Anyone else not happy about this?
I feel like I'm the only one on the internet who doesn't care lately. I can still watch youtube videos, and I've never commented there nor intend to. It hasn't really changed my experience at all. I have never touched my G+ account and don't really care about it, it could be telling the world I eat poop for all I care right now, and I couldn't be bothered to login and stop it. I only use youtube for clips that get linked, looking up a song here and there, and watching project related instructional videos for around the house type stuff. That's it. Again, I'm not saying I'm FOR it, because like all of you I really don't see the benefit to them doing this. It's just a grab to try and force more people into using G+ and hopefully adopting it more so they can pull some of those revenue streams (people) away from Facebook. But it certainly doesn't seem to make the experience better for anyone who uses youtube. So I get why people are upset, but I also get why Google is doing it. Meanwhile I just really haven't been personally affected by it or had my internet experience altered in anyway whatsoever, so I simply "don't care". I am really surprised how the internet mob has mobilized against Google all of a sudden. I personally enjoy a lot of Google products, and some of their projects are pretty cool, and it seemed that was kind of the common opinion. But now this happens and the torches and pitchforks are in hand, and Google is now "one of them", one of those evil companies out to quash the proles. I've been more in awe of that, than the actual youtube/G+ fiasco itself. I feel like this will all be forgotten by next week, and I'd bet G+ actually picks up a bunch of users, not because of the force, but actual users who develop their profiles and check it out. No matter how much hate they get, I feel it's just temporary. I just don't see the "forced down my throat" sensational crap. I can still watch Youtube videos, and I still don't use G+. What's the big deal!?
For me, I just want to use their apps as tools. I never wanted a Google experience. As handy as it might be that Google knows all about me when I use these tools, I'd rather they not. I want that choice. I want my search results to be less catered to what has been determined to be my tastes. The privacy calamity that has engulfed us all aside, I would use equivalent services in a heartbeat if they didn't require such personal integration.
Same. I use gmail, I like drive... but that's honestly about it. I have an Android phone, that I love, but I don't use Now, or any of that stuff. Hell I turn off GPS and tracking immediately after getting a new phone. I don't like Google apps knowing where I am. I don't comment on youtube or have a channel or anything, so I guess this Youtube/G+ thing doesn't really affect me.For me, I just want to use their apps as tools. I never wanted a Google experience.
You need to write more specific queries, like you did with search engines before Google. Personalization does have some advantages, being able to guess what you're really looking for being one of them. I don't find having to type a few extra words to be a big disadvantage.
You missed that whole Snowden thing, didn't you?I am really surprised how the internet mob has mobilized against Google all of a sudden. I personally enjoy a lot of Google products, and some of their projects are pretty cool, and it seemed that was kind of the common opinion. But now this happens and the torches and pitchforks are in hand, and Google is now "one of them", one of those evil companies out to quash the proles. I've been more in awe of that, than the actual youtube/G+ fiasco itself.
Cute. Since you brought that up, why are you still on the internet then Kleinbl00? I'm sure you deleted all of your social media accounts, stopped using Reddit and Hubski, and threw your cell phone and all digital devices with an internet connection in the trash, right? If you read anything from the Snowden releases, you'd know they are logging what sounds like EVERYTHING. Other than abstaining from the internet entirely, why should I specifically hate Google? When from the sounds of it, anything connected to copper or wireless networks is being pilfered. Also, as I've stated elsewhere on Hubski in the past about this, I've known about the information gathering capabilities of our government for a long time now. There's been plenty of court cases proving it's expansiveness over the years. Snowden just brought it to the spotlight for many who previously would have written it off as conspiracy theory. I'm not happy about it, but again, other than total internet abstinence, why does me not hating Google deserve a snarky response along the lines of "You obviously aren't paying attention"?You missed that whole Snowden thing, didn't you?
Did you see the way you jumped from "I point something out to you" to "you insult me" without passing through anything like justification? Or how "here's why people are mad at Google" from me becomes "why aren't you in a spiderhole in Montana crafting your manifesto?" Lazy. And sloppy. And uncompelling. go ahead and be pissed off, but recognize it's got fuckall to do with me. For the record, it's not like my thoughts on the matter have been particularly guarded. And, for the record, I've demonstrated I know more about this stuff than most people. So the answers to "why aren't you in a spiderhole" are a) I've been aware of the problem for 20 years b) I've been cognizant of the problem for 20 years c) I understand OPSEC d) I understand that at the level of malfeasance I dwell, it's easier to make shit up about me than mine my statements for shit to condemn me. In other words, I have a realistic view of the problem. Which is why this whole Snowden thing has been, for me, an extremely hipsterish event ("I hated Google before it was cool"). They've been logging EVERYTHING since before you were born, sport-o, and I've been taking that into account since universities used SSNs for student IDs. So no - I don't need to "trash my cellphone." I knew PRISM was Total Information Awareness back when they re-hired John Poindexter. But bringing this back to your question (and my answer), "that whole snowden thing" revealed that Google wasn't this ivory tower of "don't be evil" like they've been professing all along. Yeah, they were hardly alone, but everyone already hates Microsoft. Everyone already hates Facebook. And most people already hate Apple. So. "You missed that whole Snowden thing, didn't you?" 'cuz if you hadn't made that connection, you sure didn't have a lot of reason for shitting down my neck for pointing it out. TL;DR - fuck off.
The typical response to anything kleinbl00 says:
While I agree with you, I hate the word "cute" used in such context. Every time an honest remark is called "cute", no matter how stupid it may be, I just want to punch you in the face.
Facebook Connect. Google was late to social. This annoyed them. They've been archiving data about you since you first used their search engine yet somehow, every login across the internet says "connect with Facebook." That means that the money flows into facebook's graph, not Google's. That means that the ad network is serving you up to facebook's advertisers, not Google's. That means those websites are monetizing you for facebook, not Google. So they're playing catchup. They're branding you with a universal identity so that they can sell your demographics no matter where you go. They know you've got lots of profile up on Youtube and they want you to agree (more importantly, they want proof that you agreed) to integrate your identity across all Google platforms so that they can present a better dataset to advertisers and make their offer more attractive. TL;DR - that brand on your hip? They want it to match the one on your forehead. They get more per pound at the slaughterhouse that way.
Not enjoying it. And I can actually say that I foresaw it.
I'm pissed off by the update, but not so much by the fact they are forcing G+ on us. I mean, I am, but everyone saw that coming so long ago it isn't much of a surprise. I grew accustomed to the idea and now I'm not pissed off they're pushing it even more. It's more of a sight of resignation. With time, you learn to accept shitty stuff because you can't really do much to change things anyways. Sort of like in politics. I'm pissed off at the fact they did it BADLY. Unlimited characters, links, sorting top comments by putting the comments with the most replies on top (meaning top comments are often hateful stuff nobody care about). The threaded system is a bit of an improvement, but there is SO MUCH SPAM right now, i'm not even reading comments anymore... On top of that even if I integrated my G+ account, I can't seem to be able to leave a comment myself (and yes, I've disabled adblock). I doesn't affect me too much because I rarely leave comments but still... it's now the cherry on top of my sunday of disappointment. But I won't leave YouTube, not because of the platform but because of the content creators. I'm subscribed to LOADS of channels and I really really like them. So for now, I just have to accept the system.
Nobody is. They're trying to integrate their services around a social network that they created. They think they're doing consumers a favor by connecting YouTube to Google+--allowing for people to share and view music with their friends. Unfortunately, if you use your real name, this releases your favorited videos and video comments to the public while attached to your real name. It's a privacy issue.
Google does not give the first fuck about privacy. - "Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it." - Eric Schmidt, to the Atlantic - "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions [...] They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next." - Eric Schmidt, to the WSJ - "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt, to CNBC - "Just move" - Eric Schmidt, to CNN, on objections that people have to Streetview imaging their houses - "In a world of asynchronous threats, it is too dangerous for there not to be some way to identify you. We need a [verified] name service for people. Governments will demand it." - Eric Schmidt, 2010 Technology Conference - "In this new future you're never lost...We will know your position down to the foot and down to the inch over time...Your car will drive itself, it's a bug that cars were invented before computers...you're never lonely...you're never bored...you're never out of ideas." - Eric Shmidt, TechCrunch Distrupt - "The best thing that would happen is for Facebook to open up its data. Failing that, there are other ways to get that information." - Eric Schmidt, 2010 Google Zeitgeist conference I read his book. It broke Google for me. Fuck "don't be evil" they're fucking evil. And they aren't innovative, they're iterative. Every advance Google has ever made has been done Edison-style - "beat your face against the problem until the blood spots form a Rorschach Test of inspiration." Need a better GIS dataset? DRIVE THE WORLD. Need better search capabilities? INDEX EVERYTHING. Need non-text search? HOST ALL THE VIDEOS AND PUSH INTO VOICE INTEGRATION. There is nothing clever about anything Google does; they just wrap Dickensian brute force in a sparkly jellybean coating. They don't think they're "doing consumers a favor." They don't give the first fuck about consumers. If it's free, the product is YOU.
This is perhaps the worst thing I've ever heard anyone say ever (given that he is in the position that he's in and has the power that he has). It's obviously a ridiculous position, and is a lame attempt at justifying an unreasonable way to do business. As if Schmidt doesn't do things he wants to keep private. Privacy is a right not a privilege."If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
Conservatives have wrong argued that privacy is not a right. This was the crux of the Robert Bork confirmation battle: http://faculty.ycp.edu/~dweiss/phl347_philosophy_of_law/bork... Now go read what the 'wingers had to say about Bork. Scalia, Thomas and Roberts all owe their 'originalist' philosophy to a guy who believed that the constitution was written in stone in 1786 and who are we to try and adapt it to fit Google.
So are you saying there doesn't exist a constitutional right to privacy? I find myself having to agree, especially after reading that article, because there is no constitutionally explicit "right to privacy" -- only "certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities" (Justice Black, referring to the specifically delineated rights provided by the Bill of Rights). And if you are saying there doesn't exist a constitutional right to privacy (only this very judicial-activism happy push for privacy), what should we do? We all agree we enjoy our privacy, but this staunch originalist is saying it doesn't exist in our Constitution. The only protections we have come from liberal Justices but they're not, strictly speaking, constitutional. Is the alternative an amendment? What would it look like? How would you define the privacy we should all be afforded?
I'm saying originalists believe there doesn't exist a constitutional right to privacy. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I know that "the right to privacy" is not spelled out in the Bill of Rights. I've long believed that a privacy amendment would solve a whole bunch of problems. The right to privacy is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, after all. However, the very people who would need to pass said amendment are likely to be steadfastly against it.
Yes, I think the privacy advocates use the 4th and 9th amendments as Constitutional justification for protecting privacy, the 9th being especially cryptic and non-specific (and the one amendment that nobody really knows or cares about): "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." What the hell are "others retained by the people"? I suppose they're whatever we agree they are. I would argue that privacy is a valuable right that shouldn't be denied us if possible. To me, the 9th (and of course, I'm no scholar on this matter, either, just an interested citizen) basically says that we can't construct any law, or condone any behavior, that abridges any fundamental human right, even if that right isn't specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments.
It's always hard to find clear and concise literature on these sorts of things but my gut feeling (haha) is that the ninth amendment doesn't have an extensive jurisprudence or case history because it's so vague. No judge could cross through that thicket without being accused of making some shit up (even though that hasn't necessarily stopped Justices before).
I could probably list 100 clever things jQuery alone does, let alone adwords, gmail, or maps. From the very start of google, the search processor has had thousands of innovations, which is how they won the search engine market to begin with. To turn your eyes away, abstract a few ideas, and say that things google doesn't isn't innovative is silly.
I listed 5. jquery, adwords, gmail, maps, search processor. If you want specifics here are 5 things they specifically did which were innovative. selectors and navigating the dom in jquery. adwords not affecting pagerank yet being visible/desirable. DOM bindings in chrome. the java handling javascript in gwt. dns-prefetch integration in chrome working in tandem with their search engine.
jquery - a scripting tool. I'm not a programmer and I had scripting tools in Fortran. adwords - an advertising tool. Altavista, Jeeves, metacrawler and others all had said same. gmail - seriously? maps - mapquest was first in the consumer sphere, delorme beat Gmaps by 4-5 years. "search processor?" The google algorithm was an innovative approach but since 2001, Google has been tweaking the algorithm, not reinventing search. I worked a meeting with a VP from Google once. He told a large multinational corporation (under NDA) that Google's modus operandi is to move into a mature area of technology and suck all the profit out of it. They're deliberately not looking for places they can innovate - they're looking for low-hanging fruit they can pluck via brute force. Google Maps, for example, beat out Mapquest because Google was willing to invest in driving.every.road. That's not innovation. That's brute force.
so because google is a computer company, and they make software and hardward solutions, they are not innovative, since software and hardware solutions have already been made? Give me a break. you are oversimplying things and overlooking actual innovation in google's products. The methods they use to solve these problems are different and innovative. Saying that you are not a programmer doesn't make them not innovative. I guess it means that you dont understand the innovation. If I dumb down everything, then of course I could say that it's not innovative. flying car? blah, just another form of transportation. same as walking. so flying cars cannot be innovative. your point is weak. it saddens me that someone would argue it.
I'm sitting here and trying, and I think that I agree with you. As far as I can find examples for, Google just does things better. That's how they win. They are clever about how they go about something, and sometimes their existing technologies plug in in such a way to give an advantage, but in many cases, they just throw tons of talent and money at a problem others have been working at. That isn't to say that they don't have vision. I believe they do. They pick good problems to solve better than others do. You could say that the scale of their experiments is revolutionary. Only Google can inject Buzz into everyone's emails, or throw out a solution without a problem like Google Wave with such gusto. But I think that Google+ will eventually kill all of that. Ok, maybe Google Wave was some sort of innovation. I only say that, because I can't say what it was trying to solve.