News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google+ broke our trust by IgorPartola on Saturday June 07, 2014 @09:16AM (#7862014)
I don't get it. So Brin announces to the world that Google+ is the new sliced bread in 2011. Then he tells a small group of people that he thinks he personally should not have been involved with G+. Also the leader of the G+ project leaves (one month after the project started? One month after Brin had his candid talk recently?)

Where in this is the broken trust? What is the author actually upset about? Seems to me like in 2011 Brin and co. thought Google+ was the future. Now Brin simply is admitting that he personally might not have been the right person to take this on and perhaps it was a bad idea (not clear from the poorly written article). On top of that the author is trying to make a story out of the project leader leaving precisely because there was no story there.

I think this piece is terribly written and there is no story behind it. G+ is not my favorite product but I think this is just an outburst of anger that does not deserve our attention.

Re:Google+ broke our trust by bane on Saturday June 07, 2014 @11:57AM (#7862341)
The problem was the G+ was pitched as a social network. It grew, like a cancer, into some weird meta-project that defies description, and along the way fucked over lots of people who worked very hard to maintain different identities and roles in the various on-line milieus they frequented. Sometimes it was as simple as revealing their real name to their model plane group. Other times it involved just shutting down real income generating youtube channels that people had poured lots of time and effort into (thousands of hours), or revealing to abusive ex-spouses where you lived...all without any real good reason and zero upside to the users of the various Google properties and dubious upside to Google as a business.

This was very costly for Google just on the employment front as well. Word on the street is that Google had upwards of 1,200 employees working on the G+ project. Fully burdened, that's something like $250-300m/year.

There was no upside for the entire project, for users or for google. So now, a couple $billion later, they finally realized what everybody else on the planet realized 2 years ago. They could have just surveyed users back then to find out where they were screwing up, but in typical Google fashion, that would have involved actually engaging with their users, which Google is borderline allergic to.

Re:Google+ broke our trust by naterator on Saturday June 07, 2014 @01:30PM (#7862547)
>They could have just surveyed users back then to find out where they were screwing up, but in typical Google fashion, that would have involved actually engaging with their users, which Google is borderline allergic to.

Yup. Google never grew out of that phase--the Steve Jobs Phase, I like to call it. Obviously when Google started they knew what users didn't even know they wanted. Efficient search. Great webmail. Etc. But then Google (should have) realized it was a business with customers who aren't always idiots. It did not. It still really hasn't.

Re:Google+ broke our trust by tedks on Saturday June 07, 2014 @02:00PM (#7862613)
>The problem was the G+ was pitched as a social network. It grew, like a cancer, into some weird meta-project that defies description

Really?

It was a single sign-on system to Google properties, tied to a social networking thing. accounts.google.com came not far after plus.google.com.

Google wanted to avoid becoming MySpace and wanted to mimic Facebook, and miscalculated slightly.

Personally, I really like being able to sign in once to Google properties. I like that YouTube comments now have real names on them. It makes them much less toxic.

How is it that Google+ shut down youtube channels? Changing the display name is all I've seen it do.

Re:Google+ broke our trust by nacs on Saturday June 07, 2014 @07:37PM (#7863460)
> I like that YouTube comments now have real names on them. It makes them much less toxic.

Not sure what part of Youtube you're browsing but comment quality has not increased in any way with the real names policy from what I've seen. Just a lot of Google+ mentions embedded in comments now with the same asinine comments.

Re:Google+ broke our trust by vertex-four on Saturday June 07, 2014 @04:54PM (#7863076)
Google had a single sign-on system before G+. I still use it, refusing to sign up for G+. What it didn't have was a single identity system; you didn't have one public identity across all services, although you did have one account.
Re:Google+ broke our trust by MicroBerto on Saturday June 07, 2014 @03:03PM (#7862765)
I agree on the real names. It truly cleaned up the nonsense and brings more peace of mind to those who scyually make YouTube money - the popular channel operators.

We get way less idiocy now.

Re:Google+ broke our trust by sesqu on Sunday June 08, 2014 @11:16AM (#7864860)
See, I don't see that as a user. The bad comments sections used to be full of bad puns and arguments, but now they're just smaller and full of contentless "watch this" mentions. On channels where the comments used to be good, they are now rare and inaccurate.
Re:Google+ broke our trust by MicroBerto on Thursday June 12, 2014 @04:31PM (#7885783)
The "watch this" mentions are something different - that's Google's way of trying to make things go viral (or something like that) on their social feeds, and I believe is completely unnecessary.
Re:Google+ broke our trust by sesqu on Sunday June 15, 2014 @11:33AM (#7895438)
I believe they're just comments pulled in from google+ threads that mention the video in question, based on the logic that all comments on the video should be grouped. The problem is that people don't actually comment on videos on google+, they just share content.
Re:Google+ broke our trust by jwheeler79 on Saturday June 07, 2014 @09:18AM (#7862016)
the point of the article is that google has lost trust, and google+ along with strange, self-serving behavior of executives is how. that much is undeniable.
Re:Google+ broke our trust by IgorPartola on Saturday June 07, 2014 @09:21AM (#7862020)
What was the underhanded thing that it did? If you put your real name AND sensitive info into a public system, especially one you do not understand, what do you trust will happen? What does Brin's confession of not being the best person to create a social network have to do with it?
Re:Google+ broke our trust by untog on Saturday June 07, 2014 @09:29AM (#7862027)
If you put your real name AND sensitive info into a public system

A _changing_ public system. You put your phone number into your address book. You sign up for a Gmail address. Fast forward one year, these items are suddenly combined without warning.

Re:Google+ broke our trust by vidarh on Saturday June 07, 2014 @10:22AM (#7862159)
From where do you get the idea that the author is complaining about anything being underhanded?

Brin's "confession" has something to do with it because he was instrumental to creating it in the first place, and someone with the power to correct many of the problems if he wanted to. Instead he's washed his hands of it, and left a segment of his users in the lurch.

Re:Google+ broke our trust by IgorPartola on Saturday June 07, 2014 @11:51AM (#7862332)
The author is complaining about losing trust.
Re:Google+ broke our trust by vidarh on Saturday June 07, 2014 @12:59PM (#7862474)
Losing trust does not imply that anything underhanded has occurred.
Re:Google+ broke our trust by rhizome on Saturday June 07, 2014 @01:45PM (#7862582)
It wasn't underhanded. It was overhanded. It was forced on their users to the detriment of pretty much everything associated. Tyranny supplants trust.

If "Igor Partola" is your real name, I think statistically there's a good chance that you understand this innately.

Now, you can argue that the trust was misplaced, or that the author's use of the word "trust" to describe the basis of their users's relationship with and affinity for Google, but I think this is a quibble. It's straight-up goodwill that has been squandered, and it is not in Google's character to admit failure (Scorpion and the Frog), which further corrodes the connection between the company and its users.

"What did you expect?" Yeah, well screw you, too. If Eric Schmidt wants to tell us that if we don't want to use our real names and stuff on Google+ that we don't have to use the service at all, then hey, "I'm a step ahead of you, bub." That's why this article exists, and that's why Sergey is slithering away from G+, and that's why Vic Gundotra left, and at the end of the day Google has a massive failure on their hands and they have too much money to even countenance facts. What will be the Information Age equivalent of wearing Kleenex boxes on one's feet?

"I have nothing to admit," said Gilles Deleuze once upon a time, but the market has eaten up large companies before. While Google-large falling by the Internet wayside would be fairly seismic in historical terms, it would happen slowly enough for nobody to really notice. People already talk about the ins-and-outs of Facebook, it's not a huge jump for them to start talking about the ups-and-downs of DuckDuckGo. Google's already helping that happen by converting Chrome's address bar, where grandmas the world over type what they're looking for, into the browser's search field.

Re:Google+ broke our trust by sinwave on Saturday June 07, 2014 @02:54PM (#7862728)
Where on earth did the Gilles Deleuze quote come from?
Re:Google+ broke our trust by rhizome on Saturday June 07, 2014 @03:57PM (#7862923)
Semiotext(e) 2.3, 1977, reprinted in "Negotiations."
Re:Google+ broke our trust by DanBC on Saturday June 07, 2014 @02:07PM (#7862621)
Bob, a transgender person, has a Youtube account under his transgender name of "Bob". He also has a Gmail account under his birth name of Becky.

Youtube gets bought by Google. G+ happens. Suddenly Bob is being forced to use his birth name on his Youtube account. If Bob is unlucky his current name or his birth name are outed. While it shouldn't matter if people know that Bob is transgender we live in a world where people are beaten or killed for this.

Re:Google+ broke our trust by jwheeler79 on Saturday June 07, 2014 @10:58AM (#7862234)
if youre asking me personally what they did to lose my trust, it's all the things i mention and even some i didn't. i think the executives are creepy as hell, especially eric schmidt. have you read all the sexcapades stuff about him in the WSJ? Affairs with murdochs wife. She's pretty damn creepy herself. He doesn't think the laws apply to him, and most people would say, by now, that's true; he's part of the plutocracy and the laws don't apply to him. i say bullshit and that the laws apply to everybody. the stock decisions they've made to keep control away from shareholders, the sunsetting of products unilaterally. No, I don't trust Google at all.
Re:Google+ broke our trust by rwmj on Saturday June 07, 2014 @10:10AM (#7862135)
You should probably read further than the first paragraph.
Re:Google+ broke our trust by Blahah on Saturday June 07, 2014 @10:46AM (#7862196)
The rest of the article was just an unrelated rant about the outdated real names thing on G+.
Re:Google+ broke our trust by ben0x539 on Saturday June 07, 2014 @12:39PM (#7862431)
Outdated?