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

If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 150 posts

Re: If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month

#61

Post by c0ur7n3y »

nilkn wrote: post #48

People are slowly leaving Facebook as they seek out more privacy control. Obviously Facebook still dominates the world of social networks, but there's a lot of friction involved in this aspect of it. So what does Google decide to do? They decide to follow in the footsteps of Facebook and replicate all the same privacy problems, so not only are people going to leave G+ due to changes like this, but people aren't even…

"It's repeating the mistakes of others in exchange for a quick short-term profit."

That's basically the definition of modern business.

Re: If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month

#62

Post by magicalist »

oscargrouch wrote: post #52
Alterlife wrote: post #10

This actually doesn't seem terrible to me: If I published a public review on a product, why should Google not auto-match this up to a search result? That's the logical next step. It's what I'd expect from Google. I don't see anything privacy breaking about it of it's own... As long as the review was public, ofcourse -- or only being shown to those it was published to. That said, I just went ahead and opted-out of it…

I think the issue here is not much about privacy, but about your image being associated with a product without your prior consent(for each product), and for free.. when they do this, you become the product together with the thing you are endorsing.. To make this more clear, imagine you signup for a new cable television channel, and you watching it, suddenly your image shows up with a product in your hands, smiling, a…

As I said below, I've opted out (I was already opted out, actually, but I also don't write reviews with my name in the first place), but my only real problem with this is the +1s part of it.

I have no problem with quoting a review that you wrote with your name and face associated and putting your name and face next to it for your friends to see. For context, see the ads that appear at the top of yelp search results. They usually quote someone's review and have their profile picture next to it, which is fine, because all they're saying is "here's a good review someone gave of this place", and using a review that was intended for people to see publicly. The person didn't "become an ad", their review was just quoted in an ad with their public profile picture next to it.

I have more of a problem with the +1 thing, but it's theoretical right now, and will come down to how they actually execute it. It's the same problem as the ambiguity of the "like" endorsements on Facebook. A +1 on a restaurant is probably fine to show (in the same way as with reviews), as long as they say something like "magicalist +1-ed this restaurant!". If, however, I +1 a cool photo that Red Bull posted about Felix Baumgartner's skydive, for instance, and my friends start getting ads saying "magicalist +1-ed Red Bull!", then we're in false statement territory, since that is not at all what I meant.

+1s (and "likes") are inherently ambiguous (which aspect of the thing I'm +1-ing am I approving of? It's often not all aspects), so they really should tread carefully. The rest I don't really have a problem with.

Re: If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month

#63

Post by spankalee »

cloudwalking wrote: post #60
spankalee wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, I would really hope they do. One of the principles behind Google's ad systems is that they're useful for users and advertisers, that a good ad can benefit everyone involved. If they show me an ad for something that my friends have negatively reviewed, I damn well want to see those negative reviews right along-side the ad. Disclaimer: Googler

Better yet, Google should not show ads for products that my friends rate poorly...

Good point.

I've always thought that ads that were reviewed, and could be reviewed very negatively, would be an interesting check on scams and bad products. You gladly take the advertisers money, but if people rate the ad poorly it's a waste and possibly negative value. This might encourage good ads and ads for good products.

Re: If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month

#64

Post by bjterry »

cloudwalking wrote: post #18
minikites wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you publish a negative review of a restaurant? Now it's super easy for them to find you and possibly harass you. What if you're in a marginalized group? Now online harassment can move into real world harassment if you've reviewed local places you enjoy. Lots of people are harmed by a "real names" policy: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...

Why would Google show a negative review as an "endorsement"? If you rate a restaurant 1 out of 5 stars, Google isn't going to show "Cloudwalking rated this 1/5 stars!" in an ad.

The new strategy for negative reviews on Google products will be to offer five star reviews (for visibility) where the text talks about their terrible experience (for truth).

Re: If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month

#65

Post by vdaniuk »

Permit wrote: post #30
ihsw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people form a stronger rapport with those who share negative experiences than positive experiences. Granted, trying to take advantage of this is walking a very narrow tightrope, however if executed well then it could be hugely profitable. Confirmation bias tells us that negative reviews will always be more numerous than positive reviews, however those people writing negative reviews will feel a stronger cohes…

I don't think anything you've mentioned is relevant at all. Google isn't going to show your negative review beside a paid ad because it'd help you build rapport with friends... Keep in mind these are paid ads, Google is trying to further promote/endorse the advertiser.

It would certainly be interesting to analyze a game theory model for ads if one could surface negative reviews about competitors.

Re: If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month

#66

Post by magicalist »

brandnewlow wrote: post #57
magicalist wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to alarm you, but actually I think a company would be entitled to use your tweet in their ads (with or without involvement by twitter). A tweet is meant for public consumption (if it's public), you mention their product...as long as they don't make it look like you're saying something you're not, saying that you said that seems to be just stating a fact (which is well covered by the first amendment), and as long…

Twitter has made it known they do not want people using Tweets in ads without following their brand guidelines.

Do you have a link? It's hard to search for this stuff without just getting links about advertising on twitter.

Re: If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month

#68

Post by vdaniuk »

brandnewlow wrote: post #57
magicalist wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to alarm you, but actually I think a company would be entitled to use your tweet in their ads (with or without involvement by twitter). A tweet is meant for public consumption (if it's public), you mention their product...as long as they don't make it look like you're saying something you're not, saying that you said that seems to be just stating a fact (which is well covered by the first amendment), and as long…

Twitter has made it known they do not want people using Tweets in ads without following their brand guidelines.

Its quite trivial to follow their brand guidelines.

Re: If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month

#69

Post by riquito »

minikites wrote: post #15
Alterlife wrote: post #10

This actually doesn't seem terrible to me: If I published a public review on a product, why should Google not auto-match this up to a search result? That's the logical next step. It's what I'd expect from Google. I don't see anything privacy breaking about it of it's own... As long as the review was public, ofcourse -- or only being shown to those it was published to. That said, I just went ahead and opted-out of it…

What if you publish a negative review of a restaurant? Now it's super easy for them to find you and possibly harass you. What if you're in a marginalized group? Now online harassment can move into real world harassment if you've reviewed local places you enjoy. Lots of people are harmed by a "real names" policy: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...

So you publish a PUBLIC negative review, with your name and photo, and then you're surprised it this same review appears somewhere else (in ads, this time)?

Re: If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month

#70

Post by abraxasz »

Alterlife wrote: post #10

This actually doesn't seem terrible to me: If I published a public review on a product, why should Google not auto-match this up to a search result? That's the logical next step. It's what I'd expect from Google. I don't see anything privacy breaking about it of it's own... As long as the review was public, ofcourse -- or only being shown to those it was published to. That said, I just went ahead and opted-out of it…

"That said, I just went ahead and opted-out"

Right, that's my problem. Here's something that's been bugging me for some time, and that applies to all services that turn in features by default: do they do it because they believe most people will want this feature, or do they do it because that's important for their business and they hope that most people won't bother to turn it off / won't know the thing is turned on. Note that I'm not being cynical here, I'm honestly wondering which it is.

So to go back to our specific case: why is that thing not turned off by default? When google created gmail, they didn't say: "look if you want to use google now, you will have to use gmail too, that's how it is". Gmail was simply great, so people adopted it. If this new feature is so great, people will see it and turn it on, why force it down on the user?

Post reply on HN