfortable with it.
Finding Marketing Value in the Cloud
It's not much different from tagging in Facebook Photos, a feature that I've frankly had issues with myself. It's nice that anyone can tag you in a photo and have that show up first thing in the photos on your profile isn't it? Groups adds that extra layer of association though, which some my find even more objectionable, as with Calacanis' case. With this kind of functionality, people could be made to look like they're Nazis, KKK members, pedophiles, Justin Bieber fans, or anything else. Granted, users can report groups to Facebok:
I can definitely see the feature being abused for politics. It's probably already happening.
The feature does appear to only let you add people who you are friends with to Groups, so you may want to choose your friends carefully. It may not be a good idea to be friends with just anybody, and if you are, at least keep up with your notifications. You will be notified when you've been added to a group.
The email feature has received some criticism as well. If you are added to a group and you don't keep up with your notifications, you may find your inbox getting filled up by people in that group posting things. You can put an end to this by opting out, but some feel you should have to opt in to this feature to begin with.
--
What do you think of the new Facebook Groups? Let us know.
Hulu Should Be Better at What it Does
Chris Crum | Staff Writer
Why Doesn't FOX Want Us to Watch Its Programming?
Late last week, a deal between FOX and DISH Network came to an end, leaving DISH Network subscribers without FX, FOX Sports, and the National Geographic Channel. FOX raised their rates and DISH didn't want to pay. While the two companies continue negotiations, some of us wonder how we are going to watch the shows that we regularly enjoy.
There are at least 5 shows I regularly watch on FX, and I have DISH Network, so naturally, this presents a problem for me. 3 of these shows are currently in mid-season. Now, I get to figure out where to watch the next episodes. My first thought was Hulu. They have FOX and (FOX-owned) FX content. I remember watching full episodes of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" there some time ago. I remember that they even had episodes a week after they aired. I can deal with that if I have to.
Too bad they don't do that anymore.
Looking at that show's page now, there are no full episodes available, let alone the newest ones. Now the show's page on Hulu says they're able to post new episodes 30 days after they air, starting later this month. The same goes for "The League". The Same goes for the "Sons of Anarchy". Awesome. Thanks Hulu. Thanks FOX.
AdAge has an interesting and timely article about a speech given by Hulu CEO Jason Kilar this week. According to the article, he basically told the "big media" to either serve consumers or lose them. AdAge's Nate Ives reports:
That's particularly true because media consumption is basically an optional activity, he said. It's habitual and important for most of us, he argued, but no one's going to actually die if they don't see the latest episode of "30 Rock." And within media, as the magazine publishers in the room were well aware, mushrooming options mean you've got to serve consumers or lose them. It's no sure thing that a young person's going to watch "The Amazing Race" instead of visiting Facebook. "Content is discretionary, so you better focus on convenience," he told the audience.
Convenience. What a concept. It seems like FOX is going out of its way to make it as inconvenient as possible for me to see the shows I watch. Meanwhile, DISH claims to be keeping up the fight.
"We regret that FOX Networks, the owner of some Regional Sports Networks, FX and National Geographic Channel, removed their channels from the DISH Network line-up," the company says. "FOX has demanded a rate increase of more than 50%. An increase this large would force DISH Network to pass these costs on to our customers, which we are unwilling to do during these tough economic times."
"DISH Network will continue to work tirelessly for a fair agreement in order to bring these channels back at the earliest possible time." Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll bring the channels back in time to see episodes that haven't even aired on Hulu yet, so we'll either have to DVR them while we wait to be caught up.
Comments (0)
Post a Comment