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

231–240 of 250 posts

Re: Nonplussed

#231

Post by dredmorbius »

itafroma wrote: post #22

I am mostly for the ostensible cleaning up of YouTube comments, but what got me was that any time you share a YouTube video on Google+ proper or comment in a thread where someone shared a YouTube video, it automatically cross-posts what you said back to the comments underneath the video on YouTube. And that's not just for shares/comments going forward: it's everything you've ever shared publicly, ever. I'm now gettin…

The "we're applying this change retroactively to everything you previously posted with an embedded YT video" aspect made me immediatly go through my posts and delete the embedded video (just a link doesn't trigger the comment cross-pollution).

If you'd re-shared someone elses video share, you're SOL. I deleted a few of those posts, re-posted others as URL links to the original (this loses comments, if any).

It used to be you could identify your YT comments from within YT. I've got slightly separated accounts on G+ and YT, and the comments originating from G+ don't seem to show under the YT account. I'm not sure there's any clean way to get rid of them.

I pretty much share your view of where my comments get posted -- I place them in a context, and that's where I intend for them to remain. The YT thing was (yet another) huge trust violation. Especially given that comment management tools are so pissedly poor on G+.

Re: Nonplussed

#232

Post by haberman »

daliusd wrote: post #217
haberman wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain how the idea of circles has been killed. I just went to the YouTube comment box, and right there is the control for what circles to publish to: http://imgur.com/3ZEB9Th

The main problem for me that in different circles I might have different persona (different name, different image, some parts of my identity not exposed - like my workplace). It is mask I wear is important not who I'm talking to.

G+ lets you control what circles can see your employment info: http://imgur.com/nuBP0Qz

Personally I much prefer that G+ (and Facebook, for that matter) lets you interact with real people and not personas.

Re: Nonplussed

#233

Post by philwelch »

lsc wrote: post #153
philwelch wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very hard for me to imagine someone who wants to try so very hard to maintain a serious public image that they won't be caught liking a silly cat video on YouTube. That seems hilariously self-important.

>It's very hard for me to imagine someone who wants to try so very hard to maintain a serious public image that they won't be caught liking a silly cat video on YouTube. That seems hilariously self-important. Eh, I think this idea that we must live our whole life in public (to the /same/ public using the /same/ identity) is a bit insidious. Especially in these days of "cultural fit" - it leads to this idea that you n…

That's not typically how people operate though. When you go to your crazy culty church or your Socialist Workers Party meeting or your gun club or your polyamory potluck you don't typically go by a pseudonym, you just don't expect your work friends and your church friends to overlap, and if they do, who cares, your friend was at church too. The problem seems to be reconciling this with a world where you can google for people or add them on social networks where all these disparate things happen online. But even then, there's a simple solution--don't use social networks. Sign up for the gun forum, the polyamory forum, the culty megachruch forum, the Socialist Workers Party forum, and even if you use your real name or a traceable pseudonym, people would have to go out of their way to match things together, and with a lot of false positives along the way.

Re: Nonplussed

#235

Post by MichaelGG »

warcode wrote: post #229
MichaelGG wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This would be fine if they actually provided a "I never want to comment. Never link my G+ and Youtube Accounts." option. But they keep asking forever.

How is it in their interests to provide a "I never want to link" option? They keep asking forever because they know that'll increase conversion ratios.

If people start leaving for an alternative service, then they might care. And who could launch an alternative? Yahoo? Microsoft? MS tried and bungled it like crazy (like everything MSN.)

Re: Nonplussed

#236

Post by trothoun »

philwelch wrote: post #233
lsc wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's very hard for me to imagine someone who wants to try so very hard to maintain a serious public image that they won't be caught liking a silly cat video on YouTube. That seems hilariously self-important. Eh, I think this idea that we must live our whole life in public (to the /same/ public using the /same/ identity) is a bit insidious. Especially in these days of "cultural fit" - it leads to this idea that you n…

That's not typically how people operate though. When you go to your crazy culty church or your Socialist Workers Party meeting or your gun club or your polyamory potluck you don't typically go by a pseudonym, you just don't expect your work friends and your church friends to overlap, and if they do, who cares, your friend was at church too. The problem seems to be reconciling this with a world where you can google fo…

Google's stated goal is to organize the world's information. That (presumably) includes linking and making easily searchable all those pseudonyms at those diverse forums you use. Trusting that those bits of interaction will stay nicely in their own corners is like trusting that only your high-school buddies will see that compromising picture you just posted on Facebook.

Re: Nonplussed

#237

Post by wambotron »

At one point he says he wants to comment as something else so no one sees him comment, then he says he'll post it to facebook so everyone he knows sees his comment.

I'm not going to comment on anything else in the article, this just struck me as odd and obviously contradictory.

Re: Nonplussed

#238

Post by mikeevans »

gcb1 wrote: post #135
mistermann wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, w…

reddit is an echo chamber even worse than here. i dread depending on its platform for any content

It did wonders for imgur?

Re: Nonplussed

#239

Post by rafcavallaro »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #158
foobarqux wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those people are using it incorrectly.

Language is ultimately about usage. The dictionary I checked with confirmed this meaning as a US neologism, I'm in the UK. You could class this usage as "perplexed" but with a specific flavour of 'perplexity at the unimpressive nature of the subject'.

US colloquial usage - where the original, subtle UK usage goes to die; see also "presently," and "beg the question."

Re: Nonplussed

#240

Post by ta_delited »

riffraff wrote: post #144
mistermann wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, w…

tumblr! It just seems to slip under the radar for everyone, even though it has now, what, 50 million users? Yep, Yahoo! has a lot of chances of screwing it up, but it's also the largest online pseudonymous social network I can think of.

that's because you loosely apply the "social network" label to some centralized websites but from I fail to see how the internet it self it not a social network, from IRC to email, newsgroups, forums, bbs, instant messaging, and so on. Everything online is social and networking.

Rest assured yahoo! as google, microsoft, facebook or any other entity throwing money at owners to buy their property will screw it up, most of the times they buy to prevent it from happening in the first place.

Post reply on HN