Live data from Hacker News

Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

blog.google

261–270 of 733 posts

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#261
post #39

The use of the word "sunset" as a verb in posts like this is fucking infuriating. Yes, software types know what it means, but this is a consumer product with tens of millions of users, who have no familiarity with that term. It's a weasel word. The way to say this is in plain English. We're closing, shutting down, turning off, discontinuing, or something.

> fucking

> software types

> weasel word

Pull the plank from your own eye first.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#262

....did Google just admit to patching a security hole and not announcing it for months? Isn't this what they continuously harangue other organizations for on Google's Project Zero blog? Yep: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-says-it-found-... "As many as 438 applications might have used the API. Google maintains that it didn’t uncover evidence developers were aware of or abused the security flaw, or that…

It's more than that - the Wall Street Journal article says Pichai signed off on not disclosing it to the public. It feels a bit like Google only published this blog post today because they knew WSJ was about to go public:

A memo reviewed by the Journal prepared by Google’s legal and policy staff and shared with senior executives warned that disclosing the incident would likely trigger “immediate regulatory interest” and invite comparisons to Facebook’s leak of user information to data firm Cambridge Analytica.

Chief Executive Sundar Pichai was briefed on the plan not to notify users after an internal committee had reached that decision, the people said.

.... The document shows Google officials knew that disclosure could have serious ramifications. Revealing the incident would likely result “in us coming into the spotlight alongside or even instead of Facebook despite having stayed under the radar throughout the Cambridge Analytica scandal,” the memo said. It “almost guarantees Sundar will testify before Congress.”

https://t.co/DExCeKTGHX (seems to link directly to the WSJ article):

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-exposed-user-data-feared...

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#263
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way Facebook would ever implement something like this. The whole point of the Facebook feed tinkering is to force you to wade through a river of shit to find the nuggets you are interested in. The feed algorithm is all about making that river just slightly short of unbearable, because the river is where they stuff all the ads. If they provided you with useful filters it would make the revenue opportunitie…

The milk is always at the back of the store.

Sometimes the organic milk is not at the back of the store

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#264

Personally, I think the headline "Google hid major Google+ security flaw that exposed users’ personal information" is probably the better one. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/8/17951914/google-plus-data...

I'm starting to think "security flaw", "bug", and "data breach" has become a cover for giving data to people you are not supposed to. Facebook had a "data breach" on September 28th that compromised 50 Million people.

Interesting how this is all happening right before midterms. Could these companies be trying to impact the elections and they need plausible deniability? Announcing an exploit seems like an easy way to cover ones ass.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Sunsetting something is used outside of software. Hell, it's even used to describe temporary laws ("sunset law"). It's also used for brands and business policies. And, sure, it might not make the top list of 1000 words you might hear on the street on any given day, but it's also very easy to search for. That doesn't make it a weasel word.

It's absolutely a weasel word, because there are plenty of common and clear ways to say this. The only reason it exists is so companies don't have to use words that connote a lack of success.

"Slaughter" would be a much better word and much closer to truth, imo.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was at google, the one thing I took away was that most of the terrible decisions such as described above were very widely panned before being released inside the company. Everyone one of them. That doesn't mean the group of engineers was always right, but they were very good at pointing out bad, controversial ideas.

Is there an example of an idea that was panned that turned out to be a (even moderate) success?

I can't reply to that YouTube message, too much nesting? Anyway, I'll agree that YouTube was a good one. My office was doing Google video, so that project lost out.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The milk is always at the back of the store.

That is where the loading bays are, so they keep the fridges nearby so cold items have less chance to heat up. Plus milk is often stocked from behind, which can only be done where they have the extra space at the back of the store.

I could buy this on smaller or older grocery stores, but the Safeways near me have 2 full aisles of frozen goods (and one additional one of refrigerated goods). These aisles extend all the way from the back to the front of the store, and are located in the center of the floor plan.

The milk is still in the back, along with perishable juices. The difference between them and the aisles is that processed foods (frozen dinners, vegetables, snacks, brand name yogurt & cheese, ice cream, breakfasts) are all located near the front of the store, while fresh ones (milk, meat, fish) are located at the back, and perishable-but-non-refrigerated goods (fresh fruits & vegetables) are off to the back & side. So it really seems like a deliberate attempt to put the items you would buy frequently as far away from the door as possible, and make you walk through the goods that you might stock up on on impulse.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#268

What a poorly managed company.

Poorly managed? They have now grown over 20% the last ten quarters and now over 26% the last two. Since the beginning never declined for a quarter YoY. Even though the great recession. That is pretty hard to do.

They have this immense cash-generating engine that is AdWords and that means management can make alot of mistakes without it even mattering. If that revenue went away, what would they do?

Conversely, if Bing was shut down at the same time, Microsoft would shrug and keep on rolling.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#269

I'm going to get downvoted for this, but you don't have to state "IMHO" or any variation of that in your posts. You are the one posting it; we know it's your opinion. It just adds grammatical clutter and noise to an otherwise well thought-out post. IMHO

In many cultures, voicing equivocation, doubt, or similar provisos is a social norm when expressing your opinion. It certainly is in British English, for example. Don’t assume everyone on HN has US social norms.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#270
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "Action 1: We are shutting down Google+ for consumers." They will keep it active as an internal network, but regular old joes won't be able to use Google+ anymore.

So, nothing's changing?

Ha!
Post reply on HN