Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service" • Hacker News Board

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#41

Post by RobAtticus » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 10:37 PM UTC

throwaway32 wrote: post #39

yanw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is their rational: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5sRC67s9fg#t=26m25s

just like they would release the source for gingerbread "when it was ready" ? Not everyone is ready to take Google's word on things when they are clearly moving in the opposite direction.

You mean Honeycomb? Gingerbread source has been released.

Also, I'm pretty sure I heard that Honeycomb will be released with the release of ICS, so I think it's hard to say we shouldn't trust them. Sure, they should've released it like the other versions, but I can't say I care that deeply.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#42

Post by Permit » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 10:38 PM UTC

rjd wrote: post #27

yanw wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how it is an "evil concept", I think what he means by identity service is a platform on which they can build social apps, it's same as social network. And I'm quite annoyed by claims that associate a real identity requirement with selling data or ad targeting and such, they can target well enough using interests, not sure your name improves much on it. Also instead of speculating read the service's privac…

Its because the root motivation most people including myself see is that its about control. And things that try and control other things are evil. Years ago Google was a disruption force towards existing controlling organisations. Now Google are trying to prevent disruptive technologies eroding their market share. Hence they have joined the ranks of the old guard such as Microsoft, IBM, Apple etc... those desiring co…

You don't think it cheapens the world 'evil' to be using it like that?

I don't think control constitutes "profound immorality and wickedness" to be honest.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#43

Post by yanw » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 10:46 PM UTC

mcantelon wrote: post #32

This doesn't wash. Google Profiles seemed to me to be an "identity service". This seems more likely an identity characteristics service for data mining info about people.

A profile is too static to be a service, and yes the insistence is on the name in the profile.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#44

Post by jamesbritt » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 10:47 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #10

jamesbritt wrote: post #8

Out of curiosity, how did the duplicate URL detector not catch that this was submitted four hours earlier? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2931770

The two URLs were not identical, as the earlier submitted had additional characters at the end (which appear to be a no-op in this case).

Yeah, I saw that, but thought that fragment IDs were ignore.

Oh well.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#45

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 10:53 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #37

yanw wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be that as it may, do think the primary reason for insisting on real names is to target ads better? they first need a sufficient critical mass to implement that, their reasons are different, at least in this early stage.

I do think it's primarily about data. Maybe not specifically ad targeting, but about owning a relatively "clean" set of data that they can later exploit or sell in whatever way they prefer.

[deleted]

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#46

Post by yanw » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 10:53 PM UTC

_delirium wrote: post #37

yanw wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be that as it may, do think the primary reason for insisting on real names is to target ads better? they first need a sufficient critical mass to implement that, their reasons are different, at least in this early stage.

I do think it's primarily about data. Maybe not specifically ad targeting, but about owning a relatively "clean" set of data that they can later exploit or sell in whatever way they prefer.

Yeah but that isn't new it's how everyone is operating, facebook, linkedin, whomever. And users get to use the service freely in return.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#47

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 10:55 PM UTC

Permit wrote: post #42

rjd wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its because the root motivation most people including myself see is that its about control. And things that try and control other things are evil. Years ago Google was a disruption force towards existing controlling organisations. Now Google are trying to prevent disruptive technologies eroding their market share. Hence they have joined the ranks of the old guard such as Microsoft, IBM, Apple etc... those desiring co…

You don't think it cheapens the world 'evil' to be using it like that? I don't think control constitutes "profound immorality and wickedness" to be honest.

Barron Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton) got this right a long time ago: all power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

There's a modern corrolary: data corrupts, absolute data corrupts absolutely.

Google are well and truly headed down this path, it seems.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#48

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 10:55 PM UTC

maeon3 wrote: post #26

I prefer anonymity. Google knows too much about me already, I'd prefer they stop trying to make every fact about me known by the servers that serve me pages. I don't want every link on the internet an opportunity for the authorities to stop that click event.

[deleted]

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#49

Post by baddox » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 10:55 PM UTC

maeon3 wrote: post #26

I prefer anonymity. Google knows too much about me already, I'd prefer they stop trying to make every fact about me known by the servers that serve me pages. I don't want every link on the internet an opportunity for the authorities to stop that click event.

I don't understand how anonymity would work with a social network.

Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"

#50

Post by dredmorbius » Sat, Aug 27, 2011, 10:59 PM UTC

01Michael10 wrote: post #25

0x44 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as a caucasian male with a name that's basically unique in the world (there is only one person who has my name but that might have been a typo in the article as every where else he uses a different last name), having my name improves their ad targeting considerably.

What does the fact you are a Caucasian male have to do with your point?

It's pointing out that it's not necessarily the socially marginalized , deviant, oppressed, or victimized who've an interest in anonymity or pseudonymity.

As with 0x44, I've a name that's to the best of my knowledge unique in all the world. That's helpful when I wish to be known. When not, not so much.

And I've accumulated a (thankfully short) list of people I don't much care to advertise my goings-on to.

Having a distinctive pseudonym for certain roles is useful. Having a non-distinctive pseudonym (or several) for others, likewise. Sometimes, on the Internet, you really do want to be a dog.