6 ms·

Ugh. This was my problem with Google+ too. Everything you do ripples out into the rest of the internet in a creepy way. When I was freelancing, I emailed back

by stephp 13y ago

Ugh. This was my problem with Google+ too. Everything you do ripples out into the rest of the internet in a creepy way. When I was freelancing, I emailed back and forth with potential clients through the Gmail interface. One day I saw this party pic of a 20-something girl with beer in hand, identified by the full name of a receptionist I had emailed with professionally but never actually met. It was a suggestion from Google to connect with her on Google+, which I'm sure she'd have been mortified by. I deleted my account that day.

rejoinder 13y ago
I got freaked out by Facebook because I signed up there using a work email. I think Facebook's recommendation system was using the data from other users' address books. As in I'd get a list of various people that I'd done business with in the past as suggested friends on Facebook. Those people had my address in their address book and I can only assume they'd uploaded their contacts to Facebook. Facebook retains that data. Here I am a new user. Wow how does it know I know such and such? I can only assume that it also works the other way: I join and I pop up in their account. Google got into a mess with Buzz and the address book leaks, and email address leaks. So there's a fine line here between privacy and helpfulness.
saidajigumi 13y ago
This and TFA hit to the heart of the problem with Google+: Google has willfully refused to acknowledge or understand that singular humans have multiple personas, and that we do not and cannot allow those to mix. Your professional face is not the same as your close-family personal face is not the same as your secret webcomic artist handle is not ... you get the idea. There are so many mundane variations on that theme, and then there are very serious ones: those seeking support for addiction, as survivors of abuse, or other situations that have social stigma or personal risk attached to them. Some needs are simply private in that way a vulnerable person needs secure anonymity lest the public light itself become a chilling effect, of which health concerns are a common example. The architecture of Google+ is such that it is inherently inhuman in its disregard for privacy and for applying different "pen names" to the various situations of life.
- rodgerd 13y ago
  > Google has willfully refused to acknowledge or understand that singular humans have multiple personas, and that we do not and cannot allow those to mix. They may not acknowledge it, but they certainly understand it. The whole value proposition of Circles was initially that'd you'd only share what you want with who you want.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - saidajigumi 13y ago
    Agreed. When G+ first hit the scene, before Google's big push to own and publish the unified identity for every physical human, Circles looked like a promising experiment. A lot of people I know who were fed up with Facebook started exploring Google+ because of that. Then Google changed directions entirely (along with the big management shakeup that flipped Google from a bottom-up org to a top-down org) and those ideas were effectively killed. And every single person I knew who'd been toying with G+ dropped it like a hot potato.
    - haberman 13y ago
      Please explain how the idea of circles has been killed. I just went to the YouTube comment box, and right there is the control for what circles to publish to: http://imgur.com/3ZEB9Th http://imgur.com/3ZEB9Th
      - daliusd 13y ago
        The main problem for me that in different circles I might have different persona (different name, different image, some parts of my identity not exposed - like my workplace). It is mask I wear is important not who I'm talking to.
        haberman 13y ago
        G+ lets you control what circles can see your employment info: http://imgur.com/nuBP0Qz http://imgur.com/nuBP0Qz Personally I much prefer that G+ (and Facebook, for that matter) lets you interact with real people and not personas.
marincounty 13y ago
Agree! I still can't figure out how Google went into my Ipad Pictures app and stole a picture of me. I deleted it, but should have kept it for evidence.
themacguffinman 13y ago
I don't understand your example. Apparently the receptionist attends parties and drinks alcohol in her downtime, how is that an issue? That is not inappropriate at all.
- interpol_p 13y ago
  I'd rather not have the people I deal with on a professional basis see pictures of me at a party drinking alcohol. I don't care if it's perfectly legitimate and understandable behaviour, it's awkward.

by stephp 13y ago

rejoinder 13y ago

I got freaked out by Facebook because I signed up there using a work email. I think Facebook's recommendation system was using the data from other users' address books. As in I'd get a list of various people that I'd done business with in the past as suggested friends on Facebook. Those people had my address in their address book and I can only assume they'd uploaded their contacts to Facebook. Facebook retains that data. Here I am a new user. Wow how does it know I know such and such? I can only assume that it also works the other way: I join and I pop up in their account. Google got into a mess with Buzz and the address book leaks, and email address leaks. So there's a fine line here between privacy and helpfulness.

saidajigumi 13y ago

This and TFA hit to the heart of the problem with Google+: Google has willfully refused to acknowledge or understand that singular humans have multiple personas, and that we do not and cannot allow those to mix. Your professional face is not the same as your close-family personal face is not the same as your secret webcomic artist handle is not ... you get the idea. There are so many mundane variations on that theme, and then there are very serious ones: those seeking support for addiction, as survivors of abuse, or other situations that have social stigma or personal risk attached to them. Some needs are simply private in that way a vulnerable person needs secure anonymity lest the public light itself become a chilling effect, of which health concerns are a common example. The architecture of Google+ is such that it is inherently inhuman in its disregard for privacy and for applying different "pen names" to the various situations of life.

rodgerd 13y ago
> Google has willfully refused to acknowledge or understand that singular humans have multiple personas, and that we do not and cannot allow those to mix. They may not acknowledge it, but they certainly understand it. The whole value proposition of Circles was initially that'd you'd only share what you want with who you want.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- saidajigumi 13y ago
  Agreed. When G+ first hit the scene, before Google's big push to own and publish the unified identity for every physical human, Circles looked like a promising experiment. A lot of people I know who were fed up with Facebook started exploring Google+ because of that. Then Google changed directions entirely (along with the big management shakeup that flipped Google from a bottom-up org to a top-down org) and those ideas were effectively killed. And every single person I knew who'd been toying with G+ dropped it like a hot potato.
  - haberman 13y ago
    Please explain how the idea of circles has been killed. I just went to the YouTube comment box, and right there is the control for what circles to publish to: http://imgur.com/3ZEB9Th http://imgur.com/3ZEB9Th
    - daliusd 13y ago
      The main problem for me that in different circles I might have different persona (different name, different image, some parts of my identity not exposed - like my workplace). It is mask I wear is important not who I'm talking to.
      - haberman 13y ago
        G+ lets you control what circles can see your employment info: http://imgur.com/nuBP0Qz http://imgur.com/nuBP0Qz Personally I much prefer that G+ (and Facebook, for that matter) lets you interact with real people and not personas.

marincounty 13y ago

Agree! I still can't figure out how Google went into my Ipad Pictures app and stole a picture of me. I deleted it, but should have kept it for evidence.

themacguffinman 13y ago

I don't understand your example. Apparently the receptionist attends parties and drinks alcohol in her downtime, how is that an issue? That is not inappropriate at all.

interpol_p 13y ago
I'd rather not have the people I deal with on a professional basis see pictures of me at a party drinking alcohol. I don't care if it's perfectly legitimate and understandable behaviour, it's awkward.