This seems like a misleading headline: as far as I understand it you can still have the same effect: they've just made it an additional property of private groups instead of a whole separate category.

It is obviously clickbait albeit the title being technically correct. I would not have clicked it if the title mentioned the access level was being renamed.

So the difference is that they are renaming secret to private to reflect that they will be scanning the content of groups to review for content?

“the company has built a new tool called Group Quality, which scans all groups for content that breaks the platform's community standards — regardless of privacy settings”

I think the goal of renaming is to make it easier for people to understand. So when you post/comment in a group, you know exactly who will see it.

Not sure why Group Quality was included in this PR.

If I read correctly, then a correct headline would be "Facebook is adding non-discoverable Public groups", renaming Secret/Closed groups,and getting rid of nothing.

Yes, people here know click bait titles work which is why we are all here reading this and commenting on it.

Misleading, but it's BuzzFeed, so what do you expect.

Facebook is essentially changing Groups so instead of 3 categories with inherent discoverability rules (Public (find via search), Private (find via search), Secret (can not find via search)), they're separating the concerns of "Can non-members view posts?" and "Can non-members find this group via search?"

So this is actually now more flexible!

> Group admins will have the option to have public or private groups and also be able to toggle whether the group is visible in search results.

They're basically renaming the options, but they will remain. Great clickbait, Buzzfeed! Never change.

It's literally the same thing, just one setting for Public/Private, and a second for Visible/Not. Title is super clickbaity, they're not getting rid of anything.

I thought buzzfeednews was supposed to be better than classic buzzfeed, but I see they're really not.

Clickbait trash title. Makes it sound like there will be no privacy on groups, perhaps in response to something.

They are renaming them with the same functionality, broken into two toggles.

I tried FB in early ~2000's because I had a @stanford email, but after a coworker's wife started tagging people and editorializing randomly, it was clearly more of a liability than value. I had emptied details and most content but kept for some old photos, but finally migrated and purged it this year because it's basically a vehicle of surprise privacy monetization to make Wall St. happy. If a social media service instead were instead subscriber- and donation-supported, it wouldn't develop such perverse incentives to sell-out its users to stay afloat.

Good for you. What does it have to do with the story?

Facebook's accumulation of a pattern of making major, surprise changes that are mostly about benefiting money-making, directly or indirectly. Super popular but seemingly more and more terrible as time goes on.