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

Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 733 posts

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#271

Post by bwooceli »

_uhtu wrote: post #6

Google+ had terrible marketing and release, but it had some decent ideas that I wish other networks had carried over. The idea of "circles", where you had a circle for "acquaintances" "friends", "family" would be great on, say, Facebook, as it would allow me to filter down my feed to just the people I really care about but still have a connection to more distance acquaintances. Currently on Facebook the news feed is…

Facebook groups are the next best thing (but still pretty terrible as it requires reciprocal participation)

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#272

Post by sangnoir »

adrianmonk wrote: post #98
evgen wrote: 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…

I'd like to think that's not true, but it wouldn't be the first time such a technique has been used, apparently successfully. Witness the local TV news which is always teasing that some story is coming up next, only to put it at the very end of the broadcast so that you have to watch the whole 30 minute program (including commercials) to hear the 1 minute you care about.

> I'd like to think that's not true, but it wouldn't be the first time such a technique has been used, apparently successfully.

It's also why Twitter wants to 'curate' your timeline, instead of simply displaying tweets from people you follow in temporal order.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#273

Post by sctb »

p49k wrote: post #199
sctb wrote: post #93

Related discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169027 . Edit: here are some other articles providing coverage: https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/8/17951914/google-plus-data... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/08/google-reportedly-exposed-pr... https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/08/google-plus-hack/ https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45792349 https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/google-plus-shut-down-... htt…

This is not a news article, though - it's a one-sided PR piece that greatly minimizes important points about the story and completely ignores other points (e.g. the regulation angle). You should have let another news story take its spot; there are plenty others that are not paywalled.

Sure thing, if there's a news article that provides additional information from its own sources and supersedes the Google post, we can update the link.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#274

Post by Doctor_Fegg »

cpeterso wrote: post #226
ChuckMcM wrote: post #102

packets to packets, bits to bits. I am not surprised they are killing the service, and I'm reminded of all the damage it did to the company both inside and out[1]. If there is one thing I could say I miss about not working at Google it is seeing how the organization internalizes what they did and why. These sorts of things can teach a lot of really good lessons to an organization if the retrospective is done well. I…

It seems like Google could have successfully built a "shadow social network" by incrementally integrating their popular services like Gmail, Inbox, Reader, YouTube, Hangouts, and chat into one portal. OTOH, Buzz tried to inject social sharing into Gmail and there was a big user backlash.

Absolutely - always thought this. I fail to see why Google+ was a discreet product at all.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#275

Post by rytis »

pjmorris wrote: post #87
8ytecoder wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very cynical view of things. I'm not a product manager - but I can't imagine one sitting in a room thinking about all the evil ways to make the feed harder for people to find relevant posts. I can, however, perfectly imagine a PM who is "extremely numbers driven" to look a bad version of the algorithm that increases the time users spend shifting through shit and assume that the algorithm is a huge success b…

Seems to me like PM's would think in the most positive terms about the same issue, e.g. what is the maximum amount of ad space that we can use before users lose interest? No one would directly attempt to be evil, it'd just turn out that way. “The truly terrible thing is that everybody has their reasons.” ― Jean Renoir

Socrates agrees: "no one ever knowingly does wrong". :) And a nice essay on the subject: https://midnightmediamusings.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/socrat...

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#276

Post by CPLX »

drewfrank wrote: post #172
huebomont wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it exists because it's a concise way to communicate "this is ending, and will end in a predetermined amount of time, but it has not yet ended" in the same manner that sunset indicates that a day is ending but has not ended yet.

I think this reply actually captures one of the problems with the term. It's super passive.

I realize this usage is becoming an official usage, but the original meaning was something that would end by design and automatically unless it was renewed. Like a law had a sunset provision if it already had an ending named at the time it was created. So the ending is built into the original plan from the beginning, it's bound to happen unless something changes.

Like... a sunset.

It's not something passive that's happened at Google though. They're saying we are going to close a service that is open, and has been expected to stay open indefinitely. It's not a thing that is just kind of happening, it's a decision that was just made and is being newly announced.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#277

Post by Ajedi32 »

Angostura wrote: post #222

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...

The blog post explains that, and gives their reasoning:

> Our Privacy & Data Protection Office reviewed this issue, looking at the type of data involved, whether we could accurately identify the users to inform, whether there was any evidence of misuse, and whether there were any actions a developer or user could take in response. None of these thresholds were met in this instance.

So basically, they decided that because:

1. The data exposed wasn't very sensitive (name, email address, occupation, gender, age, etc) 2. They couldn't identify any specific users whose data was leaked 3. They couldn't find any evidence that the bug was actually exploited 4. There were no actions you could take to remedy the problem (no software to update, no passwords to change, no CC numbers to revoke)

that they weren't going to notify users about the bug.

Still, I would have appreciated at least a blog post or something so if I started suddenly getting more spam emails or something I could at least identify the source.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#278

Post by lukejduncan »

notahappycamper wrote: post #217
kwillets wrote: post #127

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.

source: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/09/21/494927147/epis...

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#279

Post by joethebro »

bearcobra wrote: post #120

The reports of Google avoiding making a security disclosure about the potential data breach out of concern for negative PR and regulatory response are very concerning and should be getting more attention

It's just ridiculous that they had it open for 3 years, didn't have proper metrics so don't know exactly how many were breached, but there estimate was 500,000 and they didn't disclose???

C'mon Google, why'd you have to try and hide this...

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#280

Post by Ajedi32 »

0xCMP wrote: post #198
Ajedi32 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has that feature now too, it's called "friend lists". Unfortunately it's a much less prominent feature and harder to use.

And it's also being removed soon.

No, they're removing the ability to filter your news feed by friend list, not removing friend lists entirely.
Post reply on HN