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

101–110 of 245 posts

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#101

Post by jamiepenney »

matador wrote: post #99

If anybody working for YouTube is reading this, here are my comments: I was actually supportive of G+ until I had a very bad experience with YouTube and the forced G+ integration recently. Now what I want from YouTube is (1) Ability to keep my current username and not use my real name, and not be linked to my G+ profile. I do not want to inadvertently broadcast my YouTube "Likes" to my social network. (2) I do not wa…

I never thought of contacting customer support to try and restore my old account. I lost all of my playlists when they "helpfully" suggested that I delete my "unused" channel. The popup said this would have no effect on my youtube experience.

But it did. It deleted all the playlists I had created, and I couldnt re-create them without linking a Google+ account to my youtube account and creating a public channel. I didn't do that because that account is the one I don't associate with my real name. It was a very frustrating user experience, and has added to my list of reasons to get away from google services.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#102

Post by Draiken »

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.

I unfortunately got tired of those damn dialogs one day and ended up with a G+ profile. Their methods are getting more and more like dark patterns (just colorful ones).

I deleted my G+ account and fortunately didn't lose my subscriptions.

Thanks to that I'll never comment on another youtube video again.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#104

Post by v13inc »

VikingCoder wrote: post #97
v13inc wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has always integrated sign-ons between those services. It is the unification of user profiles that is causing all the uproar.

You have a very short memory. Google has NOT always integrated sign-ons between those services, and there was an uproar when it happened.

You are right -- I don't really remember when I had to login with different credentials for Youtube, et al.

Just to clarify, I am making a distinction between being able to sign into a Youtube profile with a Google account and forcing the same profile across all Google properties.

Judging from my preferences, and based on my (limited) anecdotes, it seems that users appreciate the convenience of single-signin solutions, as long as each property they are signing into has a profile that can be managed separately.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#105

Post by Ensorceled »

darkchasma wrote: post #46

Felt like extortion? To freely post your video to their free hosting service, which allows you free distribution and marketing of your brand to the entire world. For free. And this felt like extortion?

Yes, extortion. "Wouldn't want something nasty to happen to all that good will you've built up on youtube, better get a G+ profile"

That you didn't pay money to get into the trap doesn't make it less of a trap.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#106

Post by v13inc »

VikingCoder wrote: post #94
v13inc wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that all those features work right now, without unifying your Google accounts.

I trust Google to come up with clever integrations in the future. The OP does not. I think it's his loss.

Even if different properties have different profiles, Google will still have access to each more then enough data to create these clever integrations in the future. I don't even mind if they have a hidden 'aggregate' profile they use for those features.

The frustration comes from removing the option of customizing my profile for each service.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#107

Post by makomk »

noir_lord wrote: post #52
zanny wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Old google made cool things and make their money off ads and search ranking. New google only cares about beating facebook because they came onto the scene and took over the front page of everyones Internet role. I don't even think it has anything to do with bottom lines, either. I can't understand how knowing who spams my G+ page with crap who I friended for an arbitrary reason is more valuable information in how to…

Indeed and I think caching all your search queries is a vastly more effective way to figure out how to advertise you than Google+ but I suspect they must see some value in it else why do it.

It's possible that what matters is not whether Google sees any value in Google+ but whether Wall Street does.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#108

Post by VikingCoder »

v13inc wrote: post #106
VikingCoder wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I trust Google to come up with clever integrations in the future. The OP does not. I think it's his loss.

Even if different properties have different profiles, Google will still have access to each more then enough data to create these clever integrations in the future. I don't even mind if they have a hidden 'aggregate' profile they use for those features. The frustration comes from removing the option of customizing my profile for each service.

Banana72 shared a YouTube video with you...? What the hell?

Banana72...? Oh, right, on YouTube VikingCoder is called Banana72.

I think you're asking for a feature which would confuse the hell out of most users.

Re: We Need To Talk, Google

#109

Post by v13inc »

VikingCoder wrote: post #108
v13inc wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if different properties have different profiles, Google will still have access to each more then enough data to create these clever integrations in the future. I don't even mind if they have a hidden 'aggregate' profile they use for those features. The frustration comes from removing the option of customizing my profile for each service.

Banana72 shared a YouTube video with you...? What the hell? Banana72...? Oh, right, on YouTube VikingCoder is called Banana72. I think you're asking for a feature which would confuse the hell out of most users.

Unfortunately, that's hard to say without doing proper usability testing.

I managed to find a decent looking study that somewhat supports my position [1]. Here's an interesting quote from the abstract:

"many (40%) were hesitant to consent to the release of their personal profile information; and (6) many (36%) ex- pressed concern with the use of SSO on websites that contain valuable personal information or, conversely, are not trust- worthy. We also found that with an improved affordance and privacy control, more than 60% of study participants would use Web SSO solutions on the websites they trust."

[1] https://cups.cs.cmu.edu/soups/2011/proceedings/a4_Sun.pdf

This is a very important discussion -- I'd love to see some papers that study the benefits of a single login / profile, rather then the negatives.

Post reply on HN