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

Google+ broke our trust

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 251 posts

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#71

Post by tabio »

pron wrote: post #57
clsec wrote: post #34

I jumped on board early when I received an invite. I despised FB and was looking for for something that might actually resemble the tribe.net model of freedom and anonymity. Unfortunately, I was told that I had to use my real name and signed up accordingly. Everything was going along fine for about the first 9 months until I got into a small flame war with a woman in Canada about Scientologists (I used to work for so…

I can understand not wanting the NSA to snoop your correspondence. I can't understand letting Google do that for years, analyze it, profile you and sell that information to just about anyone, but then thinking that the NSA is the final straw.

Because "Google employees might find out that pron interested in computers and dogs" is less sensitive than "someone might send pron to a Saudi Arabian prison to be tortured because pron talks to someone with the same last name as a suspected revolutionary"

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#72

Post by tabio »

serf wrote: post #43

I think many of the policies that have been changed towards the usage of a real name are intrusive to privacy, but I have no pity on people who require privacy and lose it after willingly continuing to use a service that is known to conduct such practices.

That's a rather harsh way to limit your pity. I won't go so far as making the standard analogies of victim-blaming.

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#73

Post by tabio »

compsci_mofo wrote: post #53

Google is interesting. Choc full of academically bright people, yet collectively dumb as fuck. Shame there is not a phd for common sense or being down to Earth.

Can you name one organization of 50,000 people that is collectively smart?

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#74

Post by tabio »

joezydeco wrote: post #70
higherpurpose wrote: post #3

I wish both Google and Microsoft would understand that you can't force change down users' throats. It needs to come naturally. They need to want it, and have it grow organically . Sure, forcing them will definitely bring you bigger "adoption" (for lack of a better word) faster, but it will also build up a lot of resentment, potentially negating any advantage you might have from ramming the change through, in the long…

Shareholders and analysts don't have the patience for a 3-year organic rampup. They want promises and returns by the end of the quarter. This is what happens when you go public.

3 people together hold enough voting power to make all decisions, and those 3 people wrote in their S-1 that they have no intention to ever listen to shareholders and analysts.

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#75

Post by vidarh »

IgorPartola wrote: post #31
jwheeler79 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the point of the article is that google has lost trust, and google+ along with strange, self-serving behavior of executives is how. that much is undeniable.

What was the underhanded thing that it did? If you put your real name AND sensitive info into a public system, especially one you do not understand, what do you trust will happen? What does Brin's confession of not being the best person to create a social network have to do with it?

From where do you get the idea that the author is complaining about anything being underhanded?

Brin's "confession" has something to do with it because he was instrumental to creating it in the first place, and someone with the power to correct many of the problems if he wanted to. Instead he's washed his hands of it, and left a segment of his users in the lurch.

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#76

Post by [deleted] »

cbellet wrote: post #38
wfjackson wrote: post #13

If there's one video that shows off the purposefully confusing Google+ and Youtube integration mess, its this one of a woman literally crying because of it. Warning: Strong language https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccxiwu4MaJs

Hey, I can find videos of people angry at about anything that exists. Apple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFOx81Lm34c Facebook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhPzx2KLoUg Nature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJNqn-Y3pdY Ah! Why is it so hard to make everyone happy?

[deleted]

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#77

Post by dm2 »

rando289 wrote: post #61
dm2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a pretty large warning when you go to delete your Google+ account https://plus.google.com/downgrade/ It seems that a deleted YouTube channel can still be recovered and that the only thing that's lost is the views, private messages, and comments. The reason this lady deleted her account was that she was tired of receiving notifications, that setting can be changed here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/settings

> Why would someone make a video of themselves crying and post it on the internet? More interesting: Why would someone make a well writtenish comment on the internet that is quite negative toward someone crying on the internet? edit: you edited the quote out from underneath me. Good call imo.

Yeah, it's easy to put too much subjective content in a post unnecessarily.

I'd personally never post a video of me crying about a mistake I made on the internet for friends, family, employees/business contacts to potentially see, but there's no point in judging people when their actions don't harm anyone at all.

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#78

Post by galfarragem »

To change status quo you need to provide enough value to motivate that change:

Google Search: Search experience was completely disrupted. Since that moment people could focus on what they needed (no disturbing ads) and be more efficient.

Gmail: Google innovated and simplified a lot email experience. You can easily measure the importance of Gmail to people by the importance of Gmail to the Google brand.

Chrome: As an early adopter, I could feel specially the speed difference. I always knew that would be a matter of time till Chrome control the market.

Google+: I never understood what value Google was adding to social networks. Facebook at the time didn't need to be disrupted also. After some time G+ went in the direction of Linkedin but couldn't add enough value to make people to change also. IMHO Google+ weakens Google brand. As simple as that. Should be closed? That is a good question.

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#79

Post by dm2 »

nobbyclark wrote: post #64
dm2 wrote: post #46

I'd love to see Google+ turn into a LinkedIn and Facebook killer. I just have no use for Google+ at the moment. I don't really like the tiles display and would prefer a list. The YouTube integration doesn't bother me at all because 1) I don't post YouTube comments, and 2) it's easy enough to just create a separate account for using with services that you don't want associated with your main Google account.

IMO the silently majority is tired of a panopticon of "look it me now" social services who's main use case is massaging users egos. Google should start over, Android-first (instead of web -first) and make the phone Addressbook / Google Contacts the focal point for everything social. Look at WhatsApp - it does exactly this - your phone number is your ID and your contacts is your social graph; how you interact with the…

A large amount of employees have been moved from Google+ to Hangouts and Android.

I think Hangouts is going to be their new standard, unfortunately the transition will likely be fragmented because it's not forced in Android yet.

I've seen a very positive response to Google Hangouts, if they successfully (seamlessly) integrate it into Android then it could be a wildly successfully product. I'm not crazy about the name ("Connect" would be a good alternative IMO) and there should be some more calling/voicemail integration features.

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#80

Post by toyg »

6cxs2hd6 wrote: post #7
sbarre wrote: post #2

Is it even possible to reverse course on the G+ integrations now? Would Google even want to, even if everyone agreed it was a bad idea in the first place?

That's an interesting question. I can imagine this push resulted in some positive refactoring of Google's internal systems, which they would like to retain. However I can also imagine it resulted in some layers of duct tape (very much like the rush job after a merger or acquisition), which they'd love to rip off. It would be interesting to hear a Google insider talk about this. Meanwhile, my guess would be it's a mix…

Considering that the real-name policy is just that, a policy (albeit an automatically-enforced one), I don't see what technical problems would arise from its unilateral revocation. Just disable the flagging and be on your merry way.

The thing is, I suspect Google leadership still don't really see the policy as a problem. Brin said his involvement was a mistake -- because it tainted his image and his credentials, not because the policy itself was wrong. I suspect he still sees it as dirty work that somebody has to do, just not himself.

Post reply on HN