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

Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#41

Post by calebmpeterson »

ltamake wrote: post #31
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switching social networks is not the same as switching email services. You don't just up and move. Millions switched from MySpace to Facebook but what they really did was join Facebook while still using MySpace. And then using MySpace less. And then not at all. So, in theory, people could "join" Google+ because they see it in the toolbar while they're searching, and if there are a few killer features that bring them…

MySpace wasn't prepared for Facebook, and ignored it until about 2009 when it was too late. People saw their friends on Facebook, so they stopped using MySpace (hence the network effect I mentioned earlier). Facebook /will/ fight for its social dominance, but (generally speaking) there is a site out there that they don't know about and won't be prepared for (aka "the next Facebook")

> but there is a site out there that they don’t know about and won't be prepared for.

Care to illucidate us?

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#42

Post by wmf »

contextfree wrote: post #30
alecco wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mean privacy with respect with other users. Newspeak. I hope this way of interpreting the word doesn't catch on.

I'm sympathetic to these worries, but to play devil's advocate I wonder which kind of privacy most people actually care more about. Given the choice between having one's boss/co-workers/family/spouse learn some embarrassing secret about you, and having random strangers at a large corporation learn it, which would most people pick?

Even Google employees generally don't have access to your data stored at Google, so it's really boss/co-workers/family/spouse vs. a computer.

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#43

Post by snippyhollow »

contextfree wrote: post #33
stephenr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When that random stranger is Eric Schmidt & co...?

Which will directly affect me more, my wife learning about my adulterous affair, or Eric Schmidt learning about my affair?

Which will directly affect humanity more?

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#44

Post by true_religion »

paganel wrote: post #26
cryptoz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How will knowing what my friends and contacts "like" help Google not respond to my searches with content farm-ed crap? If your friends "like" a Stack Exchange post but not Experts Exchange, isn't it obvious how this would help them filter out the bad ones?

98% of my FB friends don't know about Stack Exchange or Experts Exchange. The other 2% are my IT-department co-workers.

Do 98% of your facebook friends search on subjects that would be found at Stack Exchange or Experts Exchange?

If the answer is no, then any algorithm that takes into account collective searches and 'likes' will ignore them because they wouldn't fit within the cluster of people relevant to that search term.

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#45

Post by true_religion »

ltamake wrote: post #31
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switching social networks is not the same as switching email services. You don't just up and move. Millions switched from MySpace to Facebook but what they really did was join Facebook while still using MySpace. And then using MySpace less. And then not at all. So, in theory, people could "join" Google+ because they see it in the toolbar while they're searching, and if there are a few killer features that bring them…

MySpace wasn't prepared for Facebook, and ignored it until about 2009 when it was too late. People saw their friends on Facebook, so they stopped using MySpace (hence the network effect I mentioned earlier). Facebook /will/ fight for its social dominance, but (generally speaking) there is a site out there that they don't know about and won't be prepared for (aka "the next Facebook")

One can fight and lose all the same.

Friendster fought against MySpace et al, and still lost ground because of its poor architecture.

Facebook being 4th generation social networking won't fail because of poor architecture, nor because of poor UI.

It may fail due to privacy concerns though since its leadership seems fanatical about reducing restrictions to information, rather than allowing its users to segment themselves.

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#46

Post by bad_user »

bergie wrote: post #7

The challenges Google Plus faces are quite apparent from the end of the article page. Right next to the link to page 2 there is: Connect with The New York Times on Facebook.

If Google gives benefits in their search results to content websites that integrate with their own +1, I'm pretty sure that's not a problem ;-)

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#48

Post by amalcon »

brudgers wrote: post #2

> "Mr. Gundotra and Mr. Horowitz said that knowing more about individual Google users will improve all Google products, including ads, search, YouTube and maps, because Google will learn what people like and eventually be able to personalize those products." I am obviously ignorant in my belief: privacy != Google obtaining and storing increasingly intimate personal data

That's what I was thinking. If my options are "A company that openly ignores its users' privacy" and "A company whose core competency is data mining", I'm likely to continue with option C: Don't use either.

Being entirely fair, Google is better about the whole privacy thing. This is undeniable: barring government requests and rogue sysadmins, only algorithms look at my data. It's plausible that an algorithm will remain impartial. Google just also has a lot more information about me already. I'm hesitant to hand over any more.

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#49

Post by mostly_harmless »

brudgers wrote: post #2

> "Mr. Gundotra and Mr. Horowitz said that knowing more about individual Google users will improve all Google products, including ads, search, YouTube and maps, because Google will learn what people like and eventually be able to personalize those products." I am obviously ignorant in my belief: privacy != Google obtaining and storing increasingly intimate personal data

well, personally I would much prefer only google having my information (and using it for google ads or whatever they use it for) than a bunch of unknown third parties.

But that is assuming that google does not pass it off also, which im not quite sure of

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#50

Post by pstack »

amalcon wrote: post #48
brudgers wrote: post #2

> "Mr. Gundotra and Mr. Horowitz said that knowing more about individual Google users will improve all Google products, including ads, search, YouTube and maps, because Google will learn what people like and eventually be able to personalize those products." I am obviously ignorant in my belief: privacy != Google obtaining and storing increasingly intimate personal data

That's what I was thinking. If my options are "A company that openly ignores its users' privacy" and "A company whose core competency is data mining", I'm likely to continue with option C: Don't use either. Being entirely fair, Google is better about the whole privacy thing. This is undeniable: barring government requests and rogue sysadmins, only algorithms look at my data. It's plausible that an algorithm will rema…

Even if privacy weren't a concern, I don't see the point in using either one. People have email. If I really need to talk to or share something with someone, I'll email them. Or occasionally, IM them. Or maybe even call them. Or if they're nearby, maybe go have lunch with them. I don't need to share everything every day at all times with everyone. Nobody is that interesting. Nobody is that interested. And nothing is that vital.
Post reply on HN