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

We Need To Talk, Google

f-secure.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 245 posts

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#71

Post by AznHisoka »

cromwellian wrote: post #63
ryanhuff wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be fooling yourself if you think somebody within Google isn't planning for the day that YouTube commenting is merged with G+ social streams. As they look to leverage social signals to improve search, centralizing the user's social footprint will be an important component, and using one of their more prolific social streams (YouTube) to prop-up G+ will be key.

If that day comes, I'll might celebrate, because YouTube comments are mostly worthless, full of sexism, racism, insults, and sheer idiocy. I rarely come across a YouTube comment that imparted useful information. G+ doesn't really need propping up, most of the people I enjoy reading are on it, I get more engagement than I ever did on Twitter or FB with the people I'm interested in (note, not friends, but interests), a…

As well as spoilers. Grrr... They ruined the Red Wedding for me.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#72

Post by frozenport »

cromwellian wrote: post #49

Google is simply trying to unify their services. YouTube was an acquisition, with it's own login system and social network. They don't want to maintain this separation forever, they want a single signon for everything. Ditto for sharing and contacts. You had separate 'contacts' in Gmail, Latitude, G+, Reader, YouTube, and probably others I'm missing. Users shouldn't be prompted to maintain N different copies of this…

I don't want that! I want to remain anonymous to help improve the content of youtube without exposing myself to risk. For example I might want to post something bad about a competitor's youtube video, which will contribute to the discussion but I don't want my affiliation or name to distract from this conversation.

The real problem is that the elimination of privacy that Google has so meticulously pursued has left their communities dull and idol, producing poor quality and non-stimulating content.

Now I am going to think twice about upvoting that crazy youtube video, and something more mild will take its place in the rank hierarchy?

What happened to the cool internet?

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#73

Post by Kequc »

cromwellian wrote: post #63
ryanhuff wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be fooling yourself if you think somebody within Google isn't planning for the day that YouTube commenting is merged with G+ social streams. As they look to leverage social signals to improve search, centralizing the user's social footprint will be an important component, and using one of their more prolific social streams (YouTube) to prop-up G+ will be key.

If that day comes, I'll might celebrate, because YouTube comments are mostly worthless, full of sexism, racism, insults, and sheer idiocy. I rarely come across a YouTube comment that imparted useful information. G+ doesn't really need propping up, most of the people I enjoy reading are on it, I get more engagement than I ever did on Twitter or FB with the people I'm interested in (note, not friends, but interests), a…

I really wish there was some magic way for Google to figure out what is good quality content and float it to the top. I'm sure they are working on it c'mon Google you can do it! Before all the people on Youtube complaining about being asked to link a G+ profile finally adopt.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#74

Post by jevinskie »

kevingadd wrote: post #18
sirkneeland wrote: post #8

Is it "evil"? No. While I agree with the author that it sucks, I feel that calling it evil dilutes the word of the power it should have when used. So much ink has been spilled on the "evil" stuff that it seems as though people's energy and attention spans are exhausted when the more "banal" stuff comes around. And so Google can get away with shoving as much G+ on us as they like. "Google, don't be banal"....more accu…

Tricking/coercing users into broadcasting their real name to the internet (through repetition, malicious UX design and just plain broken software) is actually pretty close to 'evil', since it can put some groups at risk. Less relevant for a Youtube account, perhaps, but the same criticisms of FB and G+ 'Real Names' policies apply here to Google trying to force YT users to display real names.

Exactly. They pester you quite often to try to link YouTube with Google+. I'm surprised I haven't accidentally clicked the wrong choice yet. The copy for the two options is confusing!

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#75

Post by tiziano88 »

pasbesoin wrote: post #65

If your product isn't good enough to succeed (or "win") on an opt-in basis, then your problems run deeper than what coercive sign ups can fix.

What product? they're trying to consolidate their login system across products, and you happen to get a social profile with the bundle. It's not like you even have to use it or be aware of its existence, if you don't need it.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#76

Post by pessimizer »

sirkneeland wrote: post #36
darklajid wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I try to. The single thing I struggle with? Android. Maybe Firefox OS will be interesting, iOS isn't. And .. right now I can pay for Android apps, but I'm banned from rate them, comment on them. Ignoring all the 'Do you want to be tracked to provide Better Services (tm)" stuff in that ecosystem.

You should have a look at Jolla and their Sailfish OS. Beautiful Linux system based off of MeeGo, not tied to any Google or even American servers. Google it--wait, no. Duckduckgo it ;)

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/5072264/googling-with-bing

The verb for searching the internet would have been Altavista had Altavista sounded like a verb:)

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#77

Post by knowaveragejoe »

cromwellian wrote: post #49

Google is simply trying to unify their services. YouTube was an acquisition, with it's own login system and social network. They don't want to maintain this separation forever, they want a single signon for everything. Ditto for sharing and contacts. You had separate 'contacts' in Gmail, Latitude, G+, Reader, YouTube, and probably others I'm missing. Users shouldn't be prompted to maintain N different copies of this…

You've already been able to log in to youtube using your Google account for some time. Only recently have they begun pushing to link the account to G+.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#78

Post by kenko »

cromwellian wrote: post #49

Google is simply trying to unify their services. YouTube was an acquisition, with it's own login system and social network. They don't want to maintain this separation forever, they want a single signon for everything. Ditto for sharing and contacts. You had separate 'contacts' in Gmail, Latitude, G+, Reader, YouTube, and probably others I'm missing. Users shouldn't be prompted to maintain N different copies of this…

"Google is simply trying to unify their services."

Right, well, that's the problem. Google wants to unify their services, but I don't want to use the thereby unified services, which are, after all, conceptually distinct anyway.

The complaint is that they're trying to unify their services. The explanation, when faced with that complaint, that they're trying to unify their services is a non-starter.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#79

Post by petitbeurre »

cbhl wrote: post #66
nolok wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why force me (if I link) to change the name I appear as on youtube to be the real one they required for g+ ? I can't believe I'm the only one with things I posted as FooBar42 that I don't want under the name Mr John Smith, not in an age where your name is googled for about anything.

The argument is that if you didn't want them posted under "Mr John Smith" you shouldn't have posted them at all. I think they let you delete/hide all your old comments as part of the transition, but agreed that only accounts for the personal account use case, not the corporate YouTube channel use case.

That argument, though, makes no sense at all.

I'm a homosexual, and living in a very conservative and homophobic part of France. I don't want any things related to homosexuality and the lgbt community posted under my real identity, because then any member of my family or any of my friends could stumble upon it and make problematical deductions.

Does that mean that I shouldn't be involved online in the lgbt community whatsoever, because it's not something my relatives support?

Another fairly easy counter-example would be the one of an anonymous online political activist. I don't get people who support that kind of arguments.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#80

Post by quail »

MichaelGG wrote: post #26
quail wrote: post #6

Google is getting pushy now because they can . They've become habitual and omnipresent. Now is the perfect time. A couple of years ago I could see Google's vendor lock-in strategy unfold. I've been trying ever since to completely purge myself of Google, but it hasn't been easy. For anyone thinking of doing the same, be prepared to test many services out.

Unfortunately Android's still the only really reasonable choice. Apple and MS are far more restrictive on the devices, and nothing seems to come close to the Nexus line of devices anyways. It's pretty annoying that I can't rate apps I buy though.

I went with a Blackberry Z10 after reading about its built in encryption and privacy features in the book Cypherpunks.

As an aside, I checked out the new Q5 yesterday and it has refinements in all the right places. Both are highly underrated smartphones.

Post reply on HN