
Facebook Gets it. Google Doesn’t.  - McKittrick
http://uncrunched.com/2014/04/30/facebook-gets-it-google-doesnt/
======
brymaster
> Facebook is addressing a strong desire for privacy by its users

This is some serious horseshit by Arrington. Only a fool would believe
this[1]. Facebook's entire history is anti-privacy from the very beginning
(here's a nice list:
[http://pleasedeletefacebook.com](http://pleasedeletefacebook.com)) and they
do their business a disservice by not collecting as much as possible. Facebook
users don't care about privacy; it's the reason they still use the service
even after every privacy violation.

Trying to spin this into a Facebook vs Google match is absurd. Facebook wants
all of your data just as much as Google. They're called Big Data for a reason
and information is their currency.

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7675962](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7675962)

~~~
snowwrestler
When you want companies to change their behavior, it's not fair to forever
judge them by the same set if historical facts.

Zuckerberg used to say "real name for eveything." Later he said he could see
good reasons to remain anonymous online sometimes. And this "anonymous login"
feature sounds great.

Meanwhile Google is forcing everyone into creating Google Plus pages, real
name usage on YouTube, lining all services into one, etc.

Look at the arc of their actions--the trend. I think Arrington got this one
right. Facebook is improving their treatment of privacy as Google is getting
worse.

~~~
brymaster
> it's not fair to forever judge them by the same set if historical facts

Disagree. The spots on the leopard don't simply change and there's no such
thing as "anonymous" to Facebook. That's antithesis to their business. This is
purely a PR play.

By the way, we learned from the AOL data breach in 2006 that "anonymous"
doesn't actually exist on the internet[1]. So let's not pretend Facebook is
trying to do us all a great favor.

1\.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?page...](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?pagewanted=all)
"A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749"

~~~
yuhong
I didn't think that it would change magically either, which is why I asked the
question I mentioned in another comment.

------
Navarr
Arrrrrington is off his rocker again. Harkening the death of Google and
Google+ as if he'd spent enough time around there to know what he's talking
about.

He doesn't even bother researching the technology he's writing about

> "I don’t know the details"

Yet he tries to pass it off as some miraculous milestone. It's an interesting
feature set that I've never thought about before, and I've never seen
envisioned before. An identity platform that doesn't reveal your identity.
Bringing all the joys of single sign-on without any of the permissions.

But he then uses it as an excuse to complain and whine about Google+, which
while some of us have reasons against it concerning anonymity and privacy,
remains a brilliant identity platform that's done wonders for any service it's
been integrated in - at least for me personally.

There's a reason I don't have Uncrunched in my RSS reader anymore, and it has
a LOT to do with how he's completely let his emotions overrule any
journalistic integrity he might have once had.

~~~
ulfw
Research isn't exactly his forte. I've had to experience that myself.

------
gkoberger
Doesn't matter which large company "gets" it -- what we really need is a good,
decentralized, easy to use, open, optionally-anonymous identity system on the
web. Easy-to-use being the key feature.

Until that happens, whether it's FB or Google or whomever else, we're stuck as
the "product, not the consumer" (as Arrington correctly puts it).

~~~
dublinben
How does Mozilla Persona satisfy your requirements?

~~~
gkoberger
It doesn't, however I think Mozilla is the one organization that _could_ pull
it off.

1) They've basically killed it

2) It's just a Facebook Connect clone, without your social graph (no incentive
for the implementor)

3) Normal people had no clue what "Persona" was; it was confusing (no
incentive for the user)

4) Not decentralized enough (they wanted it to be; just never got there.)

5) Not enough integration with the browser (also wanted it; never got there)

I realize the final two are contradictions to a certain extent. There were a
lot more issues with it; this is just the ones that came to mind.

------
rch
I'd enjoy being able to give my users a line-item veto on permissions. It
isn't really difficult to code around missing data, so I'd just assume treat
it as a request up front.

------
imsofuture
Sorry, if you think Facebook "gets it", you are deluded.

~~~
ulfw
It's Michael Arrington. Deluded is an understatement.

~~~
imsofuture
It's funny because I didn't notice that at first. Followed up with "ohhhhhh,
right". :-P

------
free2rhyme214
Why does anyone care about this?

Both of these companies have access to your data if you use their service.

Let me repeat that.

If you use Facebook, Facebook can use and do whatever with your data.

If you use Google's services, Google can use and do whatever with your data.

If you don't want them to use your data don't use their service.

This is getting redundant people.

------
WWLink
I hate this "gets it" mentality that gets brought into the picture anytime any
product can be described with the word "social" in the description. It's a
product, and taking the Hank Hill approach, the quality of the product should
be the priority.

------
donniezazen

        No one uses Google+, but the whole Internet has an account there.
    

Author can't be so ignorant and supremely egotistical.

A friend of mine uses Google+ to post pictures. He has over a million views
and an audience that he wouldn't have otherwise.

------
Exenith
Am I the only one who feels a real mental disconnect with the people
complaining about Facebook? I read interviews by developers there, where it's
pretty evident that they have reasonable perspectives (i.e. they aren't evil),
then I see a barrage of ridiculous vitriol. I then go to all the sites where
people list "why Facebook is evil", and all I can find is misinformation,
opinion, and minor understandable things blown out of proportion.

~~~
imsofuture
Facebook is 'evil' because their actual, factual business plan is collecting
and selling your personal information. You just can't really argue your way
out of that one.

No, of course I don't think the people that work there are off their rocker,
or actually evil -- I just don't intend to participate in their monetization
plan is all.

~~~
Exenith
So this free website that serves billions of people makes money off the data
you knowingly give it to target advertisements. That's what is considered evil
nowadays?

Does it escape people that this is the only way we're going to get free social
media or search engines? Here are the options the currently existing websites
have:

    
    
      1. Free and sells data to advertisers
      2. Not free
      3. Nonexistent
    

If none of those options please you, then it's not some concern about
malpractice, it's just being unrealistic.

------
andreis1
A Google employee has recently posted this:
[https://plus.google.com/+BrianWhite1/posts/T56nDLcMHVk](https://plus.google.com/+BrianWhite1/posts/T56nDLcMHVk)

~~~
imsofuture
That's utterly meaningless. I don't think Google is amoral; I do think their
product is selling my information to advertisers.

------
KaoruAoiShiho
Google is a dinosaur, it's sad but at this point it's pretty clear that's how
it is. The top executives are detached from the way that the internet is used
/ moving towards. They grew up before an era where internet communication is
the dominant form of communication. I hope they do great things with AI and
wearables but in internet communications they are done.

------
mrtron
Perfect linkbait title. The details matter tremendously, both companies get a
lot of things.

------
TheMagicHorsey
Is this guy paid to write bullshit? WTF is he talking about? Facebook got its
ass reamed by the FTC because it was retroactively changing its privacy terms,
and making previously private user data, public. They are not "motivated by
the privacy demands of their users."

OP is a moron.

------
Skywing
Arrington is still around? When will he go away? Thankfully techcrunch is
mostly irrelevant lately, but ugh seeing Arrington posts is enough to last
awhile.

