
If you use Google+, you could become an ad next month - hypr_geek
http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/11/google-users-shared-endorsements-ads/
======
Alterlife
This actually doesn't seem terrible to me: If I published a public review on a
product, why should Google not auto-match this up to a search result?

That's the logical next step. It's what I'd expect from Google. I don't see
anything privacy breaking about it of it's own...

As long as the review was public, ofcourse -- or only being shown to those it
was published to.

That said, I just went ahead and opted-out of it because I don't know if it
means what I think it means... and I don't want Google publishing things that
I didn't say.

~~~
minikites
What if you publish a negative review of a restaurant? Now it's super easy for
them to find you and possibly harass you. What if you're in a marginalized
group? Now online harassment can move into real world harassment if you've
reviewed local places you enjoy.

Lots of people are harmed by a "real names" policy:
[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F)

~~~
cloudwalking
Why would Google show a negative review as an "endorsement"? If you rate a
restaurant 1 out of 5 stars, Google isn't going to show "Cloudwalking rated
this 1/5 stars!" in an ad.

~~~
spankalee
Actually, I would really hope they do. One of the principles behind Google's
ad systems is that they're useful for users and advertisers, that a good ad
can benefit everyone involved.

If they show me an ad for something that my friends have negatively reviewed,
I damn well want to see those negative reviews right along-side the ad.

Disclaimer: Googler

~~~
cloudwalking
Better yet, Google should not show ads for products that my friends rate
poorly...

~~~
spankalee
Good point.

I've always thought that ads that were reviewed, and could be reviewed very
negatively, would be an interesting check on scams and bad products. You
gladly take the advertisers money, but if people rate the ad poorly it's a
waste and possibly negative value. This might encourage good ads and ads for
good products.

------
haberman
So you write a public review of a business, and then you're upset because
Google shows people that review?

I really don't get it. What if your review was the first search result
instead? Isn't that the same thing?

If I search for a product on Amazon, it shows me the number of stars for each
product, and if I click on that it shows me excerpts of different people's
reviews. How is that any different?
[http://imgur.com/7FC2jfx](http://imgur.com/7FC2jfx)

~~~
millstone
Nowhere do the ToS limit this to "public reviews." The ToS say that ads may
display "your Profile name, Profile photo, and actions you take on Google or
on third-party applications connected to your Google Account."

"Actions you take on Google" is incredibly broad, and could be construed to
include your email activity, web searches, Google Checkout purchases, etc.
This is what concerns me: I can't say for certain which of my actions may show
up in ads. They claim that I can control these, but I can't find a way to
disable them without making a Google+ account.

[http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/](http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/)

~~~
StefanPatelski
"Actions you take on Google" is indeed frighteningly broad. But although I'm
not a legal expert, I think that the sentence you quoted has to be interpreted
in a different way when you consider the entire paragraph, which limits the
scope of that sentence.

"If you have a Google Account, we may display your Profile name, Profile
photo, and actions you take on Google or on third-party applications connected
to your Google Account (such as +1’s, reviews you write and comments you post)
in our Services, including displaying in ads and other commercial contexts. We
will respect the choices you make to limit sharing or visibility settings in
your Google Account."

I interpret that last sentence as "only things that are publicly shared by you
are subject to being displayed". I assume that means that email, privately
shared G+ posts, web searches, etc. are safe from becoming public. Although I
agree it's very vague.

------
geerlingguy
Disappointing.

Facebook's decision to use people in their ads, and also automatically
subscribe people to spam from Facebook Pages, has already made clicking the
Like button a 'heavy' action—meaning I have to think about it before doing it,
and most likely won't click nowadays.

Google Plus is the same now. I used to consider handing out a quick +1 to any
post I liked, or a cool site/service. But now, I have to think about whether I
would be okay with my profile being associated with whatever that
article/site/service is doing, and whatever they may do in the future.

I've already opted out, but I've now lost my trust that clicking +1 is a
lightweight/safe action.

The only social button/action that seems safe anymore is the 'Tweet this'
button... Hopefully Twitter doesn't screw _that_ up.

~~~
the_watcher
>>made clicking the Like button a 'heavy' action—meaning I have to think about
it before doing it.

I may be in the minority here, but I think that is a feature, not a bug.
"Liking" something should be a heavy action that you think about. I remember
when I started getting page-spam from weird pages I'd liked in the early days
of Facebook and went back and cleaned up my likes, there were some things in
there I didn't remember liking or ever want to like. Now, I really have to
think about it, and it leads to my ads and page updates being much more
relevant and interesting to me. Also, the Graph Search capabilities should
also be encouraging people to think before they like.

As an online marketer, I like it too, because it means my audience is
marginally more likely to truly be interested in the targeting I choose.

~~~
makomk
At least on Facebook, there's no way to (for instance) list which bands and TV
shows you like on your profile anymore without Liking their pages and all the
potentially undesirable consequences that come with it. Facebook have
systematically and intentionally replaced lighter-weight mechanisms with
Likes.

------
magicalist
I am not really a fan of this (though it seems like not that different than
what the review was meant for in the first place (unlike, say, construing a
like on facebook as an endorsement of that thing), but complete lack of
interest in associating myself with reviews of a company or product is why I
don't write reviews with my G+ account in the first place), but I am a fan of
publishing a diff of Terms of Service changes, especially with a nice plain-
English summary at the top.

Of course, without this coverage, I don't know how the vast majority of people
would have come across this page[1]. I don't appear to have been notified in
my gmail account. To be fair, though, I've grown to hate the near constant ToS
change emails I get from paypal, so there's some balance to be struck there
too).

edit: actually, I take back my last point. I get a big blue bar on top of
google.com notifying me of the change, and it's not even a "click here to see
a ToS change" that I would never be interested in enough to click on, it's
"Our new Terms of Service update how we display your information in content &
ads." with a "Learn more" link. Still wouldn't want to be involved with the
feature, but good for them for handling it like that.

[1]
[http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/](http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/)

~~~
Lewisham
I just received a notification of that page in my G+ Notifications, so I think
all G+ users will see it.

It's also being pushed to Google.com as a banner, if I understand correctly.

DISCLAIMER: I'm a Google employee, but I am not involved with any of these
products.

------
rocky1138
Why would someone write a review for something but then not expect to have
that review used by the business to further their sales?

~~~
kevinh
It's generally not the review that's the problem, but tying it to a user's
image and real name without their permission.

~~~
thezilch
WTF? What review system, exactly, doesn't link to the reviewer's profile --
permission implied by posting? It's not even a generalism; it's a fact, full
stop.

~~~
tensor
I seem to remember that some review system allowed the use of pseudonyms or
anonymity. In fact, here is a random example from Amazon:

[http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AG48K5RA3M4FK/ref=cm_cr...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AG48K5RA3M4FK/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp)

Who is Joe? I have no idea. I still find Amazon reviews useful though. I've
long refused to rate or comment on apps in the google Play store because of
their real name policy. I would do so anonymously though.

For me, it's simply that I don't feel comfortable with the world knowing so
much personal information about me. What sorts of hobbies I have, restaurants
I frequent, etc. It's really a massive privacy problem. So I no longer review
products in Google's system.

------
ToastyMallows
Opt out link for the lazy:
[https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements](https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements)

~~~
TheSisb2
Looks like an opt-IN link for me... Does that mean I'm already opted out
somehow?

~~~
yohui
Probably this?

[https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/changes/](https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/changes/)

> If you previously told Google that you did not want your +1’s to appear in
> ads, then of course we’ll continue to respect that choice as a part of this
> updated setting.

------
spindritf
I seem to have opted my whole domain (Google Apps) out somehow

> Based on your domain's current settings, your name and profile picture will
> not appear in shared endorsements paired with ads. If your domain
> administrator changes this in the future, your choice here will be honored.

[https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en](https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en)

though I don't know exactly how. Anybody knows which domain-wide setting is
responsible?

~~~
reustle
My domain is also set like that and it is a fairly fresh google apps account,
so it's probably the default.

~~~
pallandt
Perhaps because you don't have Google+ enabled as an available service. I get
a similar message and this is the reason in my case.

~~~
cegev
I have Google+ enabled as a service, and shared ads are still disabled for my
domain. It does appear to be the default setting for Apps.

------
Ygg2
Am I the only one that sees the comedic potential in this?

Rate something 5/5\. For example for a review of a restauraunt say "5/5\. Sure
beats eating rats infected with syphilis." or "4/5\. Tastes like leprosy!
Smells like porn locker!"

And I'm just being very bad here: [http://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-
John-Trimmer/dp/08703...](http://www.amazon.com/Avoid-Huge-Ships-John-
Trimmer/dp/0870334336)

~~~
hrjet
This is exactly what I thought. How are they going to be sure that the review
is actually honest and relevant. What if I say something contradictory in the
review? Or post irrelevant stuff in it?

The only way they could avoid such face-palms would be to do some sort of
natural language analysis. Or have humans curate and cherry-pick the reviews.
The latter one would be worrying indeed.

People are already ruffled up about their emails being scanned automatically.
If their G+ posts are going to be scanned and cherry-picked by humans, it's
even more unsettling.

~~~
code_duck
Emails are expected to be private. Publicly shared posts in a social network
are expected to be public, so I would not be concerned that someone is reading
them.

~~~
hrjet
But they are not just doing this for publicly shared posts. Even posts which
are shared privately will appear besides the ad when a person whom you have
shared the post with is viewing the ad.

That by itself is not a problem. However, to curate the post, somebody from
Google would have to read it. Else, they have really good natural language
processors.

------
nilkn
People are slowly leaving Facebook as they seek out more privacy control.
Obviously Facebook still dominates the world of social networks, but there's a
lot of friction involved in this aspect of it.

So what does Google decide to do? They decide to follow in the footsteps of
Facebook and replicate all the same privacy problems, so not only are people
going to leave G+ due to changes like this, but people aren't even going to be
compelled to sign up unless more or less forced to do so.

This is not innovation. It's repeating the mistakes of others in exchange for
a quick short-term profit.

~~~
c0ur7n3y
"It's repeating the mistakes of others in exchange for a quick short-term
profit."

That's basically the definition of modern business.

~~~
nilkn
Google started out by doing the opposite: looking at other search engines,
seeing specifically where they fell short, and then correcting those faults.

I don't think Google is evil for what they're doing with Google+. I think
they're uninspired. They're not doing anything new, just repeating what others
have done hoping to jump onto a bandwagon. Some minor Google+ tricks, like
circles, are nice, but they don't address any of the reasons why someone might
actually leave Facebook.

This practice has often proven to make a quick buck, but has rarely proven to
be sustainable.

------
PeterisP
Can I easily delete my Google+ account w/o hampering my Gmail/calendar/etc? I
made it once but I see only drawbacks in having it.

I'm already fed up with the repeated requests to merge my Youtube 'channel'
(wtf? I don't have or want a channel, I've made <10 comments on youtube and
that's it) with my Google+ pic/name, and I definitely don't ever want to do
that - but there's a risk that at some time I'll accidentally misclick one of
their prompts.

[edit] For example, I'm worried about their warning on Google+ deletion page
'You won't be able to use the "Sign in with Google" button to log in to third-
party apps.', since I have used google-signin in some apps (IIRC that was even
before google+ was a thing), and that would mean these apps becoming
inaccessible.

~~~
kylek
This a million times. I feel like I've been trying desperately hard to NOT let
me youtube account 'merge' with a new 'channel' or with my main Google
account. NO. NO. NO. I don't want to use my real name. I don't want a google+
account for my youtube name. I don't even want a channel. I just want to watch
videos, and maybe [pseudo-]anonymously comment once in a blue moon. Am I
really a minority user?

~~~
tiziano88
Just create a random Google+ page with a made-up name and associate your
YouTube channel with that

------
akurilin
Can someone tell me if it's possible to nuke a Google+ account and still keep
all of the data in the other services, such as Picasa (now named Google
Photos), Docs, Gmail etc? I really want to delete my G+ account, but I'm
concerned it will inadvertently nuke something else I'm counting on.

~~~
reedlaw
Go to
[https://www.google.com/settings/account](https://www.google.com/settings/account)
and follow "Delete profile and remove related Google+ features."

It will also delete your connected YouTube channel unless you disconnect it
first and later re-enable it.

------
sologoub
Just opted out and got this confirmation message:

"Are you sure? When you disable this setting, your friends will be less likely
to benefit from your recommendations."

Seriously?

~~~
wutbrodo
Is this not true...? Don't get me wrong: I've disabled this too, but it's with
the full knowledge that my friends are potentially losing a useful surfacing
of my relevant review at a time when they indicate they would be interested in
that information.

------
millstone
I attempted to understand what exactly this change means, but I could not. I
then attempted to opt out, but I could not; I don't know if that means I am
opted out or not. As a result I mistrust this change.

I saw the banner on the top of the Search page, linking to the new ToS. Here
is what it says:

 _your friends, family and others may see your Profile name and photo, and
content like the reviews you share or the ads you +1’d. This only happens when
you take an action (things like +1’ing, commenting or following) – and the
only people who see it are the people you’ve chosen to share that content
with._

I don't understand what this means. A possible reading is that if I comment in
a blog, Google might take a snippet from my comment, associate it with the
profile picture it chose for me (which is a nonsense screencap from a YouTube
video I uploaded five years ago), and then show it to people it has determined
to be my friends, perhaps in the way that Google Buzz determined that my
Realtor was my friend.

I don't know which pages this applies to: all of the Internet, Google
properties, or Google+ pages only. Even if it's Google+, I fear that services
like Blogger will get assimilated into Google+, and then my comments there
will become fair game. I also don't know what "take an action" means. I fear
that "take an action" includes "send an email" and that content from my
messages will be showing up in the recipients' ads.

I want to opt-out. I clicked on the "Shared Endorsement Settings", but instead
of giving me a way to opt out, I am encouraged to "Join Google+" in which my
real name will be used "across all Google products." I don't understand if
this means I am already opted out because I don't have a Google+ account, or
if I need to make such an account to opt-out. I am reminded of the noxious
YouTube popup, where in order to watch that cat video I have to convince
Google to not use my real name, in whatever unspecified way.

Google's properties make me feel like I am Indiana Jones in the Name of God
trap. I am forever one misclick away from irrevocably exposing my personal
information.

~~~
griftah
Your comments on Blogger are fair game already. They are not private in any
way.

~~~
millstone
They are definitely not fair game for ads. Where I live (California), it's
illegal to use my likeness, name, or photo in advertisements without my
consent.

------
Tloewald
It would be fun to mess with Google's algoritms -- +1 this product is amazing
-- the rats in my apartment are now twice as big, considerably more numerous,
and openly aggressive.

------
herbig
So if I've deleted the Google plus service from my Google account, I have
nothing to worry about?

~~~
zheng
I think so, following the opt-out link led me to sign up for a G+ account (I'm
in the same boat where I have a Google account but no G+).

------
richardw
I've always been the biggest Google fanboy but I've had it with their creep
towards maximum value extraction while pruning useful services that don't
support the stock price. Consider my opting out a tiny protest.

------
acheron
Headline should read "If you use Google+", yes? No other Google services are
affected that I understand. Frankly, at this point if you use Google+ you
deserve what you get.

------
zgohr
The concern, at least for me, is not that a "public" review being used in a
"public" way, it's that these businesses are now paying Google for my review
and I get no cut. When I wrote this review I didn't write it to help this
business out, per se, I wrote it because I wanted to help potential consumers
decide where to do business based on my experiences.

~~~
sadawi
That's the way it should be. Otherwise, you'd be incentivized to leave
(dishonestly) positive reviews.

~~~
zgohr
I never claimed there was a good solution, because the point you make is very
valid.

------
belorn
This will give everyone a useful tool to grief companies for using google ads.
Just pick a obscene picture, and write obscene "review" for that product
(maybe even rate it 5 stars to encourage google to use your review), and
instant have the world see your profanity associated with that brand.

Can't possible see how this couldn't backfire for google.

------
macspoofing
Shouldn't G+ users be paid for this?

------
10098
The truth is the link to profile may only appear if you've written A PUBLICLY
VISIBLE REVIEW of the business. If the author of this shitty article bothered
even a little with some research, he'd find it out. But the truth doesn't make
for a loud linkbaity title.

------
benologist
Summary spam - [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/technology/google-sets-
pla...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/technology/google-sets-plan-to-sell-
users-endorsements.html?_r=2&)

------
jinx_xnij
You have to opt in, in order for Google to start using your name. If you do
not want this to happen, you are all set. (That is, unless prior settings i
had in google pre-selected the option to not let Google use my name in their
ads)

------
techaddict009
[https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en](https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en)
visit here and disable it simple !

------
crystaln
So, the expectation when you write a positive review on a Google service is
that the review will not be displayed as an endorsement of the product?

Isn't that the entire point of writing the review?

~~~
code_duck
I write reviews because I want other people to read my opinions. Front page
placement on google seems like a great deal to me!

------
Zenst
Can imagine many people wiull get overly creative with there profile pictures.

But in fairness the choice is by default disabled so you would have to enable
it - as it stands today.

------
csdreamer7
I had a Google+ account but then I deleted it. Now that link to opt out of the
face endorsement is telling me I have to setup a G+ account to be able to set
it.

------
greglindahl
Why, your friend John Doe searched for [jock itch] just last week! And he
bought Gold Bond(tm)!

The TOS says "Actions you take on Google". Heh.

------
blueblob
Do you guys think I should remove my reviews of all of the adult toys that I
own?

~~~
diydsp
lol speaking of this, one day I was looking for hotel reviews on the
interwebs. At the top of the list were 4 and 5-star hotels. Toward the middle,
3-star ones I might consider, then down lower a bunch of sleazy-sounding ones
with hourly rates implied.

Some service, I doubt it was google, as this was about two months ago, was
connecting facebook profiles to some of the reviews and it added something
like this to the descriptions, "Jane Doe, a friend of $my_education_professor"
stayed here and rated it good.

I _really_ didn't need that mental image of $my_education_professor's friends
enjoying themselves in sleazy-sounding hotels. I don't know that it reflects
on him directly - it shouldn't, and I think more power to him, but damnit if
that software didn't facilitate that image to be briefly projected on my
brainpan. :) Next time I see him, I sure hope I don't get overcome with urges
to ask, "SO HOW OFTEN DOES JANE DOE ENJOY THOSE SLEAZY HOTELS. DO YOU EVER GO
THERE WITH HER?" icky, icky icky :)

This is exactly why we shouldn't have software generating images of other's
lives for us, false or otherwise.

------
maxk42
I'd be fine with this as long as it was opt-in rather than opt-out.

Bad move, Google.

------
mpg33
Are we getting a cut of the ad revenue if we are endorsing it? ;)

------
nfm
This appears to be opt- _in_ for Google Apps accounts.

------
crazychrome
can someone create a f*ckgoogle.com so that i can +1?

------
witty_username
exaggerated title IMO

------
001sky
_Don 't be evil_

Oh, wait its 2013...

carry on

