Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Reply to Justine

776 replies

TheOriginalFAB · 18/12/2011 18:46

The first objection I'm afraid I can't really buy - Most of the UK population uses Facebook. Most Mumsnetters use facebook. It's a bit mad to object to facebook on principle - it's like objecting to people.

This is just daft and is irrelevant whether you buy it or not. Just because "most of ths population" use FB doesn't mean everyone on MN is going to like it. It is like saying you don't buy that some people won't eat meat as the majority of the population are not vegetarian/vegan. And it is nothing like objecting to people Hmm

The second objection I just think is misguided, as I've explained. Users' privacy is no more compromised by this button than it ever was.

It might not be "no more compromised" than before but the point is it is much more visable now and before people might not have been aware of the link button but now they are and they don't like it.

So should we change something because some people on this thread dislike it even if we think they are mistaken to dislike it? Even though what they are objecting to is already in place?

You may think we are mistaken not to like it but we are part of MN and without posters you just have a website with adverts no one sees. And the fact that it is already in place is not the issue. Before lots of posters weren't aware of it so couldn't object.

I've been doing this long enough to know that new things are never well-received - but it doesn't always mean they are bad.

That comes across as patronising and lots of posters are telling you this is a "bad" idea and lots of people don't like it.

For me this is a huge loss as I feel unable to discuss something I would have appreciated help with and that makes me feel sad. And namechanging doesn't work for me as someone always guesses who I am and outs me.

OP posts:
IAmFuckingPissedOff · 19/12/2011 17:55

I did, at the time.

I remember specifically having a conversation about the Facebook and Twitter buttons on it. They were the reason I hid it.

Can't we hide the "like" button - that would solve everyone's problems (except of course the privacy bit, but I've learned a lot about that recently, and I'm much more worried about accidentally liking my own post than I am about anyone recognising a thread liked by someone else).

I won't be starting any threads anyway. Or posting anything of importance on any thread with a like button. I'll do it by pm instead, I think.

OnlyForMe · 19/12/2011 18:04

Well that's the exact reason why one year ago I asked to have all my threads removed and to be removed as a member of MN.
Since then I have reregistered, I am changing names on a very regular basis and seen this thread I am actually contemplating deregistering again to register under another name so that the traceability is as small as possible.

The issue here MN is that you have taken steps to link MN, a videly used forum where people can post very sensitive stuff, with some sort of automatic link to another very used and open system, namely facebook.
What I am Shock (and this is an understatement!) is that you have taken so few steps to ensure that people dind't do something they don't want to do.

Working in IT, when a webiste is put together, I've never heard of a 'facebook button' where you just had to hoover over it for you to click 'Like'. If your webdesigner has done that without telling you (or wo knowing) I would suggest you change your webdesigner. Sounds very crap technical capabilities to me.
Unless of course you wanted it that way...... I would imagine it would increase your visibility ever so easily, wouldn't it?? And destroy the privacy of MN members so easily too :( I can only notice that you have been waiting until someone has made a comment about it before doing anythoing about it and that you are hiding under the fact that 'this hadn't been seen as a problem a year ago' to explain why other buttons have been left even thought they obvioulsy pose very similar problem. Where is your sense of ethics??

The worst is that I actually don't use FB so will not have any of these problems. But I am Angry on behalf of all the people that have been caught out (or will be).

TysTheSeasonToBeJolly · 19/12/2011 18:14

This has probably been said but...
Why the hell should I start logging out of fb everytime I come onto mn, I will be forever typing in my email address Xmas Hmm
It seem's to me we either choose to be on mn or fb Xmas Hmm

DoesntChristmasDragOn · 19/12/2011 18:19

"ve on ly been able to see the Dangly Thing since I got my mac book. I only recall seeing the FB etc icons recently and they are covering up half the text of the "I'm Watching" link. is this another shoddily implemented feature?

BeerGrinchPotter · 19/12/2011 18:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

IAmFuckingPissedOff · 19/12/2011 18:21

I know you are gone for now, but I'm going to keep asking.

Why can't we just customise our pages to hide it (like we can the dangly thing)?

chipmunksex · 19/12/2011 18:25

Furball Re using mn and fb in the library. Afaik public access computers will clear the cache and wipe all your details between users, so that should not cause a problem.
If you are still worried, check with your local librarian.

I agree that it's a shame that mn feel they have to get into bed with fb in this way.
I think though the best way for people to protect themselves is to look at your browser settings and hopefully there will be an option to 'clear browsing data' or wahtever, so that they cannot inadvertantly post a link on fb. It's a good idea to namechange regularly and be a bit obtuse when talking about their personal lives and circumstances.

pizzatheaction · 19/12/2011 18:32

i flounced and de-regged when they put the buttons in the first time. then crawled back and re-regged under an mn-only e-mail address in an attempt to diversify my online and rl personalities...

i just tried a namechange as a result of this new and improved fb saga, and am now stuck in an out of body experience as i can't get back to my usual username.

tis the devil's work, i tell ya.

any suggestions to do with cookies will have me mainlining choc chip. i'm not usually allowed out alone.

and i haven't even used fecking fb since they changed it. i can't work that either, now.

QuintessentiallyFestive · 19/12/2011 18:32

"It seem's to me we either choose to be on mn or fb"

I am very efficient with my leisure. I am logged in everywhere at once. It would seem that one would have to chose.

Unless I can hide the dreaded button.

And facebook is not going, that is where I keep in touch with friends and family.

GeriManda · 19/12/2011 18:34

It has to be hideable. It was before so no logic to why it isn't now. Well, I know why it isn't- people who use mn generally don't tell anyone in RL about it. That's a dilemma for mn so they're relying on accidental postings on FB.

If it's not been said already re Justine's comment yesterday about most people in the UK having FB - was that from the same source (ie FB) that says 2/3 of Americans are "active users" of FB? Yeah, right.

CrispLeCrisp · 19/12/2011 18:34

I am still in disagreement with this, as i was on the original thread. I get the fact that 'links' between FB and MN have always been possible, but for me this pushes the 'social networking' side of MN one step too far, compromising the 'support for parents' side.

Very sad about that. And actually more sad that MNHQ don't seem to care Xmas Sad

TysTheSeasonToBeJolly · 19/12/2011 18:38

Qunit my issue exactly.
I do not want to have to choose.

Furball · 19/12/2011 18:40

BeerGrinchPotter and chipmunksex - thank you both for answering Smile = [relief]

personally I will never push the button intentionally

and I believe we should be able to customise and so hide the button

I can't imagine anyone who would want to post any thread on their fb wall?

In my mind it would lead folk straight to that poster. Friends if so wished (and some have 100's +) could then work out who that poster was. Why would anyone want to do that?

BeerGrinchPotter · 19/12/2011 18:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tortington · 19/12/2011 18:41

whats the fucking problem? will someone explain it to me? if you dont want it on your wall - dont click it. or create a fb profile for mumsnet and invite mumsnet friends ..like me. im a genius

MNHQ
Tech · 19/12/2011 18:41

Hi, there are some misunderstandings here. Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of posting threads to FB, just on the technical level:

The facebook like button is a one-click process by Facebook's design - if you are logged in on facebook - i.e. you clicked remember me on facebook when you last logged in. If you are on a shared computer, clicking remember me on facebook, or not logging out is a risky thing to do as the next person to use the computer can just go to facebook.com and "be" you. That's nothing to do with Mumsnet.

Facebook's own intro to the like button reads "The Like button lets users share pages from your site back to their Facebook profile with one click."

Facebook MIGHT pop up some options when you click (at their discretion) depending on how your Facebook account is set up (for example they might ask if you want to post on your personal page or a business page you manage.) In most but not all cases they invite you to provide a comment.

Again, that's not something we at MN know about at all. We don't have any data about your facebook account or its behaviour at all. There is no link between your facebook account and your MN account. If you click like when you are not logged into facebook, a facebook login prompt will appear in a popup asking you what facebook account to log into and post to.

We do take this issue seriously and are looking into changing the like buttons to a self hosted version that would ask you to click a second button and something like "please click again to confirm you want to post this thread to your facebook wall." As long as that works satisfactorily it should be ready in the next day or two.

But, we can't control or access your facebook account in any way. If you are worried about cross posting from sites that have FB like buttons to your facebook account, you should always log out of FB after using it (by clicking Log out explicitly on facebook.)

CrispLeCrisp · 19/12/2011 18:48

OR you could let us disable it?

QuintessentiallyFestive · 19/12/2011 18:48

Tech, logging off is not always possible, if more than one person share computers.

Hiding the buttons is more sensible, and also leaving out the button from more sensitive areas where people post sensitive things.

Why slip the "entertainment" part in to support areas of the site? I can understand it for AIBU and Chat (and the pram shed, etc Wink ) but not for parenting, health, etc

BobbinRobin · 19/12/2011 18:51

Tech - thanks. I'm aware that MN are not sinisterly connected with FB in terms of knowing your FB identity or log in or anything.

For me the BIG issue is that if you are logged into both at the same time (which I pretty much always am) then, at the moment, just one accidental click exposes the MN page I'm looking at to my FB 'audience'.

MNHQ
Tech · 19/12/2011 18:55

TBH I think it is always possible to log out. You could for example just go to facebook.com. If the browser is logged in, click log out on facebook. Then continue browsing. From that point forward, clicking "like" wouldn't post to a facebook account as there's no facebook account logged in.

The other questions are policy issues for Helen and crew, and not for me to comment on really, but technically you can always log out, even on a shared computer.

MNHQ
Tech · 19/12/2011 18:58

Hi BR, that's true about the accidental click. That's why we are looking into the two-step process. That should prevent accidental posting.

If we just gave the option to hide, you could still accidentally post to FB if you were logged into FB but not logged into MN. We wouldn't know to hide the button as you wouldn't be logged into MN, but if you were on FB the button would still post to your FB wall. Basically that button talks to facebook not us.

CrispLeCrisp · 19/12/2011 18:59

You can log out BUT this would mean i would be on MN far less as i tend to flick between the two. I would log out of MN to go on FB and probably leave FB running rather than MN. So, by implementing this i would actually reduce my MN time. Rather the opposite result from that desired i would imagine? Confused

BobbinRobin · 19/12/2011 18:59

There are some very real privacy issues surrounding this. To dismiss people's concerns as hysterical paranoia (as some posters have) is really not justified.

Tortington · 19/12/2011 19:00

i really dont understand - i#m not being obtuse - i dontunderstand why people are complaining

if you are worried that if you press the button and your dh is logged in facebook

then dont press the button until you have checked who is logged on facebook

what the fuck am i missing here that people are all upset about

if YOU press it it appears on YOUR wall

if YOU dont like this prospect

DONT DO IT

Tortington · 19/12/2011 19:02

FOR ME AT LEAST there is a two click process

i click - a box comes up that i can type into and then press post

i couldn't POSSIBLY accidentally click it and post