Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 157 posts

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#141

Post by wcchandler »

salvadors wrote: post #118
wcchandler wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I agree. But it's really not the same. Think about steve yegge and his posting on google+. We cannot rely on anonymity across a board when user error is such a likely possibility. While it's easy and intuitive to correctly post when sober and clear minded, certain things may slip your mind. Steve yegge also intended for only a select group of users to read it. Let's pretend that he had full anonymity. There woul…

However, it's likely that his post wouldn't have had the same effect if it had been fully anonymous. Being _by him_ carried with it a lot of other things. Reputation matters.

Could that reputation been carried throughout an anonymous identity? The only benefit from having an actual name is verification of identity. But when you talk in a certain manner, identities can become fluid and obvious of spoofs -- eliminating that need for verification.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#142

Post by zerostar07 »

scrollbar wrote: post #95
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why Google would care to know those things. The most profitable form of advertising is a direct search. "Bears tickets" is advertising gold. Joe liking the Bears on Facebook is not on the same level. Google might get incremental value on having the additional data but I don't think it's worth the reputation hit.

There's a whole spectrum of user data with varying value to advertisers. Google already rocked search big time and now they're on to the rest of the online advertising budget. Ad networks (like me!) use demographic, psychographic, and behavioral data to target most display ad campaigns. I have run campaigns specifically sold as "market to Nigerian immigrants living in America" or "moms 25-35 interested in beauty prod…

I would like to see some studies on the effectiveness of the various targeting criteria. Sometimes i think marketers obsess on targeting criteria that may not be so effective, missing other psychological effects. For example, i thought google's idea of showing you the same ad across websites to make a lasting impression was a no-brainer, yet it was missing for years. Also what about other factors such as time-of-day, or recently clicked ads?

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#143

Post by noarchy »

gnu6 wrote: post #97
molesy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're thinking "successful due to its remarkably high level of cooperation with", rather than "wholly operated by." Insert Twitter, Google responses below.

It's baffling that I'm being downvoted so much. Apparently most hackernews users are devoted fans of 4chan who use that site to get their child pornography fix.

I'm baffled that you'd make such a blanket statement without expecting to get downvoted. There are a lot of things that can be said about 4chan, many of which are certainly not flattering. But you're not going to get away with saying "most users" in conjunction with child porn, without some strong evidence.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#144

Post by spot »

danmaz74 wrote: post #139
spot wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's what circles are for.

Circles only solve part of the problem: What you publish can always be reshared and then linked to your (real) name. And of course you have to use your real name to start with. With multiple identities, on the other hand, I could have my real identity, with my real name, and then - for example - my hacker identity, or my secretly gay identity or whatever. With the guarantee that for other users there is absolutely no…

that only works if you are so careful with your identities that they can't be linked. so that won't help your wife. there certainly are people who want this, but the burden of proof is on you to show that demand is more than hypothetical or anecdotal. this is a niche feature, not a killer app.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#145

Post by danmaz74 »

spot wrote: post #144
danmaz74 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Circles only solve part of the problem: What you publish can always be reshared and then linked to your (real) name. And of course you have to use your real name to start with. With multiple identities, on the other hand, I could have my real identity, with my real name, and then - for example - my hacker identity, or my secretly gay identity or whatever. With the guarantee that for other users there is absolutely no…

that only works if you are so careful with your identities that they can't be linked. so that won't help your wife. there certainly are people who want this, but the burden of proof is on you to show that demand is more than hypothetical or anecdotal. this is a niche feature, not a killer app.

I never claimed to have proof that there would be sufficient demand for this. But if I had to prove something, I would start looking at the number of users who use apps that allow you to use multiple twitter, facebook etc. accounts.

By the way, my wife already manages different identities by using different services (ie facebook and linkedin).

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#146

Post by ippisl »

zerostar07 wrote: post #140
toyg wrote: post #76

The problem with the multiple-vs-unique-ID debate is that people tend to ignore what these systems are really built for: data mining, behavioural analysis, targeted advertising etc. Users will agree with moot that separate identities are better and safer, but this is not how the real FB/Google customers see it; advertisers and marketeers want to know that user-A is an engineer AND loves cooking AND has a pet AND goes…

On the other hand, most of Google's (adwords) customers still target their ads based on keywords. That is, they don't care if their audience is an engineer or a farmer, as long as they are currently interested in their product. And it clearly works well, based on the prices of keywords. So it's not like adsense won't work without G+

Google is being paid per click. They're probably also targeting the ads using their own data, so they can achieve maximum click and revenue revenue per ad shown.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#147

Post by yuhong »

slowpoke wrote: post #106
yuhong wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The solution here is to create context isolation - which is very easy to do with anonymity. Not the best solution. I in fact has been saying the illusion that people are perfect is fundamentally flawed for a while now.

You're completely missing the point. Nobody is saying or implying that people are perfect. Rather, it's the opposite - we acknowledge that people are imperfect - and that's exactly why we need anonymity and different identities. moot also made another very good point about total anonymity once before: the reason 4chan (and by extension, other image boards) became such a success is because there is no personal cost of…

And my point is that it is not the best solution to the problem.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#148

Post by artursapek »

walropodes wrote: post #107
bmelton wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I interpret it more like "If you wouldn't want your mother to see you do it, then you probably shouldn't." For what it's worth, while I absolutely love my civil liberties and freedoms, I do believe in accountability for one's actions. If I say something indefensible against a minority group, I believe that I should be ready to bear the consequences of my racism. I can either defend my actions with an intelligent argu…

> I interpret it more like "If you wouldn't want your mother to see you do it, then you probably shouldn't." That pretty much means the same thing

No, I've openly done things that I knew my mom wouldn't be immediately cool with, and would probably find out about. It's just about taking calculated risks.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#149

Post by ippisl »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #79
toyg wrote: post #76

The problem with the multiple-vs-unique-ID debate is that people tend to ignore what these systems are really built for: data mining, behavioural analysis, targeted advertising etc. Users will agree with moot that separate identities are better and safer, but this is not how the real FB/Google customers see it; advertisers and marketeers want to know that user-A is an engineer AND loves cooking AND has a pet AND goes…

I'm not sure why Google would care to know those things. The most profitable form of advertising is a direct search. "Bears tickets" is advertising gold. Joe liking the Bears on Facebook is not on the same level. Google might get incremental value on having the additional data but I don't think it's worth the reputation hit.

Google's customers do care about better targeting, and don't give a damn about google's reputation. If google gives them inferior product they'll lose money. But worse , they'll open an opportunity for a competitor.

Google understands that ignoring competitors , even niche ones , can be a long term risk. So they work on controlling all the advertising market. I think that's also the biggest reason behind Android: google makes very little money with it. But it's a great defensive strategy.

Re: 4chan's Chris Poole: Facebook & Google Are Doing It Wrong

#150

Post by thomasgerbe »

MrMatters wrote: post #10
jarin wrote: post #6

As someone who used to post a lot on forums, I agree that being able to have multiple pseudonyms is great. On the other hand, I also appreciate the value of enforcing real names in online discussions. If you've ever read the comments on news articles on Facebook (MSNBC/Breaking News/etc.), it's amazing the hateful, racist, bigoted shit people will post under their REAL NAMES. I can only imagine how bad it would be if…

>I can only imagine how bad it would be if people could choose to post anonymously. You don't have to imagine the past very hard. Was it really that bad just a few years ago?

Well if you look at comments on any Yahoo news piece, it's a clusterfuck.
Post reply on HN