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

91–100 of 251 posts

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#91

Post by [deleted] »

oneweekwonder wrote: post #52
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.

Do you have any details of the rewrite, what does it imply? Backend, frontend, etc? Even if you can just point me to the source it would be appreciated.

[deleted]

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#92

Post by vidarh »

galfarragem wrote: post #78

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…

Facebook needed to be disrupted, but unfortunately the main way Facebook needed (and needs) to be disrupted is in compartmentalising sharing better, and while Circles accomplishes some of that, Googles real name policy pisses all over it.

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#93

Post by jwheeler79 »

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?

if youre asking me personally what they did to lose my trust, it's all the things i mention and even some i didn't. i think the executives are creepy as hell, especially eric schmidt. have you read all the sexcapades stuff about him in the WSJ? Affairs with murdochs wife. She's pretty damn creepy herself. He doesn't think the laws apply to him, and most people would say, by now, that's true; he's part of the plutocracy and the laws don't apply to him. i say bullshit and that the laws apply to everybody. the stock decisions they've made to keep control away from shareholders, the sunsetting of products unilaterally. No, I don't trust Google at all.

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#94

Post by pessimizer »

tabio wrote: post #71
pron wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

>"Google employees might find out that pron interested in computers and dogs"

This as an extremely naive characterization of what google knows about you. Google would probably guess that much about you if you had never used the internet, but had a few friends that did.

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#95

Post by vidarh »

raldi wrote: post #24

> With Google+, it became clear that we were all little more than webs of flesh spun over packages of saleable data. What data is allegedly being sold, and who is Google selling it to?

I don't see anywhere where the article alleges that the data is for sale, but that it is saleable.

One way of capitalizing on that, without selling the data, is to sell access to advertise on the basis of that data.

The point is not to claim that Google is selling our data, but just another way of stating that we're the product, not the customer.

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#96

Post by Rapzid »

lbotos wrote: post #25
tomrod wrote: post #19

I've been using G+ consistently for a week now after signing off from a competing social network. I thoroughly enjoy it so far. Why is G+ dead in the water? EDIT: Fatfingered a random exclamation point

I think most people feel Google's incessant need to push it on every product leads to overexposure and this hate of G+. To further that, I closed my G+ account a few months ago due to inactivity. You'd better believe that the whole process made it sound like I was going to lose access to my email, my youtube account, etc. It wasn't a positive experience.

They dropped the ball on nearly every major integration in some spectacular fashion, essentially. Be it forced integration, loosing anonymity, or botching up the g-talk's chat history.

The chat history bit me. They used to have a really nice chat history that integrated into the email seamlessly and had good export options. It even worked through IMAP. Unfortunately that all disappeared when they made g-talk hangouts. Essentially it was a duct-tape job like mentioned above. Apparently their storage back-end is quite different and they didn't put the work in to allow for easy retrieval and review of full chat histories. Unfortunately I needed a mass of chat histories(a year) for Visa purposes and the switch was about two thirds in. Retrieving the newer stuff became a part time job :|

Other than that I kinda like G+. I also like real identity movement. Eventually I believe that will be a big differentiator for swaths of the internet. The civil, real name sites. And the seedy, anonymous underbelly.

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#97

Post by VonGuard »

rando289 wrote: post #58
cbellet wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Hey, I can find videos of people angry at about anything that exists. Actually, you can't, and your post is a bit rediculous. For "features of websites that are widely used", how many of them are part of youtube crying videos? Probably ~0.0001% and it certainly could be useful to call one out.

See, this is why Google wanted real names on Youtube. We've all read Youtube comments. They are the single worst comments on the Internet. Typically racist, usually mean, often obscene. Google really, through all this, just wanted to make the comments better on YouTube, I think. They heard everyone bitching and figured this was a way to make things less caustic. It didn't help, though...

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#98

Post by fzltrp »

I don't think that G+ was a mistake. The only real issue is the real name policy, though I fail to see how they'd be able to enforce it. People could create alternate email addresses with fake names (and some did), and use it when they want to participate social "i-events" without giving up their id. It's been like that before G+, and it would only take a small move from them to correct it. Of course, the downside of this is that they wouldn't be able to claim a number of real users. But could any social site?

Btw, am I the only one to find the article title offensive, and unworthy of a place like zdnet? I wasn't a regular reader of their columns, I don't think that will help.

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#99

Post by asdfologist »

spodek wrote: post #87

A suggestion for Google to save itself regarding G+: Donate some of its engineers' time to fix and revitalize Diaspora -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_%28social_network%29 -- or one of its peers or something along its original vision. It could achieve its goal of disrupting Facebook, give users their privacy back, and by releasing the source code, could role back its role in maintaining the code or policing…

I agree that would be cool, but I don't think Diaspora offers anything compelling to the general public. What fraction of FB users actually care that much about privacy?

Re: Google+ broke our trust

#100

Post by sumedh »

galfarragem wrote: post #78

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…

Add Google Buzz, Orkut, Google Wave, Google Talk, Hangouts.

Its like Google is trying everything and hoping something would stick.

Post reply on HN