Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Google Plus

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I believe he was talking about just the "walled garden" effect, not percentage of internet users. In what way is Google like AOL?

I'm not a Google fan, and I'd like to say that I'm not a user, but I do have a bs email account with them that has maybe three items in the inbox, a google voice account that I use as a second phone number, and a calendar account that I just configured a few days to test it out; I also have been using their search on my TocuhPad because I have been too lazy to change the default selection. Really though, it would be fairly rare for one to legitimately claim that they don't use Google, even if they don't have accounts with them: google has been very successful, and they are embedded almost everywhere on the internet.

Google is AOL not in the sense of it being a "walled garden" of the same degree, as no major service today is like that, including Facebook; their walled affect is lesser in degree than AOL, but more than facebook. What constitutes "wall" here has of course changed in meaning since the days of AOL, but it still has to do with control. Today, a great deal of diversified content, and the sharing of such content, is allowed; but one of the major things that is now controlled is how content is, for lack of a better word, cross posted. Take youtube (Google) for example, do they allow cross posting from other social networks of the same media? Yes, such examples mostly show lack of development on APIs and such, but that is the only type of control I can even think about being comparable to AOL; no service really tries to block or firewall access to the outside anymore.

Facebook, however, has done quite a good job in opening itself up. Their so open that competing social networks are increasingly taking more of a slice of status updates every day. As mentioned above, specialized social sites are where it's at now--they do such a better job--and the API lets them post to Facebook. We'll have to see how open Google is to the idea of other social networks dominating the content they are hosting when they release their API.

So, add the above to user base and portal service, as well as acquisition activities, and Google makes a good challenge for the title of modern day AOL. I also must add something that just came to mind. What I said above, that "no service really tries to block or firewall access to the outside" isn't accurate. Has not Google done exactly this by censoring searches of the Chinese at the behest of the Chinese government, up until very recently?

Edited by RussK
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

If someone tries to sell me Web 10.0 when I was fine with Web 1.0, what am I missing?

Doesn't that depend on what Web 10.0 has to offer? What if the difference between the two was on par with the difference between cassettes and CD's? Of course, you may be happy with cassettes, I'm not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love Google. It's amazing how they have made their brand synonymous with the word search. They also help me make a living.

Likewise, I also love Google. The company benefits my life more than anything else available on the net, and has done so for years now. To Russ: "you can't please everybody." Take Google for everything it's worth.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only going to throw it out there that if you dig deeply enough there are "security issues" with everything and google is no exception.

Honestly, given the track record I think google is probably safer/more secure than a lot of things out there that many people never even think about. While people can try to paint google negatively all day long (and I've seen it happen) I trust google a lot more than I trust facebook, apple or microsoft..

Google + is a Godsend IMHO. I will try diapsora if it is anything more than vaporware (heard about it over a hear ago.)

If I could get more friends to join Google+ I would leave FB for good... G+ is still new.. but, the circles destroy facebook..I can easily control who see's what when I make a post. I can address specific audiences when I want to inform people of relevant things ect.

I am more worried about my ISP monitoring what I'm doing that google :/ Isp has a lot more power it can abuse.. google can only use whatever information I give it. I allow it to have a lot with my phone # contacts list, but it's pretty easy to manage and totally worth never having to worry about losing a # again.

Google really manages to create products that play well with pretty much everything.

Facebook can't even seem to keep the chat from breaking after any given number of updates.. I swear.. FB is some of the worst written or worst implemented code I have ever seen. I don't know where the quirk is but, it is buggy.

Edited by Snow_Fox
Link to post
Share on other sites

Electronic Frontiers Foundation on Pseudonymity, de-Facedbook and G00gle+

A Case for Pseudonyms - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/case-pseudonyms

A new debate around pseudonymity on online platforms has arisen as a result of the identification policy of Google+, which requires users to identify by "the name your friends, family, or co-workers usually call you". This policy is similar to that of Facebook’s which requires users to "provide their real names and information." Google’s policy has in a few short weeks attracted significant attention both within the community and outside of it, sparking debate as to whether a social platform should place limits on identity. A considerable number of Google+ users have already experienced account deactivation as a result of the policy, which Kirrily "Skud" Robert, a former Google employee kicked off the service for identifying as "Skud," has closely documented.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only going to throw it out there that if you dig deeply enough there are "security issues" with everything and google is no exception.

I agree. The internet is like life; there are "security issues" just walking out of the door of your house. Heck, even staying the house for that matter.

Like any service, some people will not like it for whatever reasons. Fine by me. I'm enjoying it so far and I haven't seen one Google Black Op Helo outside yet... well, I guess you're not supposed to see them anyway... oh no.... are they out there? ;)

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using google+ for a few weeks now and most of my friends that I actually want to talk to are on there and I have found more friends easier and less obnoxiously since it can refer to who I talk to most on my email. And now I have realized that facebook is now just a way to keep up with bands I like, etc. Reminds me of what I used Myspace for after facebook came along.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Electronic Frontiers Foundation on Pseudonymity, de-Facedbook and G00gle+

A Case for Pseudonyms - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/case-pseudonyms

I'm not trying to belittle this point...

However, I believe there is a time and place for everything.

Unfortunately pseudonyms are a double edged sword. Using a proxy, or library computer. I could then go create a pseudonym and stalk my ex with no repercussions what so ever. Sure, she could use a pseudonym to try and avoid me. Then it just depends on how determined I am to find her. I really doubt it would be hard. (not trying to paint myself as any sort of real world stalker, just making my point)

I mean, unless *all* of her friends delete me, or she gives up on talking to all but her core group of friends, its as easy as monitoring carefully.

Even one step up, just looking for people who look like her and having a name I don't recognize in a network I know she is a part of, for example her school.

I'm not against anonymity for the protection of parties who need it, but come on.. this is all so far down the list of things to worry about it isn't even funny. And the effectiveness depends very highly on the abilities and common sense of the person using it.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/04/iphone-tracks/

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2384662,00.asp

There are many outlets to address the public, I am not against people using facebook as a medium for idea exchange to express their views among other things. With that said, I somehow doubt facebook has any real means to verify who you are outside of checking your name based on your email. If you register your facebook account, for the purposes of anonymity, with your real name attached to the email, You are far more trusting than I am. I also noticed "connections" and "ban appeal".... to be blunt, if your too ignorant to know how to file a ban appeal, do you then deserve access to facebook?

I don't know how many people you happen to be friends with that have names like "lucrecia 'theprincess' vanderbilt" or "Rob 'lololmymiddlename is long' Thompson" or "bob 'thebeastyahurd?' bobson", but I'll be the first to say I hate searching through and seeing people put totally stupid and frivolous middle names.

The article also points out that someone has to report you, how then do they know your using a pseudonym?

If you haven't tried google+ then you may not realize it.. but, the circles add *alot* of functionality for controlling who sees what about you, and who you let see *your* information.

doesn't do much for political activist, however there is always blogspot for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...