I understand enforcing login for write operations, since it's obviously required, but they really do seem to have no regard for the original ideals of the internet. They're not alone; Quora and others have done similarly stupid shit.
These companies are all supposedly started by hackers who love the internet and technology, but it's sad to see capitalism take hold in such an ugly way.
Sometimes for annoying popups covering content, sometimes for the sidebar of brightly colored floating social widgets, sometimes just the enormous fixed banner that continues to waste screen real estate after you've scrolled down.
I use it a lot on my laptop and haven't tried JS bookmarklets in mobile browsers, but I'd hope that they work by now?
p/s: we need more bookmarklets that removes annoyance like this
Conversely, anyone with or without an account can view public Facebook posts.
I think the word hacker was misappropriated by assholes in Silicon Valley somewhere around the mid-aughts.
original ideals of the _World Wide Web_, to be more specific.
That was a glib remark, but in all seriousness ... for the average non-technical user, who's friends are all on Facebook, their event and group system is a godsend. Non-FB solutions should realize that and figure out ways to make more accessible (and cheap ... aka free) systems
The world is complicated :)
File a polite complaint that they are excluding members of the community unnecessarily, and that alternatives like meetup.com exist so you don't even need to run your own web server.
that is exactly correct
Openness and accessibility are among the most important internet values. Companies that create closed gardens violate these values. Many people believe that this erosion of openness for the sake of short-term profits (2-3 years) will lead to a weaker and all around worse internet in the long run (5-20 years).
The community center people are seduced by the ease of creating a FB site without paying any cash, while likely not realizing that it's harming their community by excluding people.
Of course, being too dogmatic about values is never good. But I would argue this is a case where it's good to stand up for accessibility.
"I have to directly pay x units of currency" is not a useful measure of cost. There are lots of ways in which either you can be paying costs indirectly, or in which other people are forced to pay costs caused by you, neither of which really makes much sense to call "free".
Network effects are what economists call an externality: A cost (or a benefit in the case of positive externalities) that is paid for by people who didn't participate in the decision that led to that cost. Also, monopolistic structures and concentrations of power often have long-term consequences that lead to what economists call opportunity costs: A monopoly that hinders innovation, for example, might end up preventing a beneficial technological development, or even just lower prices due to competition.
That people often confuse "immediate payment" with "costs" is exactly the misconception that companies like facebook like to use to hide the costs.
(I don't use Facebook and don't like when communities build on Facebook.)
Whether they are king or not, all I am ever going to remember them for is taking a gigantic shit over what the Internet is supposed to mean.