Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
AitchTwoOHoHoHo · 20/12/2011 21:54

what are the actual chances of you accidentally clicking through a two-step doublecheck and not noticing? i just don't understand why you all think that this would actually happen.

hiyule · 20/12/2011 21:56

er.. because MNHQ already said the 2 step click was not working Xmas Hmm etc

hiyule · 20/12/2011 21:57
MNHQ
HarktheHelenMumsnetAngelsSing · 20/12/2011 21:57

@hiyule

thanks - but don't do it on your day off have a Brew and mince pie I say Xmas Smile

You have mail, hiyule...

FrothingBeserker · 20/12/2011 21:59

indeed, groundhog day.

once more (for the hard of reading) - I was not concerned abut anyone else in my household clicking on links form my FB wall whenI have not logged out.

it really isn't that hard to follow why, given the total non-working of the button and the 2-click process, how mistakes could happen on shared computers, even with reasonable security precautions taken.

IAmNotSoPissedOffAnyMore · 20/12/2011 22:00

SirCliff - I keep saying this, but I share my computer with teenagers. Who are not the best at doing anything properly.

To have to delete cookies every time I use mumsnet was a pain in the arse, quite frankly. Because of the affect on everything else i do online.

I'm not using Facebook.

And if this is a worry for me, I can't imagine how much of a worry it might be for someone who is, for example, living with and sharing a computer with an abusive partner.

Obviously all use of a computer is a risk. But some things are too risky to risk, iykwim and to me having a button on every single mumsnet page which could potentially link a thread I was on to one of my kids' pages (with just a single inadvertent click) was too risky.

AitchTwoOHoHoHo · 20/12/2011 22:03

gawd, i think you're just enjoying having a flip-out tbh. i'll rephrase; how many threads are you likely to link to between now and the next couple of days when Tech says he can have a two-step process ready?

hiyule · 20/12/2011 22:11

Helen - thanks

Aitch even you and sircliff being school prefects computer savvy and thinking peoples concerns are ridiculous and all that might surely agree that MN being as it's quite a big website might have actually tested it properly and made sure it was two clicks etc before plonking it on sensitive thread areas non?

But insofar as my own personal concerns go Helen has now dealt with it and all the info posted on here has resolved the issue for me. Xmas Smile

BiscuitNibbler · 20/12/2011 22:16

Thank you so much to the person who posted the info for bocking ads and facebook tracking for Chrome. I love my new ad-free (and facebook button-free) MN!

BobbinRobin · 20/12/2011 22:18

Thanks for the clarifications Helen Xmas Smile

I didn't ever think it was a sinister MN/FB plot, my concerns were/are all around people not understanding the issues involved, especially the 'accidental one-click' thing. And the fact that the several FB buttons on offer are confusing as to their actual function.

Whether people choose to recognise it or not, there are real issues surrounding the FB buttons which didn't exist (in the same way) before the buttons did.

As these threads have aired a lot of the concerns and found some solutions then that in itself is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

QuintessentiallyShallow · 20/12/2011 22:21

I am so pleased!

Thanks to this hoo haa HO ho HO! I have managed to finally install adblocker and stopped this facebook cookie sharing thingy!

Hurra!

MmeReindor · 20/12/2011 22:23

Have to say I agree with Aitch.

The thing went live on Friday (I think) and it has taken them a Monday and Tues to get back to us on this. Considering many are already on holiday and it is already a busy time of the year, that is not bad.

"Der ton macht die Musik" as my DH would say. It is not what you say, but how you say it.

I understand the issues that you have, but blocking ads means less income for MNHQ.

AitchTwoOHoHoHo · 20/12/2011 22:24

what about an answer to the question, hiyule, rather than a snidey wee insult?

and if you read my posts you will see that i have already said that it has not been managed well.

BobbinRobin · 20/12/2011 22:53

Cliff:

"1) If you are so paranoid about being outed in rl, why are you friends with so many Mumsnetters on facebook?"

If this was directed in any way in my direction, as I said I don't have a problem with having people who I met through MN on my FB. I don't discuss MN with them on FB (it's a bit like Fight Club Wink ) - they are just like any other RL friend. There is nothing to link them to MN or my MN identity.

"2) As Mumsnet is so googleable, often appears in the national press, discussed in other forums and blogs and linked to by mumsnetters on facebook, what makes you think that this 'Like' button will make such a huge compromise to your rl identity - it is already compromised!"

Yes it's already compromised - for that reason I don't post much personal info at all and namechange regularly. For the reasons I've given before (which I won't bore you with again, as you clearly don't get it) the FB link makes it more likely that if I click it accidentally, I run the risk of being at best, embarrassed or at worst, outed.

"3) If your iphone/pc randomly presses buttons when you hover over them surely you would have fixed it by now or else you'd be clicking on ads, links and other random stuff. "

My pc and phone don't click on hover, but my phone is certainly very unpredictable and insensitive when it comes to scrolling and hitting buttons.

"4) If you share your laptop/pc and are so worried about your MN identity, wouldn't you take steps to ensure that it was safe rather then relying on Mumsnet to do it for you?"

I don't usually share a PC so it's not an issue for me (though it is for others). I DO take steps to protect my privacy, and am a bit irritated at the constant implication that I don't and am only worried about the Like button as I'm too thick to realise that the internet is public Hmm

I would say that am more 'internet savvy' than the average MN user, and I don't think it's unreasonable that the site be designed so that the average user can understand what all the buttons mean and are easily able to avoid hitting them by accident.

hiyule · 20/12/2011 22:54

ooh how many do I think?

five?
two?
seventeen?

I have no idea. One is one too many if it causes festive mayhem IMVHO

BiscuitNibbler · 20/12/2011 23:06

Does blocking ads mean less revenue for MN? How does that work? Can they tell how many people block their ads? And if so, do they have to share that info with the advertisers?

AitchTwoOHoHoHo · 20/12/2011 23:06

but it Actually Won't Happen. and if you are really, really concerned about it just don't MN until the two-step thing is in place.

re that snidey prefects crack, hiyule, seems like this thread is full of people moaning about old-timers complaining about this, and yet when people who have been here a while aren't bothered they are prefects. can't exactly win.

all i am suggesting is that you make a reasonable risk assessment before flying into a panic and demanding your posts be deleted and slagging off people at HQ.

AitchTwoOHoHoHo · 20/12/2011 23:08

well i should imagine that they are paid for space or for click-throughs or a combination of the two, but click-throughs usually take the most weight. if people don't have them on their pages, no click-throughs = no money.

which is a bit shit considering their are overheads, such as will be incurred if we expect HQ to be at the beck and call of the membership 24 hours a day.

AitchTwoOHoHoHo · 20/12/2011 23:09

THERE! ha! not their. am distracted by watching CHRISTMAS DR WHO. it's brilliant btw. Grin

BiscuitNibbler · 20/12/2011 23:17

Oh well that's no loss then, as I never use click-through ads.

hiyule · 20/12/2011 23:18

I haven't 'slagged off people at HQ' thanks - just said I thought the issue had been handled badly (which I do think) and I am perfectly capable of making a risk assessment. I was concerned about my fellow mners in general, not just myself doing the one-click posting.

Apologies if my prefect joke offended Xmas Smile

QuintessentiallyShallow · 20/12/2011 23:21

So, are you actually saying that we should NOT block ads, and continue seeing Facebook "Like" buttons over sensitive threads to keep the site running? Rather than mnhq being a bit more sensible in the placement of these buttons?

LissTheSeasonLouBeJollie · 20/12/2011 23:28

aitch, stop bragging about the who Wink

and dh is still sulking Xmas Wink

AitchTwoOHoHoHo · 20/12/2011 23:28

really biscuit, never? i thought we were all clicking incontinent on here, isn't that the great fear re the fb button?

assuming that you are sincere, hiyule, i accept your apology. am surprised you think it was a joke, though, by your own telling you've been here long enough to know that the tired old prefect line is generally speaking used as an insult.

AitchTwoOHoHoHo · 20/12/2011 23:30

QS it's up to HQ what they do with these buttons, but if you want to hang out here as well as demand that they be available to accede to your wishes regarding any changes they make, someone will have to pay for it.