

Why I don’t use Google+ (as a woman) - asarazan
http://marjarine.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/why-i-dont-use-google-as-a-woman/

======
casca
Good post. The problem is that the privacy needs of the users of social
networking sites are at odds with the commercial interests of the social
networking sites. Google is desperately trying to show that Google+ is
competing with Facebook so the more public the data is by default, the better.
Also, they see from Facebook that most people don't care about privacy.

The problem for Google+ is that people already have Facebook for their non-
geeky friends so it has become primary for tech people who care more about
these things. They could just try leverage that and stay more specialized, but
that's unlikely to happen.

~~~
asto
_The problem is that the privacy needs of the users of social networking sites
are at odds with the commercial interests of the social networking sites._

Not necessarily. If Google is looking at stuff I share on google+ to find out
more about me, I'm okay with it especially if they're targeting ads better. I
know there will always be ads on websites, might as well suffer ads that I am
more likely to be interested in.

 _The problem for Google+ is that people already have Facebook for their non-
geeky friends so it has become primary for tech people who care more about
these things._

Google+'s demographic is now like what Gmail's was long ago- Mostly geeky guys
who got beta invites and their geeky friends who got invites passed on. It
takes a while for things like email and social sites to propagate to a
majority of the internet population (because most people are heavily invested
in the predecessor)

------
sosuke
So her not using Google+ has much less to do with her being a woman and much
more to do with her job requiring little to no online presence.

~~~
asarazan
I'd argue that the two are pretty intrinsically linked. A dude can have
whatever job he wants, from no-account bus-boy, to middle-management, to
executive; and then publicly post whatever he feels like in the mean-time.
Hell it's even encouraged to a degree. Gives you "character".

The female equivalent of that is "uppity" or "headstrong"

~~~
res0nat0r
There have been plenty of men fired for saying idiotic or non-pc things on
Facebook or Twitter.

------
unreal37
I disagree with some of the generalities about women being judged and placed
into categories - and not men. Is she saying most men can say whatever they
want in public with no consequences while most women have to be very careful
what they say? Is that true? Or is it just perception?

I have a twitter account and a Facebook profile, and do not hide those things
from co-workers. I am fairly true to myself though, so nothing I say in FB or
twitter should surprise anyone who knows me. There will be no pictures posted
that can get me fired - partly because I don't act in private in a way that
will get me fired if my boss knew.

What kind of job requires you to have no online presence? Examples?

------
supercanuck
What is it with the gender related posts that brings out all the assholes on
HN?? So many people are falling over themselves to denigrate this person's
opinion.

------
anonymous
I'm a woman. I have a Facebook account and a journal. Both accounts are under
pseudonyms and at least the Facebook account is listed as male. I won't use
Google+. But I'll express myself all over the Internet. I have a right to say
whatever I want without worrying about being stalked by some ass who feels the
need to punish me for thinking without permission. My employer doesn't have a
right to know anything about what I do off hours. I retain, and will retain,
the expectation of my right to privacy, even as I take advantage of my right
to speak. The fact that an entity announces their intent to steal my private
information, does not deprive me of the expectation of my rights. It just
means that what I put where they can steal it will be of no value. It's not
like I can't have an online presence without Google+. This article is RIGHT
ON. Google+ IS screwing itself out of a large population of potential users ,
for these reasons, by these methods, and can take this valid feedback and...
do what they do with feedback.

------
webwanderings
Totally agree with this: ... "and not reality for most people that have jobs
that expect a particular level of professionalism that excludes an online
presence."

The work expects that you have to be your professional self on these social
networking sites as well, which is a total BS policy. The whole idea of being
one true authentic self everywhere you go, is bogus.

------
worldvoyageur
Like many people, I use google for search many times per day. The majority of
my searches throw up no ads and are reasonably private. Google seems fine to
recognize that and does very well monetizing the small number of searches of
interest to advertisers.

Why can't a social network become very profitable and operate in a similar
way?

This blog makes a compelling argument that being forced to use your real name
and a tendency for the system to default to 'public' is a big deterrent to
adoption. It's not about 'what do you have to hide?' but rather, 'if you don't
make me feel comfortable how my information will be used, then I won't give it
to you.'

At best, arguing with me that I should be comfortable, misses the point. I get
to decide whether I am comfortable or not.

Users like the author of this blog need to feel comfortable with how their
information is used if google+ is to succeed.

------
jrockway
I'm pretty sure you don't have to use your real name anymore, you only have to
use something "name-shaped".

[https://plus.google.com/103389452828130864950/posts/YJbzDptW...](https://plus.google.com/103389452828130864950/posts/YJbzDptWGQt)

You also need not select a gender.

The only thing that is problematic is that your friends will be confused ("who
is this Name Shaped person of gender Other with no pictures?").

At some point, it does make sense not to use social networking or be online at
all. But this is not unique to Google+; if you've paid Wordpress for an
account, I'm sure they'll cough up your name if I send them a DMCA notice or
something.

------
asto
Oh great! Another "Look at me, I'm a woman" post. I'm going to call her a
"stuck up bitch" in her wordpress comments and see if wordpress has some
magical powers to stop me from judging her in public.

Edit: Also, the reason I (and most others) use Google+ is that we get to know
a lot more people who share our interests on a global scale. The whole point
of the platform is to socialise. Sharing photos with just your friends (which
is primarily what FB is used for) isn't "socialising", it's "sharing photos
with your friends".

~~~
minimax
> I'm going to call her a "stuck up bitch" in her wordpress comments and see
> if wordpress has some magical powers to stop me from judging her in public.

I'd just like to point out regardless of your age, gender, nationality, et
cetera, that you're an asshole.

~~~
asarazan
Thank you!

The fact that this "Look I'm a woman" and "Stuck up bitch" crap has been
sitting here not getting downvoted (and even getting upvoted evidently), is a
glaring indictment of the HN community overall. This is the kind of malicious
shit people value, I guess.

~~~
asto
One guy makes an asshole comment. He gets a couple of votes. It's now "a
glaring indictment of the HN community overall". What were you saying about
generalisations again? Or does that apply only to women?

------
roopeshv
I think a more apt title would be "Why I don't need online presence"

with gist: I'm a woman and will be targeted for it. and my job doesn't require
me to, and is better avoided

------
shmerl
Switch to social networks which respect users' privacy. For example to
Diaspora. Facebook and Google+ can't be "fixed" in that regard. Just avoid
using them if you care.

~~~
asarazan
I honestly wish it were that simple (coming from a person who abandoned
twitter in favor of identi.ca).

Unfortunately without the commercial interests to drive the product forward,
it just generally doesn't work out.

That being said, I really hope Diaspora takes off.

------
Karunamon
Looks like this has a a lot less to do with gender and a lot more to do with
bad UI/UX coupled with a bit of ignorance on how G+ is set up.

~~~
asarazan
Bad UI/UX I'll go along with, but I'm not sure where the ignorance comes in.
She pretty perfectly stated the way privacy settings work in G+ and why
they're a problem.

~~~
Karunamon
By the 'ignorance' comment I meant:

 _It wasn’t until I tried to clamp down my privacy settings that I had a
moment of real panic. My full name, ‘scrapbook’ photos and profile were all
publicly searchable._

Social networking 101 nowadays is that you don't enter data until you've
figured out how to lock it down first.

------
pasbesoin
_Don't waste your money on another UI overhaul. I want to use your product,
but I will not sacrifice my privacy to do so_

That sums it up, for me.

Perhaps Google could turn things around, and accommodate privacy concerns
while _educating_ users as to their advantages. And leveraging their
advertising offers to promote to interests rather than to names and
incessantly tracked identities.

When I'm most interested in an item, is when I'm specifically reading about it
or its area. As opposed to being nagged about it for the next three months.

But then, like television ads, I suppose all that nagging works, in the
aggregate.

------
Muzza
Sigh. Because men are totally free from being judged.

~~~
asarazan
Totally different order of magnitude. Sorry dude.

------
drivebyacct2
So she didn't understand that she was commenting publicly? The universal
comment setting doesn't even make sense as the conversation would look
completely different based on who's in whose circles.

I don't understand how this is related to Google+. You can make comments on
Facebook that are more public than your wall, so I fail to understand what
this is G+ specific.

edit: posting in all bold text is about one degree of separation from posting
in all caps.

~~~
asarazan
She completely understood that she was commenting publicly. She stated quite
clearly that she has never posted a public comment on Google+, because she
knew the implications.

There are some nontrivial UI concerns in trying to merge non-public commenters
with public posts, I'll grant you that. However, it still doesn't change the
fact that the tool doesn't match up to the needs of a pretty broad demographic
(no pun intended).

~~~
drivebyacct2
But that aspect of it is the same as Facebook.

If you make a post and I comment on it, my comment is at the mercy of your
privacy settings. Facebook and G+ are both explicit about that.

Maybe I'm missing something? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I promise.

~~~
asarazan
I think it's just a difference in the way the two companies do "public".

Because Facebook hates Google, you're far less likely to see public posts turn
up in Google results.

Google, on the other hand, created their network for the sole purpose of
bolstering their search results. This leads to a much more adversarial
relationship with the service, where you have to constantly fight to keep
yourself out of the spotlight.

