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

Nonplussed

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 250 posts

Re: Nonplussed

#101

Post by saidajigumi »

rodgerd wrote: post #95
saidajigumi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This and TFA hit to the heart of the problem with Google+: Google has willfully refused to acknowledge or understand that singular humans have multiple personas, and that we do not and cannot allow those to mix. Your professional face is not the same as your close-family personal face is not the same as your secret webcomic artist handle is not ... you get the idea. There are so many mundane variations on that theme,…

> Google has willfully refused to acknowledge or understand that singular humans have multiple personas, and that we do not and cannot allow those to mix. They may not acknowledge it, but they certainly understand it. The whole value proposition of Circles was initially that'd you'd only share what you want with who you want.

Agreed. When G+ first hit the scene, before Google's big push to own and publish the unified identity for every physical human, Circles looked like a promising experiment. A lot of people I know who were fed up with Facebook started exploring Google+ because of that.

Then Google changed directions entirely (along with the big management shakeup that flipped Google from a bottom-up org to a top-down org) and those ideas were effectively killed. And every single person I knew who'd been toying with G+ dropped it like a hot potato.

Re: Nonplussed

#102

Post by fragmede »

judk wrote: post #99
kunai wrote: post #6

I was going to use Google Code for hosting my projects, but, after this fiasco, I think I'll just use Github instead. Hey, at least I'll get to use a DVCS. :P In all honesty, though, while this won't hurt Google right now, it's going to come back and bite them in the rear end soon enough. If they keep making these kinds of changes, what's next? Having to sign in to Google+ to use Android? A Google+ feed on the Chrome…

Even Google is moving to git (see Go, for instance). Google Code is obsolete.

You know Google Code supports using git for version control, right?

Re: Nonplussed

#103

Post by Joona »

grandalf wrote: post #68

The "real name" movement is an attempt to turn internet behavior into something more like a credit score.

Thankfully they don't require proof of your name, or I wouldn't be called Kim Jong-Un.

Re: Nonplussed

#104

Post by MichaelGG »

venomsnake wrote: post #40

Google has really lost its way to do UX. Google plus and youtube are not the one ones. I have no permanent way to disable Youtube asking me to merge accounts except goat sacrifice and writing directly to Larry Page - "If I rejected you 25 time why do you think I will agree on the 26th" I had to use Google Maps yesterday - the mobile app. Few things of notice - scale was never given on screen. Also there was not a way…

It seems unlikely that this is by accident and that people at Google are not aware of how annoying it is.

Perhaps, just perhaps, they've decided they will make more money by forcing people to use G+. I see plenty of comments on YouTube, still of YT quality, with "Real Names". It's not like there's really a useful alternative to YT for most people. Google gets nothing from people commenting anonymously on YT. Annoying those people is no big loss - they won't stop visiting YT to consume. And for those that sign up with G+, they'll eventually gain more money from advertising.

This whole attitude that this is sheer UX incompetence is moronic.

(Now, with respect to the whole accounts management stuff and Google Apps and what not, that seems like technical issues.)

Re: Nonplussed

#105

Post by Bahamut »

oceanplexian wrote: post #88
Bahamut wrote: post #7

I'm probably in the minority here, but I'm all for this change, largely because of the crappy anonymous comments you see out there on YouTube, which was the point of this transition in the first place. However, forcing Google+ onto people does have me wary as well. I don't mind using Google+, but it seems like Google's way to slowly worm their way into people using its social component. I admittedly am not sure why i…

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Anonymous Youtube comments suck, but anonymity enables people to express unpopular opinions. The real problem is tyranny of the majority. Attaching real names does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Google should be smart enough to build a proper moderation system and retain anonymity.

There are plenty of media where people can still express them, including here. Reddit is popular for example, and still keeps people's anonymity should they choose so. I defend people's right to express their opinions, but it should not be the primary option to do so anonymously IMO - it has acted as a vehicle for people with unpopular opinions to repress those who disagree respectfully in many places online, rewarding overly aggressive people.

It is my opinion that that is a worse reality should it be the norm, and wish there was more pushback. I have developed communities that try to show a better way by example (& that preserve anonymity), but that route requires active moderation, something that would be too time consuming/costly for Google to do IMO (and would likely be subject to backlash from a more anarchist contingent anyway).

In the end, I work with the dynamic that exists in the internet to set a positive example - if people want to abuse anonymity, they are more than welcome to create their own communities that make that acceptable. I will just continue to work in my own circles to provide environments that allow free exchange of ideas with civility, and everyone co-exists merrily.

Re: Nonplussed

#106

Post by judk »

fiblye wrote: post #35
jenius wrote: post #9

I may be mistaken, but I think the entire point of this recent change was to force people to use their real names and faces rather than commenting anonymously (due to the fact that youtube comment sections are typically the worst things ever), and if so it seems like google has actually achieved it's goal. Now, whether it's a good decision to make it difficult/impossible to anonymously comment on youtube videos is an…

I see "improving comment quality" as the public excuse they use to keep you logged in to one universal account to make tracking you for advertising purposes easier. Binding this to a G+ account allows them to report that they have record-breaking activity on G+ every month, because everybody is technically forced to be logged into G+ to do any-goddamn-thing, and so it makes G+ seem like some tremendous success and ma…

That's silly. The name attached to your poat has no effect on your trackability, being logged in does.

Re: Nonplussed

#107

Post by fumar »

Havoc wrote: post #66

I've had it with the whole online social thing to be honest - it seems to lead to nothing but evil deceptive tactics like the dialog box in the article with only one option. The internet used to be fun...now I get the distinct impression that everyone is out to get me.

What can be done to reverse this trend? Or to create something altogether different from the current "internet"?

Re: Nonplussed

#108

Post by BadassFractal »

judk wrote: post #96
BadassFractal wrote: post #52

I've been trying to figure out how to delete Google+ for a while, without accidentally nuking some of the other services such as Picasa etc. Heard of folks losing a bunch of data (Youtube videos?) when they remove their G+ accounts, so that's a huge bummer. Perhaps it's time to move on from Google Photos, flickr maybe? I don't want another social network.

Yahoo/Flickr/Tumblr is moving full steam ahead into Yahoo social network, completely ignoring why people still cling to them.

Sigh, there's no way out huh?

Re: Nonplussed

#109

Post by jlees »

joelrunyon wrote: post #15
jenius wrote: post #9

I may be mistaken, but I think the entire point of this recent change was to force people to use their real names and faces rather than commenting anonymously (due to the fact that youtube comment sections are typically the worst things ever), and if so it seems like google has actually achieved it's goal. Now, whether it's a good decision to make it difficult/impossible to anonymously comment on youtube videos is an…

Where is the proof that "real names = better quality." That argument gets paraded everywhere but I've yet to see an actual study or proof of this.

Here's a recent paper: "Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion" by Ian Rowe of the University of Kent.

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/epop2013/docs/Rowe_Ci...

Re: Nonplussed

#110

Post by mistermann »

davidgerard wrote: post #94
chetanahuja wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is google's own version of "the burning platform" (that is, the open web, in some of the more paranoid exec's vision). They are doing everything they can think of to fence off their own portion of the web before it's too late. Every product division has been (or had been) instructed to come up with a plan to integrate somehow with G+. This current youtube disaster is one of the results.

The amazing thing was they managed to blow thirteen years' good will in about two months. All gone. When techies are seriously considering using Bing for search ... you know your brand's gone toxic. If they'd just backed off in the nymwars, WE'D ALL BE OVER THERE NOW. Fucksakes.

I agree with this. Whether it matters if this good will is gone I don't know, but it might - I know my opinion of google has gone from extremely high to really low, and it is partially so low because of their importance, I believe they have a responsibility to act properly.

I truly believe they are opening a gap that others could exploit. Microsoft, so late to this party, with their userbase and technical know-how, with a lot of their ill deeds from the past forgotten or forgiven. If they decided that they are going to do it right, and not try to exploit users, they could become a threat again. I wonder if they are capable of this anymore though.

Or, reddit, with their substantial userbase of young, technically advanced, and influential users - if they could figure out the scalability issues, they could launch a youtube competitor, for example, and LOTS of people would move there very quickly, even if it is not as good, because they are (so far) known to be pure, whereas google has now proven that is is not pure, and dishonest (do no evil).

It's certainly not easy, but my point is, it's a lot easier when influential and vocal technical users have turned on you, and the degree to which they've turned.

Post reply on HN