Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers • Hacker News Board

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#331

Post by ReverseCold » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 9:16 PM UTC

konschubert wrote: post #132

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…

Btw, is anyone building a google inbox clone yet?

Didn't they move most of the inbox features into Gmail?

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#332

Post by mcv » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 9:16 PM UTC

This sucks. The vibrant RPG community on Google+ is in uproar about this and looking for a suitable alternative. (MeWe looks like the most likely candidate at the moment.)

Google+ started out as the best social network. Unfortunately Google has taken every opportunity to ruin it, remove popular features, force ill-considered integration, remove that integration once people are used to it. Lately the spam filtering has been utterly broken, alternating between leaving painfully obvious spam, and marking and hiding comments from people you were following. It seemed like it was an experimental testbed for them where they didn't care if people were using it.

Despite all of that, we hung on because of the great communities, the people we got to know, and because frankly there's no good alternative.

It really seems to me it shouldn't be too hard at this point to design a sane social network. Google+ had all the elements, but refused to apply them correctly.

Facebook is a horrible mess of privacy violations with no control over your feed (though G+'s control often doesn't work as intended either), and besides, there's family and co-workers there. Twitter seems designed for screaming into the void. Tumbler and Instagram don't seem to be my thing.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#333

Post by giancarlostoro » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 9:16 PM UTC

_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…

It sorta exists it's called Friend Lists:

https://www.facebook.com/help/204604196335128

Sadly it seems they've hidden this to push their more tailored feed so they can push whatever ads and things through there aka filter (censor?) your friends posts better.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#334

Post by village-idiot » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 9:18 PM UTC

dougb5 wrote: post #253

JoblessWonder wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The acquisition of YouTube is one that comes to mind. While it wasn't universally panned, there were a lot of engineers (myself included) who felt it was wildly excessive.

The acquisition of YouTube might’ve not been bad for Google, but I could make the argument that it’s been bad for the rest of us.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#335

Post by _emacsomancer_ » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 9:18 PM UTC

Operyl wrote: post #32

mc32 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about enterprise customers, does that remain or get sunset?

They're going to continue to develop is, according to the post.

So why not just also leave it alone for the "consumers" who have developed communities there?

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#336

Post by bobthepanda » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 9:18 PM UTC

Latteland wrote: post #299

Marazan wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, found the 3 people on the Internet who thought Real Names was a good idea.

What? Your reply to your own posting contradicted yourself?

HN has comment karma that only the comment poster can see; presumably he used to have some number of downvotes.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#337

Post by testrun » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 9:18 PM UTC

Latteland wrote: post #299

Marazan wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, found the 3 people on the Internet who thought Real Names was a good idea.

What? Your reply to your own posting contradicted yourself?

I think he is referring to downvotes on his post.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#338

Post by spenczar5 » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

reading-at-work wrote: post #320

adrianmonk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Facebook insiders have admitted that it is. Mike Allen, Facebook's first president, said this in an interview: “The thought process was all about, ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?’,” he said. “And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a pos…

I couldn't believe this quote, so I had to dig it up. It's real, but from Sean Parker. Mike Allen was the interviewer.

Source (a slightly clickbaity-looking place, go at your own risk): https://www.axios.com/sean-parker-unloads-on-facebook-god-on...

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#339

Post by aasasd » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #40

ben174 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that was by design. Trying to sweep it under the covers to avoid outrage. I share that article with friends and they're likely to read the first half of the headline and not bother reading it.

Serious question, is anybody going to be outraged by sunsetting G+?

I just realized this means plenty of long-form posts will poof into non-existence. Currently, the sole benefit from G+ to me is occasionally coming upon a solution to a problem, or at least a discussion, in someone's G+ blog. It so happens that the G+ crowd seems to consist of especially stubborn and strong-willed people with firm opinions, which lets the rest of us mooch off them.

Re: Shutting Down Google+ for Consumers

#340

Post by tenebrisalietum » Mon, Oct 08, 2018, 9:21 PM UTC

_qbxp wrote: post #300

I posted this on the other discussion related to this, but would love to get feedback here. ----------------- I can understand this position, but I'd be curious what your thoughts are on how to best (I realize there is no perfect) keep your data private from snooping employees, hackers, or law enforcement. I've thought about this over and over, and it's hard to come to a solid conclusion about keeping personal data s…

Encryption, to be done right, always has to ultimately be the end user's responsibility. So there is one solid conclusion but it requires work and discipline and is therefore unpopular.

Encrypt before you send/upload, decrypt after you receive/download. If you transmit or receive unencrypted data you are placing trust in someone else and there is no way to really avoid that unless you created and control the chain end-to-end.

So you can use Google Drive, etc., just encrypt your data before uploading if it needs to be secured. A 7-zip file protected with AES256 is decently convenient (from a PC) and secure.