by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday July 12, 2011 @04:16AM (#36730854)
I don't get the technology community. It seems like google do what they want with you data they get away with it. Google+ doesn't do much more for your privacy than facebook or myspace. The other day people were up in arms about yahoo scanning emails but we all know google has been doing it for years, whats the difference?
they're for social people. that's why they're called social networks.
I'm plenty social where it counts...."meatspace".
I like my privacy...trying to hold onto as much of it as I can...and don't want to voluntarily give so much of it up for what I perceive as less that an equitable return for that information.
Everyone that I want to know, I know and we both know how to interact with each other...email, phone, txt and yes...even snail mail still works (heck, a hand written letter or even a card these days
As for forum posts I can choose what to say before I open my mouth
Whereas on Facebook/Google+ you submit every thought you have? None of these services can obtain your information without you submitting it in the first place.
I hear some saying that someone else can submit information about you to a social networking site. However, in that case, you never had control of the information to begin with. The existence of Facebook/Google+ changes nothing.
One major difference between Google and facebook is that Google sells your eyeballs to advertisers, facebook sells your information.
Whether you think that makes a large ethical difference is up to you, but the practical implications are significant -- essentially, Google acts as a black box in between advertisers and users, which is a system I massively prefer. Facebook will literally sell your name and address. I think that this is a significant improvement.
Of course, the other point is the question of trust. Can people trust Google? Maybe. I do, but I'm very careful about it, and I believe a lot of other people are too. The moment they start locking down services or locking in users, or the moment I actually find them doing something 'evil' (and no, accidentally leaving Kismet on a default setting does not count) I'm leaving them completely. Facebook, however, I don't trust at all with anything. That's trickier, since I live in a different city from where I grew up and a lot of my friends still live, and frankly facebook is in common usage, but then it's a trade off. I definitely don't put anything on facebook that I wouldn't say on national TV.
Another reason Google is in my good books, at least, is because they look at the long term. They want more people browsing the web as a general business goal, so they develop an awesome browser -- not necessarily to win the browser wars, but to make all browsers better. Then they also make it open source. Then they build driverless cars. Then they provide the best free mapping system in the world. Then they add satellite / overhead imagery to it.
Google might not be perfect, but they're by far the best multinational corporation I've ever come across.
Of course, the other point is the question of trust. Can people trust Google?
This is kind of my issue. A few years ago google+ would have been just enough to push me into the whole social networking thing. As others have joked, it's a facebook that's not facebook. At present though, I no longer have that kind of semi-blind trust of google that I once did.
Don't get me wrong, I still think that stacked against all the other big players, google comes out looking pretty good. They are however no longer spotless. They are big and established and making a metric ass-tonne of money, and now have the requisite amount of bad press, pseudo-evilness, and people that just plain don't like them because they are big that comes with it.
If I had to choose between google+ and facebook there would be no contest... but I don't really know if I want either yet.
I"m trying to figure this statement out. I know Facebook is a social network website. So, what does it mean to say a 'facebook' that is not a Facebook? Are you saying facebook is a thing...that means something other than the socializing website?
Nice, and yeah, like many others I had that exact thought.
On Google's side though, the big difference between Google and Facebook is that Facebook directly sells your information for profit, whereas Google keeps it internal (if you believe them, and call me silly, but I do). I don't have much problem with automated processes skimming my info for the ultimate purpose of showing me (supposedly) more relevant ads. I have much more of a problem with my info being sold to whoever is willing to pay, without my kn
Can people trust Google? An amoral, profit seeking business? That is the wrong question. The correct question is, can you trust anyone or any entity looking to make a profit off you either directly or indirectly?
The answer to this question is a resounding NO, and it keeps getting louder every day. In situations where money is involved, even indirectly, you are far better off assuming "they" are assholes looking to screw you over for every penny they can get. Unless you're one of the rich, assume you are an
As many of my fellow non-social networking users have related, the big issue with opting out of social networking all-together is that you become somewhat disconnected with your friends who do use social networking. You become "that stubourn guy who won't just make a damn account" and miss out on a lot of the "hey, anyone wanna go see <some movie>" type stuff.
Honestly I think this is a fairly cool use of social networking. Rather than call 10+ people to find out of they want to do something... you pos
That's stupid, anyone not calling me to see a movie and then saying "hey, I put the invite on facebook" is not a friend of mine. All I'm missing are a couple of funny videos and a fuckton of lame memes.
I think it's unfair to expect my friends to "keep me in the loop" when I'm the one stubourn guy who won't just "sign up for a damn account already" as they would put it. As it stands they do tend to call me if they are planning something.. but I kind of feel like the "difficult case" because of it.
One major difference between Google and facebook is that Google sells your eyeballs to advertisers, facebook sells your information.
Whether you think that makes a large ethical difference is up to you, but the practical implications are significant -- essentially, Google acts as a black box in between advertisers and users, which is a system I massively prefer. Facebook will literally sell your name and address.
But the reason that Google doesn't sell your info to advertising companies, because it is an advertizing company. Doing so would just be feeding their competition. If Facebook had purchased DoubleClick or some other large advertiser, they would be doing the same.
The difference is that it's easier for Google to promise a certain level of privacy and professionalism in terms of how that information is handled. They know exactly what's being done with it. So, if they screw up they screw up, and you know who screwed up. But with FB, who knows who it was that abused the information, could be anybody, you'd probably never know.
That doesn't necessarily make Google any better, but there is a certain amount of accountability that comes from being the only party that's handling the information.
I agree with this. Google might have a somewhat questionable business model, but as a company, I trust them a thousand times more than Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, or any other giant. Also, Google gives us more in exchange for this privacy invasion than any other giant.
"We believe when you create a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man."
Erm.. don't cars take away the work of walking in the first place? Do you really think that's a wise and deep quote? Because personally I think it's nuts.
you have a google account...and presumably a gmail address with contacts, but you have a problem with storing more contact information on gmail?
How is it evil to store your contacts in the contacts section of a web service that you already subscribe to? They don't use that information for anything...not even advertising.
The difference between Yahoo scanning emails and Google scanning them is that Google was pretty clear about the fact that it was ad revenue that provides the massive amount of space on Gmail, and that the scanning was supposed to bring product advertisements for things that you were actually interested in. Remember a day when you had to sit through feminine product commercials just to get back to the plot? Sure half the the audience of those ads might have had some reason to be interested in seeing them, but with targeted advertisement that number starts to approach 100%. I signed up for Gmail knowing that they were going to make their money by trying to find products to advertise based on automated evaluation of my email. I'm alright with that as long as I'm not emailing anything through Gmail that I'd be embarrassed about.
If you don't want your interests online, don't post them, don't email them and it may help to not even search for them. To reiterate, Google gets away with scanning email in Gmail, because they were pretty up front about it in their terms of service. Oh by the way, Gmail is SSL by default, all of it. G+ is also always SSL, by default. Facebook still doesn't have the login page SSL by default.
I don't get the technology community. It seems like google do what they want with you data they get away with it. Google+ doesn't do much more for your privacy than facebook or myspace. The other day people were up in arms about yahoo scanning emails but we all know google has been doing it for years, whats the difference?
This is where I see the difference between Facebook and Google (and folks are welcome to correct any misconceptions I have)
When I sign up for something on Facebook, it asks for permission to give all my information to whatever advertiser is sponsoring the widget (even if it's completely unnecessary for the game). In effect, they're selling my information (or inducing me to sell my information) to third-party advertisers.
When I sign up for something on Google, Google doesn't sell my details to the advertisers. Instead, it goes to the advertisers and says "you tell me who should see this ad, and we'll make sure those people are seeing it? 25-year old males who have an interest in technology and like the color orange? You got it".
I have far less objection to companies making money by giving me smart ads than I do to them selling my information wholesale.
I have provided the same answer; but on different grounds.
My online life is full enough already. I don't need yet another online tool which does something I'm not looking for right now. Not actively looking anyway.
So... Google+ is not something I need. If it comes my way, then fine, I'll take a look. If I'm invited to participate, fine, I'll take a look. I took a look at Wave when it popped out and I was NOT impressed. I foresee I'm not going to be impressed by Google+. Truth be told, I didn't bother find
I've got an fb account and I believe people don't give a crap about what I am thinking 15 times a day. I had a Twitter account, made a single post to declare I have made my last post. But I've heard they nuke accounts after inactivity... so I don't know if it still exists.
In any case, just don't post.
How about bludgeoned with a shovel, hog tied, stuffed in a car trunk, driven to the north woods, tied to a tree, soaked in gas for a couple of day (not ignited the chemical burns alone hurt like hell), then coated with honey and left for the bears to deal with? Is that bad enough?
Depends. If it kills Facebook and replaces it with yet another proprietary communication system, then I don't really care. If it kills Facebook and replaces it with an interoperable federated system, then that's great. Google has done some good work in that area before. I shut down my ICQ / AIM transport a few months ago because the last person I still knew who used either network had got a Google Talk account, so I can talk to all of my former ICQ and AIM contacts with XMPP from my own server.
Depends. If it kills Facebook and replaces it with yet another proprietary communication system, then I don't really care. If it kills Facebook and replaces it with an interoperable federated system, then that's great. Google has done some good work in that area before. I shut down my ICQ / AIM transport a few months ago because the last person I still knew who used either network had got a Google Talk account, so I can talk to all of my former ICQ and AIM contacts with XMPP from my own server.
I see your point and I agree with it. Still, killing facebook and replacing it would still be a boon. Facebook has nothing like data liberation. [google.com] At this point facebook explicitly forbids importing your data (connections, pages, etc.) into any other service. Google does not. If and when something better then G+ comes along, it would be easier to switch from G+ than it is now from facebook.
Facebook's "data liberation" doesn't include your social circle. They've explicitly scrubbed that information to prevent you from building a contact list of friends on an external social network.
For me it's the seemingly completely random way in which facebook changes the defaults without notifying the users. Every time they come out with a new feature or a slightly modified UI, they do so with complete disregard for the user's privacy. If I got a simple email notifying me of an oncoming change then I would be happy. I've heard from facebook apps developers that facebook treats them the same way. They constantly change their API without notification or giving the devs a chance to test, and it u
As far as i can see, it's like a cross between Twitter and MySpace. Twitter because you get a stream of people's dribble. MySpace because it doesn't work properly.
I don't agree with the categories - "great", "OK" and "lame". Facebook doesn't suck because social networking is lame, nor because Facebook does it particularly bad, but because of the way it is implemented. The privacy issues, the lack of data export, the lack of data federation, etc. So yes, Facebook sucks because it is a good thing. Google+ is better at half of those things, and in comparison, it is definitely "OK", but it's still not there. It's not OK, but not because it's lame, quite the contrary - be
>>Facebook doesn't suck because social networking is lame, nor because Facebook does it particularly bad, but because of the way it is implemented. The privacy issues, the lack of data export, the lack of data federation, etc
Mainly, for me, Facebook is lame because of the model they use with 3rd party apps. For some reason, even something innocuous like the History Channel Quiz app requires granting it the right to all of your personal data, all of your contacts, and the hand of your firstborn daughte
Care to elaborate on that one, Sport? I've been using it for a few days now (with two profiles even!), and I have yet to run across anything on the G+ site that doesn't work.
I haven't really looked at G+, but my problem with this and Google Wave, is that it is too closely associated with my email.
I don't want people knowing I'm online whenever I'm checking my email. I don't want IM conversations recorded for all eternity. I don't want everyone I've ever emailed to now be my "GooglePlus" friend.
I treat email as a completely separate entity to IM. It's where there's no immense pressure for a timely reply, no acknowledgement to the other party that you got the email and ignored it, and I have the ability to think twice about what is written! It is my sanctuary to the pressure of work and home - in my job (and at home) I have to communicate with people all day! I like getting email, reading it, perhaps replying, all in my own time. I quite like the limitations that email has in terms of communication - it's a sweet spot for the way I think/write - not too formal, but not always in the mood!
I'll ignore Google+, and I'll be pissed off if Google decides to automatically add it to Gmail.
#1 - You can set yourself to invisible, and read email in peace. I do it all the time. Google Talk is already integrated into Gmail, so not sure what you're complaining about might change? It's already there, lol! And it has been for quite a while. #2 - You're probably going to be disappointed, because it is already integrated, just like the login is already uniform across all services.
"I quite like the limitations that email has in terms of communication" - You're a minority. I sympathize, but I learned a long time ago... as much as I hated MySpace, if I wanted to be visible in tech at all, I'd better learn to think as a perpetual 21 year old who always is into the latest thing and not go grumbling about IRC being the best protocol ever created and poo-pooing the demise of Usenet as a happening place to be.
...for the bugs to get squashed, and for any bad privacy issues to get resolved. Maybe I'll join in 6 months. Also, I don't know how I feel about giving Google even more access to my private information... though who am I kidding, they probably know it all anyway.
I believe that the greatest benefits of computer technology relate to social networking...
However...
I think that centralised services like - erm - all the social networks - are, on balance, a terrible idea - both for participants and for society as a whole.
In an information age, one's knowledge (and an important part of this is the social connections one makes) is the ultimate asset. It needs to be maintained carefully in order for it to present mutually beneficial outcomes. If this information is shared
distributed, mobile, system - where people actually make stronger connections with other people
I believe occupational interactions, hobbyist pursuits, academic endeavors, and the neighborhood bar all meet your "stronger connections" requirement. Unfortunately, online space is severely limited by the short list of things that are possible to do within online space (video games and post videos/pictures/words). The one thing social networks excel at is inviting people to events that you want to organize in the real world.
Just because one is not on Facebook does not mean one wants to be on Google+.
Who cares where the Social Media stuff is from, if you're a privacy junkie, you likely don't want to be on any social media site and you're probably not on/. either.
I think it shows that we're getting old. I voted for the first option, btw. Got it, love it. I follow all the big tech names in one place, can post publicly like twitter, and share photos privately to family (which was my ONLY use of Facebook).
And... that's pretty much exactly what I wanted out of social networks. Hangouts are cool, and I think its a quantum leap forward. But honestly, I'm dumping everything else and just using this. I'm using the Google+ app, and avoiding any 3rd party apps (sorry Se
Goodbye annoying "Suzy needs more pigs!" Farmville notices! Goodbye random astrology updates from people I barely know but was too polite to reject cause I couldn't put you off in your own little "don't care about you" circle!
You could put them in a an "I don't care about you" list. It wasn't a circle, but it still accomplishes a lot of the "friends who share nothing".
I think that's why they put in the Incoming category, for people we just don't need to follow daily, like ignoring people on Twitter and not following back. I also put those "special" people who I feel obligated to follow, but who I don't really want to talk to into a circle, just so they get a bit more than public, but not enough to comment in their annoying ways to every post I make.;)
Feel free to block it. Can I ask that you block ESPN* as well? I can't believe ESPN more important than, well pretty much any other blocked site out there. Oh, and since we have Dell servers, can you unblock the Dell sites?
It's definitely better than Facebook in terms of putting people in control of how they share their data, however there is still a huge G+ deal breaker for me, at least in its current form.
So, you can make the lists of people who are in your circles, and the list of people who have you in their circles, not being publicly viewable from your profile. However, since other people will probably have those lists visible on their profiles anyway, and you have no control over those, anyone with a little time on the
To get the criticism out of the way, Google claims that people cannot see what Circle you put them in. As of today, that is false. So like all Google products, this one is not quite there yet.
Where I think G+ will shine is with circles. As it stands on Facebook, anything I post gets broadcast to everyone. All of my friends might not like my politics, so I hesitate to post that. All of my friends might not care about my WoW raid loot from last weekend, so I probably won't post that. Etc.
Google+ over Facebook any day. There's a reason I closed down my Facebook profile two months ago and still opened a Google+ profile earlier this week.
If you want two main reasons, here they are: Data Liberation - I can take my data and go play somewhere else if I want to. I don't lose it all if I ever choose to leave Google+. That's the kind of a trusted relationship that I want to have with companies. If I trust you with my data, trust me enough to give it back to me in a convenient form. If you don't trust me, why should I trust you?
Circles and Asymetrical Relationships - the Facebook concept of "friends" has always bugged me, long before I ever signed up there. I don't have many friends. I have a lot of people I know, family members, people I share a hobby with, people I find interesting - Circles captures that much better. And I don't have to become your friend just because you want to follow my postings, that's cool too.
But Google+ is not perfect. It's still missing quite a few features that I want: Limited Profiles - I want to be able to add notes to the people in my circles. I've outlined my thoughts on that on my blog [lemuria.org].
Incoming - this is way too open. Random people can decide that they want to send me stuff and it gets added until I block them. How is this not a new spam channel?
in the same sense configurable stream - I don't want to block users, I want to block whole circles for broadcasts only. I have circles of people whose daily musings I don't care about. I just want to stay in contact for a specific topic. So I don't want to read their "all circles" or "extended circles" postings, but if they post to a specific circle I'm in - i.e. their equivalent to the topical circle I've put them in - then I want to see it. This could maybe be solved by having public circles, like groups in Facebook, where people can join based on shared interests, etc.
No hierarchy or ordering in circles - If you want to properly sort people and have many of them, you will need too many circles for it to stay clean. I'd like a simple hierarchy, e.g. being able to define sub-circles. Say a circle "online friends" with sub-circles for the various games, forums, dev teams, etc. I'm involved with. So I can collapse that away when I'm writing about some offline activity, single them out individually by topic, but also send to the top-level "online friends" circle when I want to post a notice that I'm away without Internet for a week.
So in sum, it's a pretty good start, definitely better than Facebook already, and if they listen a little and work on improving it, I see much potential.
facebook is miles better than g+. g+ is just another me too social network. almost every feature is identical to fb, and video chat in fb is much better because skype does it.
Care to point out where I can extract my photos from facebook in one click (download a single zip file)? Care to point how to export my facebook profile data in a standard and open - json - format? Where can I download my connections and contact information? Where can I download my posts and store it locally? All one click of course. G+ does that [google.com], and much more.
Circles run circles around group management in facebook, and I already have skype, but skype doesn't do what Hangout does. Besides, Skype is owned by Microsoft now - not really future proof for people using alternative operating systems. Hangout uses open protocols, and it's much, much cooler than Skype in many ways.
fb has had one-click download of all your data for months now. i agree circles is better than fb chat groups. hangout video just sucks. i dunno if its just me but it's really slow and low quality. otoh, fb video is very high quality and overall it was a much more seamless experience. also, i'd rather split up my browsing habits etc between google and fb, and not give everything to google alone. its true! if i start using g+, google gets all the data it can on me: gmail, search, docs, and now all of my social n
fb has had one-click download of all your data for months now. i agree circles is better than fb chat groups. hangout video just sucks. i dunno if its just me but it's really slow and low quality. otoh, fb video is very high quality and overall it was a much more seamless experience. also, i'd rather split up my browsing habits etc between google and fb, and not give everything to google alone. its true! if i start using g+, google gets all the data it can on me: gmail, search, docs, and now all of my social network posts too!
fb has had one-click download of all your data for months now. i agree circles is better than fb chat groups. hangout video just sucks. i dunno if its just me but it's really slow and low quality. otoh, fb video is very high quality and overall it was a much more seamless experience. also, i'd rather split up my browsing habits etc between google and fb, and not give everything to google alone. its true! if i start using g+, google gets all the data it can on me: gmail, search, docs, and now all of my social network posts too!
Facebook has had one-click export of/some/ of your data for months now. It does not include important information like email addresses, however. G+ allows export of ALL data, every bit.
yes, this is correct. although you CAN setup the news feed in fb to show posts only from specific people or even people who you interact most with, but it gets cluttered with all the stupid apps your friends keep using.
No, no and no. That is NOT a killer feature, that is "improved version of others' features". I kindof hope they will show up with something cooler asap...
To me the killer feature is the asymmetric relationships (a-la Twitter).
The difference to Twitter is that the posts are much richer (a-la Facebook) since they can contain much more information. This transforms G+ into, essentially, a blog framework where people can follow you. Kind of like using an RSS reader for people who don't know what RSS even means. It's good for readers since your posts will show up in their normal feed, and for authors since they can have an idea on who their audience is.
What new thing did they bring with Chrome? It really was just another browser when it started. Now it's a really good one.
Google+ already has one thing over Facebook: you can choose quite easily who to share something with. One person, only friends, only family, all your circles, everybody, or anything in between. What I'd still like to see is some control over the type on content I get to see from my contacts.
Very often it is really public masturbation. As south park put it "Sometimes you have to wade through a lot of dicks" if I am remembering the quote correctly.
What people need instead is more time with real people.
Are you *insane*? The outside world is full of rapists, athiests and the unhealthy, who will corrupt your body and soul the moment you step outside your door! Stay inside and stay tuned to Fox News, or else risk Losing Everything You Hold Dear!
Some things don't work well in Mobile Google+ so far
Like mobile photo uploads. My g/f has a Samsung Galaxy S. She has uploaded photos from her phone to G+. The phone seems to think that they are there. G+ on the other hand does not agree.
People think google are different. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't get the technology community. It seems like google do what they want with you data they get away with it. Google+ doesn't do much more for your privacy than facebook or myspace. The other day people were up in arms about yahoo scanning emails but we all know google has been doing it for years, whats the difference?
Re:People think google are different. (Score:4, Funny)
Facebook, Myspace and Google+ are all for exhibitionists, and they aren't really creative. Of course - the real exhibitionists ends up at 4chan.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook, Myspace and Google+ (and so on) are for people who don't have a good concept of what is being done with their information.
Or who are realistic about the trade... (Score:4, Insightful)
...or who are realistic about the trade off involved....
Re: (Score:3)
I'm plenty social where it counts...."meatspace".
I like my privacy...trying to hold onto as much of it as I can...and don't want to voluntarily give so much of it up for what I perceive as less that an equitable return for that information.
Everyone that I want to know, I know and we both know how to interact with each other...email, phone, txt and yes...even snail mail still works (heck, a hand written letter or even a card these days
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Whereas on Facebook/Google+ you submit every thought you have? None of these services can obtain your information without you submitting it in the first place.
I hear some saying that someone else can submit information about you to a social networking site. However, in that case, you never had control of the information to begin with. The existence of Facebook/Google+ changes nothing.
Re:People think google are different. (Score:5, Insightful)
One major difference between Google and facebook is that Google sells your eyeballs to advertisers, facebook sells your information.
Whether you think that makes a large ethical difference is up to you, but the practical implications are significant -- essentially, Google acts as a black box in between advertisers and users, which is a system I massively prefer. Facebook will literally sell your name and address. I think that this is a significant improvement.
Of course, the other point is the question of trust. Can people trust Google? Maybe. I do, but I'm very careful about it, and I believe a lot of other people are too. The moment they start locking down services or locking in users, or the moment I actually find them doing something 'evil' (and no, accidentally leaving Kismet on a default setting does not count) I'm leaving them completely. Facebook, however, I don't trust at all with anything. That's trickier, since I live in a different city from where I grew up and a lot of my friends still live, and frankly facebook is in common usage, but then it's a trade off. I definitely don't put anything on facebook that I wouldn't say on national TV.
Another reason Google is in my good books, at least, is because they look at the long term. They want more people browsing the web as a general business goal, so they develop an awesome browser -- not necessarily to win the browser wars, but to make all browsers better. Then they also make it open source. Then they build driverless cars. Then they provide the best free mapping system in the world. Then they add satellite / overhead imagery to it.
Google might not be perfect, but they're by far the best multinational corporation I've ever come across.
Re:People think google are different. (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, the other point is the question of trust. Can people trust Google?
This is kind of my issue. A few years ago google+ would have been just enough to push me into the whole social networking thing. As others have joked, it's a facebook that's not facebook. At present though, I no longer have that kind of semi-blind trust of google that I once did.
Don't get me wrong, I still think that stacked against all the other big players, google comes out looking pretty good. They are however no longer spotless. They are big and established and making a metric ass-tonne of money, and now have the requisite amount of bad press, pseudo-evilness, and people that just plain don't like them because they are big that comes with it.
If I had to choose between google+ and facebook there would be no contest... but I don't really know if I want either yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I"m trying to figure this statement out. I know Facebook is a social network website. So, what does it mean to say a 'facebook' that is not a Facebook? Are you saying facebook is a thing...that means something other than the socializing website?
Re: (Score:3)
It provides much of the same feature set as Facebook the social network website while not being run by Facebook(, Inc) the corporation.
Not the best way to put it grammatically I guess. Randall of xkcd does a better job expressing this sentiment [xkcd.com].
Also worth noting, a facebook actually is a thing [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice, and yeah, like many others I had that exact thought.
On Google's side though, the big difference between Google and Facebook is that Facebook directly sells your information for profit, whereas Google keeps it internal (if you believe them, and call me silly, but I do). I don't have much problem with automated processes skimming my info for the ultimate purpose of showing me (supposedly) more relevant ads. I have much more of a problem with my info being sold to whoever is willing to pay, without my kn
Re: (Score:3)
Can people trust Google? An amoral, profit seeking business? That is the wrong question. The correct question is, can you trust anyone or any entity looking to make a profit off you either directly or indirectly?
The answer to this question is a resounding NO, and it keeps getting louder every day. In situations where money is involved, even indirectly, you are far better off assuming "they" are assholes looking to screw you over for every penny they can get. Unless you're one of the rich, assume you are an
Re: (Score:2)
As many of my fellow non-social networking users have related, the big issue with opting out of social networking all-together is that you become somewhat disconnected with your friends who do use social networking. You become "that stubourn guy who won't just make a damn account" and miss out on a lot of the "hey, anyone wanna go see <some movie>" type stuff.
Honestly I think this is a fairly cool use of social networking. Rather than call 10+ people to find out of they want to do something... you pos
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's unfair to expect my friends to "keep me in the loop" when I'm the one stubourn guy who won't just "sign up for a damn account already" as they would put it. As it stands they do tend to call me if they are planning something .. but I kind of feel like the "difficult case" because of it.
Re:People think google are different. (Score:4, Informative)
One major difference between Google and facebook is that Google sells your eyeballs to advertisers, facebook sells your information.
Whether you think that makes a large ethical difference is up to you, but the practical implications are significant -- essentially, Google acts as a black box in between advertisers and users, which is a system I massively prefer. Facebook will literally sell your name and address.
But the reason that Google doesn't sell your info to advertising companies, because it is an advertizing company. Doing so would just be feeding their competition. If Facebook had purchased DoubleClick or some other large advertiser, they would be doing the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:People think google are different. (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference is that it's easier for Google to promise a certain level of privacy and professionalism in terms of how that information is handled. They know exactly what's being done with it. So, if they screw up they screw up, and you know who screwed up. But with FB, who knows who it was that abused the information, could be anybody, you'd probably never know.
That doesn't necessarily make Google any better, but there is a certain amount of accountability that comes from being the only party that's handling the information.
Re:People think google are different. (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with this. Google might have a somewhat questionable business model, but as a company, I trust them a thousand times more than Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, or any other giant. Also, Google gives us more in exchange for this privacy invasion than any other giant.
Re: (Score:3)
"We believe when you create a machine to do the work of a man, you take something away from the man."
Erm.. don't cars take away the work of walking in the first place? Do you really think that's a wise and deep quote? Because personally I think it's nuts.
Re:People think google are different. (Score:4, Insightful)
you have a google account...and presumably a gmail address with contacts, but you have a problem with storing more contact information on gmail?
How is it evil to store your contacts in the contacts section of a web service that you already subscribe to? They don't use that information for anything...not even advertising.
Re:People think google are different. (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't want your interests online, don't post them, don't email them and it may help to not even search for them. To reiterate, Google gets away with scanning email in Gmail, because they were pretty up front about it in their terms of service. Oh by the way, Gmail is SSL by default, all of it. G+ is also always SSL, by default. Facebook still doesn't have the login page SSL by default.
Re:People think google are different. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get the technology community. It seems like google do what they want with you data they get away with it. Google+ doesn't do much more for your privacy than facebook or myspace. The other day people were up in arms about yahoo scanning emails but we all know google has been doing it for years, whats the difference?
This is where I see the difference between Facebook and Google (and folks are welcome to correct any misconceptions I have)
When I sign up for something on Facebook, it asks for permission to give all my information to whatever advertiser is sponsoring the widget (even if it's completely unnecessary for the game). In effect, they're selling my information (or inducing me to sell my information) to third-party advertisers.
When I sign up for something on Google, Google doesn't sell my details to the advertisers. Instead, it goes to the advertisers and says "you tell me who should see this ad, and we'll make sure those people are seeing it? 25-year old males who have an interest in technology and like the color orange? You got it".
I have far less objection to companies making money by giving me smart ads than I do to them selling my information wholesale.
Keep it. (Score:2, Insightful)
And Facebook too.
I guess I'm just not vain enough to believe that people give a crap what i'm thinking 15 times a day.
Re: (Score:2)
My online life is full enough already. I don't need yet another online tool which does something I'm not looking for right now. Not actively looking anyway.
So... Google+ is not something I need. If it comes my way, then fine, I'll take a look. If I'm invited to participate, fine, I'll take a look. I took a look at Wave when it popped out and I was NOT impressed. I foresee I'm not going to be impressed by Google+. Truth be told, I didn't bother find
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Keep it. (Score:4, Funny)
If it kills Facebook, then I like it
Facebook deserves far worse than merely being killed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
That's how chocolate milk got invented.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like your average college mixer to me.
As Conan said (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Keep it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends. If it kills Facebook and replaces it with yet another proprietary communication system, then I don't really care. If it kills Facebook and replaces it with an interoperable federated system, then that's great. Google has done some good work in that area before. I shut down my ICQ / AIM transport a few months ago because the last person I still knew who used either network had got a Google Talk account, so I can talk to all of my former ICQ and AIM contacts with XMPP from my own server.
I see your point and I agree with it. Still, killing facebook and replacing it would still be a boon. Facebook has nothing like data liberation. [google.com] At this point facebook explicitly forbids importing your data (connections, pages, etc.) into any other service. Google does not. If and when something better then G+ comes along, it would be easier to switch from G+ than it is now from facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
They "forbid" me from using MY data? Good luck to them in enforcing that.
As for data liberation:
1. Log in on Facebook.
2. Under the "Account" tab, select "Account Settings"
3. Click on "Download Your Information"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - Not sure (Score:2)
Yes - took a glimpse, not interested in that thing much. Maybe when they open it to everyone.
Lame (Score:5, Funny)
As far as i can see, it's like a cross between Twitter and MySpace. Twitter because you get a stream of people's dribble. MySpace because it doesn't work properly.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't agree with the categories - "great", "OK" and "lame". Facebook doesn't suck because social networking is lame, nor because Facebook does it particularly bad, but because of the way it is implemented. The privacy issues, the lack of data export, the lack of data federation, etc. So yes, Facebook sucks because it is a good thing. Google+ is better at half of those things, and in comparison, it is definitely "OK", but it's still not there. It's not OK, but not because it's lame, quite the contrary - be
Re: (Score:2)
What?!?
Re: (Score:3)
>>Facebook doesn't suck because social networking is lame, nor because Facebook does it particularly bad, but because of the way it is implemented. The privacy issues, the lack of data export, the lack of data federation, etc
Mainly, for me, Facebook is lame because of the model they use with 3rd party apps. For some reason, even something innocuous like the History Channel Quiz app requires granting it the right to all of your personal data, all of your contacts, and the hand of your firstborn daughte
Re: (Score:2)
MySpace because it doesn't work properly.
Care to elaborate on that one, Sport? I've been using it for a few days now (with two profiles even!), and I have yet to run across anything on the G+ site that doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were talking about the poll.
Can we go back to /. polls that aren't market research?
Keep your hands off my email! (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't really looked at G+, but my problem with this and Google Wave, is that it is too closely associated with my email.
I don't want people knowing I'm online whenever I'm checking my email. I don't want IM conversations recorded for all eternity. I don't want everyone I've ever emailed to now be my "GooglePlus" friend.
I treat email as a completely separate entity to IM. It's where there's no immense pressure for a timely reply, no acknowledgement to the other party that you got the email and ignored it, and I have the ability to think twice about what is written! It is my sanctuary to the pressure of work and home - in my job (and at home) I have to communicate with people all day! I like getting email, reading it, perhaps replying, all in my own time. I quite like the limitations that email has in terms of communication - it's a sweet spot for the way I think/write - not too formal, but not always in the mood!
I'll ignore Google+, and I'll be pissed off if Google decides to automatically add it to Gmail.
Re:Keep your hands off my email! (Score:5, Insightful)
#1 - You can set yourself to invisible, and read email in peace. I do it all the time. Google Talk is already integrated into Gmail, so not sure what you're complaining about might change? It's already there, lol! And it has been for quite a while.
#2 - You're probably going to be disappointed, because it is already integrated, just like the login is already uniform across all services.
"I quite like the limitations that email has in terms of communication" - You're a minority. I sympathize, but I learned a long time ago... as much as I hated MySpace, if I wanted to be visible in tech at all, I'd better learn to think as a perpetual 21 year old who always is into the latest thing and not go grumbling about IRC being the best protocol ever created and poo-pooing the demise of Usenet as a happening place to be.
Re: (Score:2)
How about making new Google accounts?
Waiting... (Score:2)
Social networking. (Score:2)
I believe that the greatest benefits of computer technology relate to social networking...
However...
I think that centralised services like - erm - all the social networks - are, on balance, a terrible idea - both for participants and for society as a whole.
In an information age, one's knowledge (and an important part of this is the social connections one makes) is the ultimate asset. It needs to be maintained carefully in order for it to present mutually beneficial outcomes. If this information is shared
Re: (Score:2)
distributed, mobile, system - where people actually make stronger connections with other people
I believe occupational interactions, hobbyist pursuits, academic endeavors, and the neighborhood bar all meet your "stronger connections" requirement. Unfortunately, online space is severely limited by the short list of things that are possible to do within online space (video games and post videos/pictures/words). The one thing social networks excel at is inviting people to events that you want to organize in the real world.
No Social Media no matter the source (Score:2)
Just because one is not on Facebook does not mean one wants to be on Google+.
Who cares where the Social Media stuff is from, if you're a privacy junkie, you likely don't want to be on any social media site and you're probably not on /. either.
LOL@Get off my lawn sentiment (Score:2)
I think it shows that we're getting old. I voted for the first option, btw. Got it, love it. I follow all the big tech names in one place, can post publicly like twitter, and share photos privately to family (which was my ONLY use of Facebook).
And... that's pretty much exactly what I wanted out of social networks. Hangouts are cool, and I think its a quantum leap forward. But honestly, I'm dumping everything else and just using this. I'm using the Google+ app, and avoiding any 3rd party apps (sorry Se
Re: (Score:2)
You could put them in a an "I don't care about you" list. It wasn't a circle, but it still accomplishes a lot of the "friends who share nothing".
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's why they put in the Incoming category, for people we just don't need to follow daily, like ignoring people on Twitter and not following back. I also put those "special" people who I feel obligated to follow, but who I don't really want to talk to into a circle, just so they get a bit more than public, but not enough to comment in their annoying ways to every post I make. ;)
Fuck social networks (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Work doesn't block it yet (Score:2)
So it can't be all bad :)
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, they must not have updated our Blue Coat data yet as I can still get in.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to block it. Can I ask that you block ESPN* as well? I can't believe ESPN more important than, well pretty much any other blocked site out there. Oh, and since we have Dell servers, can you unblock the Dell sites?
Thanks.
[John]
Fishing for an invite (Score:2)
Please send me an invite at sshscp {at} gmail {.} com thanks!!
Looking for an invite (Score:2)
Could a kind soul please send an invite to slashdotparent {at} hotmail {.} com?
Thanks!
can I haz invite plz? (Score:2)
so (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deal breaker... (Score:2)
It's definitely better than Facebook in terms of putting people in control of how they share their data, however there is still a huge G+ deal breaker for me, at least in its current form.
So, you can make the lists of people who are in your circles, and the list of people who have you in their circles, not being publicly viewable from your profile. However, since other people will probably have those lists visible on their profiles anyway, and you have no control over those, anyone with a little time on the
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, Circle names are never shown.
Invite please :) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea of Circles (Score:2)
To get the criticism out of the way, Google claims that people cannot see what Circle you put them in. As of today, that is false. So like all Google products, this one is not quite there yet.
Where I think G+ will shine is with circles. As it stands on Facebook, anything I post gets broadcast to everyone. All of my friends might not like my politics, so I hesitate to post that. All of my friends might not care about my WoW raid loot from last weekend, so I probably won't post that. Etc.
With Circles, I
Re: (Score:2)
For fucks sake. I dislike Facebook a lot. But even I recognize it has had this feature for over two years now with the ability to add people to lists.
No Facebook, yes Google + (Score:5, Insightful)
Great start, still missing stuff. (Score:3)
Google+ over Facebook any day. There's a reason I closed down my Facebook profile two months ago and still opened a Google+ profile earlier this week.
If you want two main reasons, here they are:
Data Liberation - I can take my data and go play somewhere else if I want to. I don't lose it all if I ever choose to leave Google+. That's the kind of a trusted relationship that I want to have with companies. If I trust you with my data, trust me enough to give it back to me in a convenient form. If you don't trust me, why should I trust you?
Circles and Asymetrical Relationships - the Facebook concept of "friends" has always bugged me, long before I ever signed up there. I don't have many friends. I have a lot of people I know, family members, people I share a hobby with, people I find interesting - Circles captures that much better. And I don't have to become your friend just because you want to follow my postings, that's cool too.
But Google+ is not perfect. It's still missing quite a few features that I want:
Limited Profiles - I want to be able to add notes to the people in my circles. I've outlined my thoughts on that on my blog [lemuria.org].
Incoming - this is way too open. Random people can decide that they want to send me stuff and it gets added until I block them. How is this not a new spam channel?
in the same sense configurable stream - I don't want to block users, I want to block whole circles for broadcasts only. I have circles of people whose daily musings I don't care about. I just want to stay in contact for a specific topic. So I don't want to read their "all circles" or "extended circles" postings, but if they post to a specific circle I'm in - i.e. their equivalent to the topical circle I've put them in - then I want to see it.
This could maybe be solved by having public circles, like groups in Facebook, where people can join based on shared interests, etc.
No hierarchy or ordering in circles - If you want to properly sort people and have many of them, you will need too many circles for it to stay clean. I'd like a simple hierarchy, e.g. being able to define sub-circles. Say a circle "online friends" with sub-circles for the various games, forums, dev teams, etc. I'm involved with. So I can collapse that away when I'm writing about some offline activity, single them out individually by topic, but also send to the top-level "online friends" circle when I want to post a notice that I'm away without Internet for a week.
So in sum, it's a pretty good start, definitely better than Facebook already, and if they listen a little and work on improving it, I see much potential.
Re:First post = Google+ invite? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, no worries. I just sent one to anonymous.coward@slashdot.org .
Re: (Score:2)
*in my best hooker voice*
Got any more of those handsome?
Re: (Score:2)
Then tell the dickheads to untick the "also email [....] people not using google+" button when they post!
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you can also opt out of those emails without having a Google+ account. A friend has an email-only contact with emailing disabled.
Re:facebookg+ (Score:5, Interesting)
facebook is miles better than g+. g+ is just another me too social network. almost every feature is identical to fb, and video chat in fb is much better because skype does it.
Care to point out where I can extract my photos from facebook in one click (download a single zip file)? Care to point how to export my facebook profile data in a standard and open - json - format? Where can I download my connections and contact information? Where can I download my posts and store it locally? All one click of course. G+ does that [google.com], and much more.
Circles run circles around group management in facebook, and I already have skype, but skype doesn't do what Hangout does. Besides, Skype is owned by Microsoft now - not really future proof for people using alternative operating systems. Hangout uses open protocols, and it's much, much cooler than Skype in many ways.
Re: (Score:2)
fb has had one-click download of all your data for months now.
i agree circles is better than fb chat groups.
hangout video just sucks. i dunno if its just me but it's really slow and low quality. otoh, fb video is very high quality and overall it was a much more seamless experience.
also, i'd rather split up my browsing habits etc between google and fb, and not give everything to google alone. its true! if i start using g+, google gets all the data it can on me: gmail, search, docs, and now all of my social n
Re: (Score:2)
fb has had one-click download of all your data for months now.
i agree circles is better than fb chat groups.
hangout video just sucks. i dunno if its just me but it's really slow and low quality. otoh, fb video is very high quality and overall it was a much more seamless experience.
also, i'd rather split up my browsing habits etc between google and fb, and not give everything to google alone. its true! if i start using g+, google gets all the data it can on me: gmail, search, docs, and now all of my social network posts too!
fb has had one-click download of all your data for months now.
i agree circles is better than fb chat groups.
hangout video just sucks. i dunno if its just me but it's really slow and low quality. otoh, fb video is very high quality and overall it was a much more seamless experience.
also, i'd rather split up my browsing habits etc between google and fb, and not give everything to google alone. its true! if i start using g+, google gets all the data it can on me: gmail, search, docs, and now all of my social network posts too!
Facebook has had one-click export of /some/ of your data for months now. It does not include important information like email addresses, however. G+ allows export of ALL data, every bit.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, this is correct. although you CAN setup the news feed in fb to show posts only from specific people or even people who you interact most with, but it gets cluttered with all the stupid apps your friends keep using.
Re: (Score:2)
they brought something new with chrome, and with every other successful product. what is that 'killer' feature in g+?
Re:facebookg+ (Score:5, Insightful)
#1 - the biggie - IT'S NOT FACEBOOK!
#2 - circles - share stuff with people you've put into different circles rather than with everyone|friends|friends of friends.
#3 - circles again - view posts from all your circles or just one - say, all your slashdot friends.
#4 - privacy settings - a lot more control than failbook
#5 - already a much better interface. None of this "wall" crapola;.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no and no. That is NOT a killer feature, that is "improved version of others' features". I kindof hope they will show up with something cooler asap...
Re:facebookg+ (Score:5, Interesting)
To me the killer feature is the asymmetric relationships (a-la Twitter).
The difference to Twitter is that the posts are much richer (a-la Facebook) since they can contain much more information.
This transforms G+ into, essentially, a blog framework where people can follow you. Kind of like using an RSS reader for people who don't know what RSS even means.
It's good for readers since your posts will show up in their normal feed, and for authors since they can have an idea on who their audience is.
Re: (Score:2)
What new thing did they bring with Chrome? It really was just another browser when it started. Now it's a really good one.
Google+ already has one thing over Facebook: you can choose quite easily who to share something with. One person, only friends, only family, all your circles, everybody, or anything in between. What I'd still like to see is some control over the type on content I get to see from my contacts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just created an Unwashed Underwear circle and put AC in it.
Solved!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
54. I do use it to keep up with family but don't post every bowel movement either. Moderation in all things.
[John]
Re: (Score:3)
What people need instead is more time with real people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What people need instead is more time with real people.
Are you *insane*? The outside world is full of rapists, athiests and the unhealthy, who will corrupt your body and soul the moment you step outside your door! Stay inside and stay tuned to Fox News, or else risk Losing Everything You Hold Dear!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I have one too? tgypoi@ the mail site where all the g's hang out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some things don't work well in Mobile Google+ so far
Like mobile photo uploads. My g/f has a Samsung Galaxy S. She has uploaded photos from her phone to G+. The phone seems to think that they are there. G+ on the other hand does not agree.