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

Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 136 posts

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#41

Post by Cl4rity »

reso wrote: post #7

The TechCrunch crew has a long history of "calling out" major companies on their product decisions, in the absence of any of the data or context in which such complex decisions are made. P.S. I love how Tom has turned into the elder statesman of social networks.

What I loved most was Tom's handling of putting out MG's little fire: "You are a loveable renegade. :-)" and also "clearing not roaming the badlands." MG does come off as trying a little too hard to sound tough/badass on Twitter and elsewhere.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#42

Post by Cl4rity »

twp wrote: post #20
tptacek wrote: post #3

He's not "seriously upset" about the photo. He thinks what's happening is ridiculous, and therefore took the time to ridicule it. He's clearly right. But it's not a moral crusade.

Tom Anderson gets it the wrong way round, and completely misses Siegler's point. The question is not is why does Siegler care. He can reasonably expect to care: it's his photo attached to his personal profile and his photo is part of how he chooses to portray himself online. Siegler now knows that he cannot be himself on Google+, and now thousands of others know that they cannot be themselves on Google+ either. The q…

Actually, Tom gets it right. It's called discretion. Use his public example, for instance. If you were, for example, a cross-dresser who loved wearing women's underwear - and only women's underwear - would that be tolerated by the general public if you were roaming around a mall?

"But this is who I really am, and it's how I want to portray myself in public!"

It's Google's playground, and you either play by the rules or suffer the consequences. You wouldn't berate mall cops if they had to remove offensive people from the premises.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#44

Post by evilmushroom »

reso wrote: post #7

The TechCrunch crew has a long history of "calling out" major companies on their product decisions, in the absence of any of the data or context in which such complex decisions are made. P.S. I love how Tom has turned into the elder statesman of social networks.

MG Siegler is like the Fox News of TechCrunch on top of that.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#45

Post by jxi »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #40
jxi wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely disagree that he's "clearly" right, and disagree that he's right at all. Tom made the good point that this is Google's social network, and if you want to use it, then you should play by the rules, which are IMO mor than reasonable (why do I want to see people flipping me off). I don't know why everyone is making it sound like this sets a precedent for more "censoring" when this is already the standard fo…

As far as I'm concerned, if a service you like, does something you dislike, you should complain, and you should tell people about it. Especially if the service is used by tens of millions of people and is growing at the rate that Google+ is. It sounds like you disagree with this though. Why? Why do you think he should have kept his mouth shut? "this is already the standard for any currently popular social network" An…

He's not complaining about anything that anyone has a problem with (ok maybe SOME people do want to see people giving them the finger in their stream). He's just whining about G+ like he always does, like a baby.

Your general statements don't apply here. If you want to argue, then tell me why you want to see people flicking you off on G+ and why you think that's something that should be OK for everyone.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#46

Post by tptacek »

jxi wrote: post #36
tptacek wrote: post #3

He's not "seriously upset" about the photo. He thinks what's happening is ridiculous, and therefore took the time to ridicule it. He's clearly right. But it's not a moral crusade.

I definitely disagree that he's "clearly" right, and disagree that he's right at all. Tom made the good point that this is Google's social network, and if you want to use it, then you should play by the rules, which are IMO mor than reasonable (why do I want to see people flipping me off). I don't know why everyone is making it sound like this sets a precedent for more "censoring" when this is already the standard fo…

Wait. Wait. Wait. I'm not wading into the "debate" about whether Google can or should mess with people's profile photos. I could care less. I'm saying:

It is clearly ridiculous for Google to be policing profile photos looking for people flipping other people the bird.

Right? Wrong? Who cares? It's ridiculous. It can't possibly work. By doing it, Google sends a message that they're fundamentally unserious about taking on Facebook. Nobody who's serious could possibly have the time to deal with stuff like this. It's like Facebook banning cartoon profile pictures --- which is the kind of thing you can sort of do when you're the social network for a bunch of colleges, but couldn't even consider doing when you're the default social network for the entire world.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#47

Post by theorique »

jxi wrote: post #37
[deleted] wrote: post #2

[deleted]

I think it's offensive, and I would like to not see things like that pop up in my stream. Isn't this one of those things that are on the line where if just 1 person says it's offensive, then it should be treated as such. It's kind of like if there were only 10 men and 2 women in a room, then by democracy, you'd probably end up with rape being OK.

So by this measure:

- if anything were said / written criticizing the Bible, then a single devout Christian could deem it offensive and it would be removed?

- if a woman's picture without a burkha were posted, then a single fundamentalist Muslim could declare it offensive and it would be deleted?

- if a "blonde" joke were posted, then a single radical feminist could call it offensive and it would be eliminated?

Doesn't sound like an online world that I'd want to participate in.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#48

Post by jroseattle »

masklinn wrote: post #10
jroseattle wrote: post #6

Pretty sure this would fall under Apple's "objectionable content" policies for their app store. Wonder if MG would complain about that policy, too? :-)

According to the linked complaint by MG, he is not whining about the policy so much as about the deletion without warning: > My problem isn’t so much with the fact that I couldn’t have a profile picture of myself giving everyone the finger — which I can and do on Twitter and elsewhere — it’s that no one bothered to tell me or warn me before they just went into my account and deleted the picture. he does also take iss…

Just read that again, yes he did do that. I think I was responding to the vibe of MG's post, which always turns into apple-good/non-apple-bad.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#49

Post by jxi »

tptacek wrote: post #46
jxi wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely disagree that he's "clearly" right, and disagree that he's right at all. Tom made the good point that this is Google's social network, and if you want to use it, then you should play by the rules, which are IMO mor than reasonable (why do I want to see people flipping me off). I don't know why everyone is making it sound like this sets a precedent for more "censoring" when this is already the standard fo…

Wait. Wait. Wait. I'm not wading into the "debate" about whether Google can or should mess with people's profile photos. I could care less. I'm saying: It is clearly ridiculous for Google to be policing profile photos looking for people flipping other people the bird . Right? Wrong? Who cares? It's ridiculous. It can't possibly work. By doing it, Google sends a message that they're fundamentally unserious about takin…

I read most of the guy's article, I think, but I might have missed this last point you're making. I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying it's too technically difficult to do it (via machine learning or whatever) or there would be too many false positives?

If there's one company that doesn't usually use humans to do any kind of spam filtering, it's probably Google. Also, I'm pretty sure they'd work out the kinks eventually.

Re: Dear MG Siegler, Are you seriously upset about your photo?

#50

Post by mike-cardwell »

jxi wrote: post #45
mike-cardwell wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm concerned, if a service you like, does something you dislike, you should complain, and you should tell people about it. Especially if the service is used by tens of millions of people and is growing at the rate that Google+ is. It sounds like you disagree with this though. Why? Why do you think he should have kept his mouth shut? "this is already the standard for any currently popular social network" An…

He's not complaining about anything that anyone has a problem with (ok maybe SOME people do want to see people giving them the finger in their stream). He's just whining about G+ like he always does, like a baby. Your general statements don't apply here. If you want to argue, then tell me why you want to see people flicking you off on G+ and why you think that's something that should be OK for everyone.

I see. So the reason you think he should keep his mouth shut, is because you perceive his issue to be a minority issue. How many people need to have a problem with something before it's ok for them to complain about it?

Just because you disagree with somebodys opinion, doesn't mean they were wrong to express it.

Post reply on HN