Comment Re:The issue is a change in semantics (Score 1) 313
Its a shame that the /. article is colored by hyperbole, because the nut of google's screwup here is worth paying attention to. Google Reader had an excellent "share" function prior to this new feature which encouraged users to provide friends/colleagues with an obfuscated URL or feed of any posts the user selected to share. The user was warned explicitly to only share that URL selectively if they wanted to keep their shares private.
The new feature automatically took what users had previously been sharing selectively and broadcasted it to "friends" concocted from gmail contacts - where "friends" equates to anyone the user chatted with or exchanged x number of emails with. Many of these friends might include ex-employers, relatives, strangers from mailing lists, people you had flamewars with, or others whom you might not wish to share with. The only way to "un-friend" those people is to find and delete them in gmail (though often the share name doesn't match up) or delete all previously shared posts and discontinue sharing. For some "power users" of the old sharing regime this has created some awkward situations and necessitated a great deal of troubleshooting. Google's tone deaf response so far to legitimate user issues accounts for some of the anger and hyperbole in that thread.
Google seems to be bootstrapping its existing services into a new social network by making broad assumptions about who your "friends" are and leaving users limited or oblique means of opting out.
I suspect many users of gmail have no desire to be automatically enrolled in a new social network whose only opt-out involves abandoning the original service. If this Reader tempest is an indication of how Google plans to charge ahead in the social networking space, gmail users should start considering migrating to a new service.
The new feature automatically took what users had previously been sharing selectively and broadcasted it to "friends" concocted from gmail contacts - where "friends" equates to anyone the user chatted with or exchanged x number of emails with. Many of these friends might include ex-employers, relatives, strangers from mailing lists, people you had flamewars with, or others whom you might not wish to share with. The only way to "un-friend" those people is to find and delete them in gmail (though often the share name doesn't match up) or delete all previously shared posts and discontinue sharing. For some "power users" of the old sharing regime this has created some awkward situations and necessitated a great deal of troubleshooting. Google's tone deaf response so far to legitimate user issues accounts for some of the anger and hyperbole in that thread.
Google seems to be bootstrapping its existing services into a new social network by making broad assumptions about who your "friends" are and leaving users limited or oblique means of opting out.
I suspect many users of gmail have no desire to be automatically enrolled in a new social network whose only opt-out involves abandoning the original service. If this Reader tempest is an indication of how Google plans to charge ahead in the social networking space, gmail users should start considering migrating to a new service.
