Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I have a few thoughts about this:

-Why are we making such a big deal about exception cases? (1%, as you say)

-You know, right up front, G+ is asking you to do something you feel uncomfortable with. They aren't being sneaky about it, making it opt-out, or changing policies after the fact.

-You have to evaluate, for yourself, if the usefulness of G+ outweighs the level of uncomfort

-G+ will probably fail if they can't get a large and diverse userbase, this will probably cause G+ to evaluate why and possibly change their policies

-Munroe, as someone with a lot of followers, is correct to voice his opinion because it will be heard. Someone like you or I will actually have to do some work to be heard, so we'll have to go right to Google with our complaints. Please tell me you have brought it up with them...

I don't like the idea of people feeling that, every product (especially global products) being made needs to be tailored to their views of the world (ESPECIALLY at an initial beta release). Give Google some time to learn and react to these "bugs". If G+ wants to have a narrow view of this, let them and watch them fail, as other companies learn from those mistakes and put out a better product.

You can deal with jerks at the bar, tell the bouncers to remove them and see if they do, go to the bar down the street, or build a better bar yourself.



They came out at the start by saying "there aren't many private profiles anyway". So why screw them? It has to be a 2nd-order optimization.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: