Our right to anonymity trumps google's (or atone else's) right to "down vote" the "evil".
What's described is the archetype slippery slope. What's evil shifts and grows ever larger.
Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
31–40 of 87 posts
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#32This doesn't wash. Google Profiles seemed to me to be an "identity service". This seems more likely an identity characteristics service for data mining info about people.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#33I'm kind of disappointed in their handling of it. I personally would like Google+ to succeed and at first glance it seems the real-name policy is not good for publicity, and subsequently not good for Google+'s growth. The majority of people will use their real names anyway so I can't imagine why forcing it on everyone would help much of anything. Can someone help me understand their rationale?
Facebook does suspend users for using their real name in the past. But how come it's not as known? Because they started pretty small by having a social website for Harvard, so early tech people who got suspended were quickly re-instated because they could go over and talk to Mark. Then Ivy League universities, just send Facebook an email. Then all universities, getting harder to help. Then everyone, replace support with a FAQ(?) that's quickly becoming out of date.
Early tech users of Google+ who get suspended, and have no support. What are they most likely to do; complain to other users who listen to early tech users.
Google+ is overall; a very bad execution that could do with a different strategy next time. In the meantime, Facebook is excited to adopt G+ features until G+ is aborted. Validated features are very awesome compared to untested ones.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#34Losing hope in G+ very fast. They're going to make the same mistakes that are killing Facebook. I'm also concerned about them selling data from G+, since Schmidt describes it as an identity service. It's a very evil concept.
It's also quite duplicitous. It was represented as a social networking service, not as an identity service. Moreover people assumed (yeah, I know) that since privacy control was Facebook's Achilles' heel, that Google would do better than that, and they seemed to be going one step forward with the Circles thing. Ever since then, it has been two steps back. It's easy to say "Hey, if you want to be pseudonymous go elsew…
Fundamentally, Facebook is an identity directory. The ability to easily transfer real world identities and relationships into the digital world is the big problem Facebook solves. It's one of those fundamental problems left unresolved by Internet protocols, similar to Google being able to solve search because the web has no implementation built in by design.
Facebook's communication features, the 'social networking', in itself isn't anything special.
From that perspective, Google+ becomes much clearer. Google are attempting to use Facebook's poor social networking features to elbow in on their identity directory.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking as a caucasian male with a name that's basically unique in the world (there is only one person who has my name but that might have been a typo in the article as every where else he uses a different last name), having my name improves their ad targeting considerably.
What does the fact you are a Caucasian male have to do with your point?
One of the complaints about Google's true-name policy is that it unfairly discriminates against people who don't have Western sounding names, or who aren't middle-class white guys. The reported retort is that they're not yet out of beta and shouldn't have to concern themselves with multi-culturalism, so people with "non-standard" or "unique" names should just use something else.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#36Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Speaking as a caucasian male with a name that's basically unique in the world (there is only one person who has my name but that might have been a typo in the article as every where else he uses a different last name), having my name improves their ad targeting considerably.
Be that as it may, do think the primary reason for insisting on real names is to target ads better? they first need a sufficient critical mass to implement that, their reasons are different, at least in this early stage.
I do think it's primarily about data. Maybe not specifically ad targeting, but about owning a relatively "clean" set of data that they can later exploit or sell in whatever way they prefer.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#38I'll handle my own identity, thanks.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#39I'm kind of disappointed in their handling of it. I personally would like Google+ to succeed and at first glance it seems the real-name policy is not good for publicity, and subsequently not good for Google+'s growth. The majority of people will use their real names anyway so I can't imagine why forcing it on everyone would help much of anything. Can someone help me understand their rationale?
Here is their rational: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5sRC67s9fg#t=26m25s
just like they would release the source for gingerbread "when it was ready" ? Not everyone is ready to take Google's word on things when they are clearly moving in the opposite direction.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#40Losing hope in G+ very fast. They're going to make the same mistakes that are killing Facebook. I'm also concerned about them selling data from G+, since Schmidt describes it as an identity service. It's a very evil concept.
I don't think it's fair to say a lack of anonymity or other mistakes are killing Facebook. It very may well be true that mistakes killed the experience for you, but the truth is that most people are not overly concerned with the lack of privacy on their social networks.
I think people online often mistake a vocal minority pushing for privacy settings on this network as a reflection of the wishes of everyone. Truth be told, most people are indifferent to the matter.