Upcoming Facebook Changes

[Angels]

What does FB consider to be a small ad spend?

 

[Countrycandy]

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...r/news-story/cc701892e95ee212995998798ca7eb95

They should present posts chronologically without bias like people actually want.
If someone or something is outrageous, there is unfriend, block and report (if it's something that is *actually* bad).

There's on group I'm in that people try to sell food stamps on and it's allowed.

 

[MagicalAzareal]

What on earth is with all these new users, did this thread go viral or something?

 

[R0binHood]

For those rare times I need to 'chat' with somebody on FB I switch my mobile device Chrome setting to "Desktop Site" which allow me then to view the messages (which goes to show that it's not a technical issue with mobile, just FB trying to drive people into installing their apps).

That's useful, can't believe I didn't think to try it. I deleted Messenger and the Facebook app a while back and was on the verge of installing it again just so I could message people when away from my desktop. Not sure how much good it's done though seeing as there's no way I can uninstall What'sApp

Just as an update and a "BE AWARE" notice, we're now seeing people getting 30 day bans for things they posted years ago. A friend got nailed for an image she shared five years ago as now being against their TOS.

At least on facebook you an delete stuff you posted 5 years ago, unlike many forums.

The changes go into effect tomorrow according to that document?

 

[PoetJC]

Sharing is not caring. Sharing from your page to your timeline/newsfeed is against the Terms of Service. By dropping your page link in a Sharing is Caring post, you are putting yourself at risk to have your account shut down. Sharing posts made on a page you are the admin of is also a no-no. Facebook wants page content to stay on the page. However, if a reader (a non-admin of your page) shares a post from your page, the complete opposite happens. This boosts your ranking in the algorithms. Facebook views this as positive content because a reader cared enough about the post to share it. If someone comments on that readers shared post, you get an even higher boost.

Lisa - I'm curious to know more about this Sharing is not caring thing... I've just scanned some of FB policies and am not seeing this mentioned in the TOS at all. Can you or anyone point to the specific policy that says sharing content from a page is against the TOS? In fact - I'm looking at the Page, Groups & Events policy at https://www.facebook.com/policies/pages_groups_events/ - #13 of the Page Specific Policy reads as follows:

13. Sharing Content
Content you post to your Page may be reshared by other admins of the Page to other Facebook Products connected to the Page.

I don't see any specific policy banning the actual page admin from sharing. Or am I missing something?! ((1st person to say common sense gets smacked LOL))

J.

 

[Lisa]

Lisa - I'm curious to know more about this Sharing is not caring thing... I've just scanned some of FB policies and am not seeing this mentioned in the TOS at all. Can you or anyone point to the specific policy that says sharing content from a page is against the TOS? In fact - I'm looking at the Page, Groups & Events policy at https://www.facebook.com/policies/pages_groups_events/ - #13 of the Page Specific Policy reads as follows:

Keep in mind, this doc was written for Indie authors, so the wording is sometimes specific to the way that particular community uses things.

What it basically means is that you sharing posts from your page is less effective than having a third party share a post from your page. So sharing is not caring, in that respect. Most indie authors share their page links in a multitude of groups - advertising the books, or giveaways or whatever. But now sharing your own posts is given a lower visibility than if it's shared by someone else.

Nobody has said you're banned from doing it, just that it's less effective, in the grand scheme of things. But the particular method used by indie authors is causing a lot of them to end up in FB Jail.

 

[PoetJC]

Keep in mind, this doc was written for Indie authors, so the wording is sometimes specific to the way that particular community uses things.

What it basically means is that you sharing posts from your page is less effective than having a third party share a post from your page. So sharing is not caring, in that respect. Most indie authors share their page links in a multitude of groups - advertising the books, or giveaways or whatever. But now sharing your own posts is given a lower visibility than if it's shared by someone else.

Nobody has said you're banned from doing it, just that it's less effective, in the grand scheme of things. But the particular method used by indie authors is causing a lot of them to end up in FB Jail.

I've been in real jail more than enough times - so FB jail does not at all appeal to yours truly.
Hmm.... Thanks for the clarification though - I always come back to this thread because it's so informative for what I'm trying to do. And I saw that quoted portion above and said to self well damn! So okay... Thanks for the clarification

J.

 

[Lisa]

I've been in real jail more than enough times - so FB jail does not at all appeal to yours truly.
Hmm.... Thanks for the clarification though - I always come back to this thread because it's so informative for what I'm trying to do. And I saw that quoted portion above and said to self well damn! So okay... Thanks for the clarification

J.

I posted a link to the full doc in here somewhere - which gives more detail than just the bullet points I shared. I think there might be a few more breakdowns in one of the groups I'm in. I'll check the discussions out and see what updates have been provided.

 

[PoetJC]

I posted a link to the full doc in here somewhere - which gives more detail than just the bullet points I shared. I think there might be a few more breakdowns in one of the groups I'm in. I'll check the discussions out and see what updates have been provided.

Well duh. I somewhere in this thread you mentioned to someone else that you had posted the link to the actual doc.
Too lazy to go through the thread at the moment - or actually - got a few errands to do - but I will absolutely do so when I come back.
Cheers girlie.

J.

 

[PatZ]

Can you make an alt account and make it the admin of your group? That's what I have done with my pages. Removing your real account from the group's admins might also be a good idea.

Facebook can arbitrarily remove profiles which are not “real” people. Also, if you have a separate profile to admin your group, you will not get notifications while logged into your primary profile. You’d have to login/out to even look at the group if you only have one profile with admin privileges.

 

[MagicalAzareal]

Facebook can arbitrarily remove profiles which are not “real” people. Also, if you have a separate profile to admin your group, you will not get notifications while logged into your primary profile. You’d have to login/out to even look at the group if you only have one profile with admin privileges.

Twitter does the same thing, it's a new trend with all the "bot hysteria" that the media just won't be quiet about.

 

[RA3829]

Hi...

Does this apply to all groups? I'm part of an admin team of a 200k+ member closed group on Facebook. Members frequently share links of news and other topics that garner thousands of angry and sad reactions. Yet nothing has happened to our group. One person told us that this change only applies to groups that have paid or sponsored content. Ours is a community group and we do not post any sponsored content or have anything to do with paid content. We also checked our group quality and it appears all that applies to our group quality is 'fake news' links and posts that violate TOS.

I would love some clarification

Thanks

Edit: would like to add that our admin team is large to keep up with the amount of members we get and post submissions... And I also see the rule of having less admins
.. That's a bit counterintuitive in our situation... Weird rule.

 

[Alex.]

I didn't read your post, Lisa, because I don't use it, but I did read that Facebook plans on releasing a redesign not unlike Twitter's recent one. Which looks a right mess.

 

[Drastic]

New twitter is an eye sore, that's for sure.

 

[dvduval]

I think we're scares me the most is a lot of these groups are private, so it might also very well end up being a 4chan type of scenario where they have a bunch of crazy people and nobody really knows what those crazy people are doing. Of course they have all this language about Community standards which leads me to think it will almost be the opposite. And of course they wrote all these great words to make it sound like they're going to do such a great job in patrolling everything. Not going to happen!

 

[Lisa]

Hi...

Does this apply to all groups? I'm part of an admin team of a 200k+ member closed group on Facebook. Members frequently share links of news and other topics that garner thousands of angry and sad reactions. Yet nothing has happened to our group. One person told us that this change only applies to groups that have paid or sponsored content. Ours is a community group and we do not post any sponsored content or have anything to do with paid content. We also checked our group quality and it appears all that applies to our group quality is 'fake news' links and posts that violate TOS.

I would love some clarification

Thanks

Edit: would like to add that our admin team is large to keep up with the amount of members we get and post submissions... And I also see the rule of having less admins
.. That's a bit counterintuitive in our situation... Weird rule.

Hi,

Yes, all changes with regards to groups applies to all groups.

 

[RA3829]

OK thanks... So the fact that the posts in our group are gaining thousands of sad and angry reactions... Will lead to our group being taken down? I'm just confused because some say it leads to the group being taken down if there's so many negative reactions.

Right now a quick stroll through the group's feed reveals posts with hundreds and thousands of these negative reactions. Apparently groups have been taken down for this but ours has not had any issue at all... Do note the posts gain these reactions within minutes and tons of these posts are posted a day..

I'm just confused here... Also failing to see how less admins would be wise for a group of this size... Not knocking on what you've posted or anything but just wondering why we haven't had any issues esp with negative ratings on admins if we're getting so many negative reactions a day or even within minutes

 

[Lisa]

Will lead to our group being taken down? I'm just confused because some say it leads to the group being taken down if there's so many negative reactions.

No. What FB deems as negative reactions will make the post less likely to be seen on people's feeds, not get your group removed. It's an action across the entire site - so works for group posts, timeline statuses, page updates. FB wants to see positive reactions, so it pushing negative reactions down.

 

[Countrycandy]

Hi...

Does this apply to all groups? I'm part of an admin team of a 200k+ member closed group on Facebook. Members frequently share links of news and other topics that garner thousands of angry and sad reactions. Yet nothing has happened to our group. One person told us that this change only applies to groups that have paid or sponsored content. Ours is a community group and we do not post any sponsored content or have anything to do with paid content. We also checked our group quality and it appears all that applies to our group quality is 'fake news' links and posts that violate TOS.

I would love some clarification

Thanks

Edit: would like to add that our admin team is large to keep up with the amount of members we get and post submissions... And I also see the rule of having less admins
.. That's a bit counterintuitive in our situation... Weird rule.

I'm curious how large cause I'm a mod in a much larger group and honestly I do most of it myself.

 

[feldon30]

New twitter is an eye sore, that's for sure.

It's hard to really stylize it the way I want as they are doing randomized class names.

But here's a theme someone made that makes it look a little better:
https://userstyles.org/styles/173627/new-twitter-but-not-as-bad