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

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#51

Post by pyre »

pstack wrote: post #50
amalcon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

ACLs (Access Control Lists) are the real benefit that social networks give. It's a system where loads of people already have an account, so it's easy to share things (e.g. photos) with a limited set of people. Obviously you can ask people to sign up for an account on , but asking people to sign up for Yet Another Web Account just seems 'dirty.' You could host it somewhere with a single password, but then it's hard to revoke access, or sent certain sets of photos to certain people. You could have per-album passwords, but now people have to remember (or write down) a list of passwords and map them to the albums that they are associated with.

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#52

Post by pyre »

wmf wrote: post #42
contextfree wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This applies now, but that data isn't going anywhere. There's nothing to stop that policy from changing in the future.

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#53

Post by pyre »

Clue wrote: post #35
raheemm wrote: post #18

If another startup creates a social network allowing greater privacy, smaller groups, levels of social circles, then I'd gladly switch to them. But never to Google.

What if it was created by Microsoft? What about Apple?

  > What about Apple?
Customer: My friends and family found out that I was sleeping around on my wife! Apple allowed this to happen!

Steve Jobs: Just change your friends and family. Not that big of a deal.

[1] http://www.tipb.com/2009/11/20/steve-jobs-tells-ipodrip-chan...

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#54

Post by spodek »

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…

A lot of people have posted here about alternatives that retain privacy, then others lament "who would do it? ... could a start-up succeed?"

There is an alternative -- on the horizon, anyway -- that's all about privacy. You don't have to choose between privacy from your community and privacy from a faceless corporation.

The FreedomBox project -- http://www.freedomboxfoundation.org, inspired by Eben Moglen, who helped write the GPL -- aims to create a network where users own their own data. If you've used, say, Wikipedia or a site run on Linux, you know how projects based on his vision can work in time.

It's not ready here and now, but this community can help contribute to it.

One component to FreedomBox is to replace many current "cloud-based" services which gather and store personal data with peer-to-peer versions where you own your data on your FreedomBox.

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#55

Post by wmf »

pyre wrote: post #52
wmf wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This applies now , but that data isn't going anywhere. There's nothing to stop that policy from changing in the future.

Other than FTC and DOJ oversight, you mean.

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#56

Post by xsive »

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?

Are suggesting that the personal information you upload to Facebook isn't available to random strangers at that particular corporation?

At least Google has aspirations of not being evil. Mark Zuckerberg only seems to aspire to eliminating privacy altogether.

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#57

Post by niktech »

raheemm wrote: post #18

If another startup creates a social network allowing greater privacy, smaller groups, levels of social circles, then I'd gladly switch to them. But never to Google.

I actually own the domain NewCircles.com and was working on an idea very similar to what Google has done here (including group video chat) but with emphasis on users finding and joining NEW circles instead of just organizing existing friends into circles. Think Meetup mashed with Facebook with a dash of Chatroulette.

After this announcement I'm not sure if I should continue working on my project...

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#58

Post by akkartik »

niktech wrote: post #57
raheemm wrote: post #18

If another startup creates a social network allowing greater privacy, smaller groups, levels of social circles, then I'd gladly switch to them. But never to Google.

I actually own the domain NewCircles.com and was working on an idea very similar to what Google has done here (including group video chat) but with emphasis on users finding and joining NEW circles instead of just organizing existing friends into circles. Think Meetup mashed with Facebook with a dash of Chatroulette. After this announcement I'm not sure if I should continue working on my project...

No comment on whether you should continue, but this would be a poor reason to give up.

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#59

Post by contextfree »

xsive wrote: post #56
contextfree wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are suggesting that the personal information you upload to Facebook isn't available to random strangers at that particular corporation? At least Google has aspirations of not being evil. Mark Zuckerberg only seems to aspire to eliminating privacy altogether.

My post was hypothetical; I'd imagine Google does have rules and procedures in place to keep your data private vis-a-vis random voyeurism by employees (but how would I know?)

I do find it amusing that the control of the web and computing by a handful of companies is now apparently ingrained in some people's heads as axiomatic, such that any apparent criticism of one oligarch is automatically a defense of the other.

Re: Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy

#60

Post by xsive »

contextfree wrote: post #59
xsive wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are suggesting that the personal information you upload to Facebook isn't available to random strangers at that particular corporation? At least Google has aspirations of not being evil. Mark Zuckerberg only seems to aspire to eliminating privacy altogether.

My post was hypothetical; I'd imagine Google does have rules and procedures in place to keep your data private vis-a-vis random voyeurism by employees (but how would I know?) I do find it amusing that the control of the web and computing by a handful of companies is now apparently ingrained in some people's heads as axiomatic, such that any apparent criticism of one oligarch is automatically a defense of the other.

I'm not defending Google, I'm just pointing out that, unlike Facebook, their founders haven't declared the "Age of Privacy" as over.

FWIW: I dislike Facebook but I use it anyway because that's where everyone I know seems to be. If I could substitute it for another service that lets me more tightly control who sees what, then great.

Post reply on HN