

Google Introduces Facebook Competitor, Emphasizing Privacy - rakkhi
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/technology/29google.html?_r=1

======
brudgers
> _"Mr. Gundotra and Mr. Horowitz said that knowing more about individual
> Google users will improve all Google products, including ads, search,
> YouTube and maps, because Google will learn what people like and eventually
> be able to personalize those products."_

I am obviously ignorant in my belief:

    
    
        privacy != Google obtaining and storing increasingly intimate personal data

~~~
amalcon
That's what I was thinking. If my options are "A company that openly ignores
its users' privacy" and "A company whose core competency is data mining", I'm
likely to continue with option C: Don't use either.

Being entirely fair, Google is _better_ about the whole privacy thing. This is
undeniable: barring government requests and rogue sysadmins, only algorithms
look at my data. It's plausible that an algorithm will remain impartial.
Google just also has a lot more information about me already. I'm hesitant to
hand over any more.

~~~
pstack
Even if privacy weren't a concern, I don't see the point in using either one.
People have email. If I really need to talk to or share something with
someone, I'll email them. Or occasionally, IM them. Or maybe even call them.
Or if they're nearby, maybe go have lunch with them. I don't need to share
everything every day at all times with everyone. Nobody is that interesting.
Nobody is that interested. And nothing is that vital.

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

------
websymphony
What if the exact same service, with exact same feature set was introduced by
a startup and not Google? Would we still see the same type of hostility
towards that too? I don't think so.

Yes, it is correct that google harvests your information to feed you more
targeted ads. But it doesn't mean that if a startup, started initially as a
"do no evil" company becomes as big as google or facebook won't do the
same(targeted ads).

Since all these services are free to use, easiest or maybe only possible way
to make profit off them is by advertising. Since nothing comes for free, you
will pay for the service by sharing your personal information. Which in turn
means onus lies on you to see what is it that you want to share.

~~~
brudgers
> _"What if the exact same service, with exact same feature set was introduced
> by a startup and not Google?"_

I suspect that the New York Times would be more circumspect in their use of
the word "privacy" and not employ it in such a narrow sense in their headline.

To put it another way, I agree with your argument regarding the relationship
between free services and advertising. The lack of journalism in the article
is more unusual, which given the huge changes in what constitutes news over
the past several years, is saying a lot.

------
bergie
The challenges Google Plus faces are quite apparent from the end of the
article page. Right next to the link to page 2 there is:

 _Connect with The New York Times on Facebook._

~~~
bad_user
If Google gives benefits in their search results to content websites that
integrate with their own +1, I'm pretty sure that's not a problem ;-)

------
amanelis
I definitely tried to sign up and after submitting the form on the "Keep me
Posted" page, I got a 500 internal server error. Good job google

------
bmac27
Count me as one of the folks that believes Google ought to fix search before
it takes on the juggernauts of the consumer web. But that could just be the
SEO in me talking.

~~~
beck5
isn't a lot of the future of search potentially tied into social?

~~~
brown9-2
How so? How will knowing what my friends and contacts "like" help Google not
respond to my searches with content farm-ed crap?

~~~
cryptoz
> How will knowing what my friends and contacts "like" help Google not respond
> to my searches with content farm-ed crap?

If your friends "like" a Stack Exchange post but not Experts Exchange, isn't
it obvious how this would help them filter out the bad ones?

~~~
paganel
98% of my FB friends don't know about Stack Exchange or Experts Exchange. The
other 2% are my IT-department co-workers.

~~~
true_religion
Do 98% of your facebook friends search on subjects that would be found at
Stack Exchange or Experts Exchange?

If the answer is no, then any algorithm that takes into account collective
searches and 'likes' will ignore them because they wouldn't fit within the
cluster of people relevant to that search term.

------
knieveltech
The "keep me posted" form produces a 500 error. Not off to an auspicious
start.

~~~
theycallmemorty
I got a 404.

~~~
huckfinnaafb
200 here

------
spaghetti
Just an aside: I'm having fun imagining a single-click "move from Facebook to
Google+" link going viral. I don't know if it's technically possible. But
consider the people who browse while signed into Facebook. Add the ability to
export your Facebook data (not 100% sure this is possible). Doesn't seem too
far-fetched that Google could cobble something together. Also when I click and
move everything over perhaps my friends would be informed/spammed about the
move with the option to move themselves. It's "Facebook-magedon"!!

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

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

~~~
pyre

      > What about Apple?
    

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

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

[1] [http://www.tipb.com/2009/11/20/steve-jobs-tells-ipodrip-
chan...](http://www.tipb.com/2009/11/20/steve-jobs-tells-ipodrip-change-big-
deal/)

------
ern
Does it require a public Google Profile, like Buzz now does? To me, the answer
to that question would be important indicator of how much Google+ emphasizes
privacy.

------
ltamake
Advertising your site as a "Facebook competitor" (instead of implying it) is a
recipe for failure because you want people to look at your site as something
completely unique rather than putting it next to Facebook immediately.

~~~
haberman
Is Google+ being advertised that way? I see that in the news articles about
Google+, but not in Google's own materials.

~~~
ltamake
That was my fault. The article gave an impression that Google was advertising
it like that.

