Google Buzz — First Reactions

Hmmm... by socceroos · 2010-02-09 14:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

I went to buzz.google.com and signed up, but my Gmail account didn't change at all.

I'm willing to give GBuzz a go, but I don't think I'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google's recent views on privacy.

Re:Hmmm... by Asdanf · 2010-02-09 14:29 · Score: 1

I went to buzz.google.com and signed up, but my Gmail account didn't change at all.
The button on that page just launches gmail. It does not opt you in.
Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 14:30 · Score: 4, Informative

"We're still rolling out Buzz to everyone, so if you don't see it in your Gmail account yet, check back soon."
Re:Hmmm... by socceroos · 2010-02-09 14:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Ah yes, that bit of text right at the top of the page.......no one told me it was there.
Re:Hmmm... by longhairedgnome · 2010-02-09 16:22 · Score: 4, Informative

Some things you just have to find out for yourself, I've been able to access it on my iPod, but not my PC

--
GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
Re:Hmmm... by psithurism · 2010-02-09 16:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't think I'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google's recent views on privacy.
Well if you use social networks like me, you have your boss, your parents and your grandma all friended: so the "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," is already pre-enforced for you.
I will be happily handing google pictures of myself well-dressed along with flattery of my great family and coworkers.
Re:Hmmm... by PopeRatzo · 2010-02-09 17:02 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, I guess if you're going to use a social network, you might as well go with a company that has behaved fairly well compared to the others.
Facebook has shown itself to be a little too aggressive with peoples' data, going so far as to make it difficult to control your privacy settings.
It seems that the best we can do is trust a company until they have proven themselves untrustworthy. And, of course, it helps not to be stupid in the way you use these social networks.
If Google's social network does NOT have "games" and virtual hugs, I might take a look. Otherwise, I'd just rather be left alone than have a bunch of people I didn't much like from high school petitioning me to be their "friend", as if I'd ever forget the way they treated me way back then. Especially the cute redhead who decided that the greasy guido would be a better homecoming date than me, ended up getting pregnant before graduation and marrying him and now he's a fat loser and she's a middle-aged divorcee and suddenly remembers how much she always liked me. WELL, YOU BLEW YOUR CHANCE SWEETIE, BECAUSE NOW I'D BE MORE INTERESTED IN YOUR 19 YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER THAN YOUR FLABBY COUGAR ASS!!@
Excuse me, I got carried away there.
No, I don't think I'll try any more social networks.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Hmmm... by socceroos · 2010-02-09 17:34 · Score: 1

That's really entertaining....and sad.
Re:Hmmm... by bronney · 2010-02-09 20:04 · Score: 1

lol. man I don't have mod points. I know eh, "friends" pfft who needs them. *alt-tabs back to modern warfare 2*..
Re:Hmmm... by chris.alex.thomas · 2010-02-09 20:57 · Score: 0

carried away maybe, but it's so true, so very, very true.
Re:Hmmm... by MrPhilby · 2010-02-10 01:10 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Oh, for mod points.
Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 01:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anonymous Coward likes this.
Re:Hmmm... by tehcyder · 2010-02-10 01:41 · Score: 1

I don't think I'll ever see myself getting caught up in social media networks - especially with Google's recent views on privacy.

To be honest, if you're that worried about privacy you shouldn't be using any social networking site that involves real world data. I certainly wouldn't assume that any personal information on facebook or whatever was secure.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Hmmm... by hesaigo999ca · 2010-02-10 01:47 · Score: 2

Dude, I would so mod you up if only I had some points, wish I had kept some for a rainy day, ....or now!
"What you go through in high school usually ends up being the opposite in real life."
Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 02:21 · Score: 1, Informative

LMAO
Re:Hmmm... by imakemusic · 2010-02-10 02:28 · Score: 1

I went to gmail.com and all I got was this lousy email address.

--
Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 02:52 · Score: 0

I totally agree with you on the games and virtual hugs and crap. Who cares about such stuff.
Loved the comments on the cute redhead LMAO!!!
Re:Hmmm... by ShatteredArm · 2010-02-10 03:47 · Score: 1

Well, I guess if you're going to use a social network, you might as well go with a company that has behaved fairly well compared to the others.
The moderators were right... That was funny!
Re:Hmmm... by RobDude · 2010-02-10 04:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Except the 19 year old hottie of a daughter still won't choose the old loser over the attractive jerk guys in her community college.
Sure - maybe after she gets knocked up and the guy runs - you can swoop in and land yourself a semi-hot 22 year old milf or something.
But let's face it, the only reason you like the cute red-head was because she was cute. And there was probably even a fat ugly chick who had a crush on you - but you ignored her in exactly the same way the cute chick ignored you.
And now? You say you wouldn't be interested in the former cute girl because she's a fatty with children.
It's clear you aren't advocating any sort of meaningful change; you aren't saying, 'Hey - we should look at more important things than looks, because they are fleeting and these other traits are more likely to lead to a happy relationship'. You're just holding a grudge because you didn't end up on the good side of the genetic lotto that determines how physically attractive we are.
Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 04:56 · Score: 0

"especially with Google's recent views on privacy". If you are referring to the comment by Eric Schmidt, it was taken a bit out of context. All he was saying is that the government has the legal authority to find out what you search for without your knowledge. This really has nothing to do with Google's views.
Re:Hmmm... by socceroos · 2010-02-10 08:57 · Score: 1

It isn't, and that's why I don't have a facebook account, or twitter or Identica or MySpace or any other social networking site.

Gmail is my one sin - now with Google's new/revealed privacy views I'm beginning to rue that decision.
Re:Hmmm... by socceroos · 2010-02-10 09:06 · Score: 1

Well said, well said. Still doesn't change the fact that we all want some hot ass though.

Nah, seriously, the parent has it right - there is definitely more important aspects, like their character. Having said that, most of todays generation looks for 'the perfect mate' and don't get that you have to work at your relationship. Blood, sweat 'n tears my friend - but boy its worth it in the end.
Re:Hmmm... by demonrob · 2010-02-10 15:22 · Score: 1

so she ends up breeding and adding to the gene pool, and he ends up in slashdot. such is life.
Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 17:18 · Score: 0

You might want to try logging out / logging back in. Worked for me.
Re:Hmmm... by sderjik · 2010-02-10 23:17 · Score: 1

Were you a nerd wearing glasses in your schooldaze?

Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-09 14:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

The problem, however, will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits ." Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail, but most won't yet (this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse). A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz -- one interesting one being its ability to post an update either pubilcly or privately, at the user's option.

And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe. Even if you mark it private, you've still shared it with someone who believes that you have no right to privacy, and that if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.

Re:Public vs private by value_added · 2010-02-09 15:08 · Score: 1

And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe.
But you regularly suck on the teat of that giant whore, yes?
Re:Public vs private by Weezul · 2010-02-09 15:31 · Score: 1

I don't give google very much information but I'd trust google over facebook any day. Facebook must be shelved.

--
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Re:Public vs private by Idiomatick · 2010-02-09 15:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

"as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it."
He said that while referring to people committing crimes. Having proof of it online. Then being shocked when police with warrants get it. Which btw is standard and LAW for all companies to comply with. Didn't even say anything about google itself. I could say that about computing generally and no one would disagree. Hell it applies beyond computing.

'If you don't want to get busted by cops it is probably a good idea to not leave a traceable trail. BTW, cops can get warrants to search your shit.' -- pretty fucking obvious.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-09 15:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe.

But you regularly suck on the teat of that giant whore, yes?

One of my new years resolutions was to dump google. I removed them from the list of search engines in my browsers. I don't need gmail - I have 2 email accounts with my ISP and about a dozen others on my various domains, and I have a lot more storage space than google will ever give me. I've never used google docs. I don't want or need google gears. I switched away from openDNS. There are alternatives to google news, and google maps, and google whatever - there is not much they're doing that is unique. The only thing I'll check (through scroogle.org) is how they rank a site, vs the other search engines. If they were to disappear tomorrow, I wouldn't need to do even that.
I simply don't trust them - at this point, I'd even trust Microsoft more.
Re:Public vs private by chewthreetimes · 2010-02-09 15:45 · Score: 5, Funny

Wow, look at you. Roughin' it, all off the grid and shit.
Re:Public vs private by MarkWatson · 2010-02-09 15:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have to disagree with you:
Google performs statistical NLP on your data, and automatically finds good ads, etc.
As per Google turning over your data to the government: we are probably close to total government access to everything we do, so I would chill out about stuff that we are helpless to do anything about (unless you are going to stop using the Internet).
Re:Public vs private by Idiomatick · 2010-02-09 16:02 · Score: 1, Troll

Bad form to double reply but you do realize they are competing against Facebook here! They sure as fuck are worse about privacy than Google has ever been. And twitter is purely about announcing things publicly to the universe. Not reallllly an issue here. And if you needed a reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoWKGBloMsU .. he basically says that privacy isn't what people want so we aren't giving it to them...
Re:Public vs private by That's+Unpossible! · 2010-02-09 16:09 · Score: 4, Funny

When will you be ditching your TV?

--
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Re:Public vs private by D+H+NG · 2010-02-09 16:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

Google is the only search engine with the balls to refuse a government subpoena to turn over its search records. Not Microsoft, not Yahoo!, not AOL.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-09 16:48 · Score: 0, Troll

Read what he said - his exact words were "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,", not "If you're committing a crime ...".
Think of all the personal things you do every day that are just nobody's business. Like what you watch on TV, or what you look at on the Internet, or who you had supper with, or your last meeting with your doctor or lawyer or clergycritter ...
Schmidt thinks that your data, in his hands, is HIS data.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-09 16:53 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Don't laugh - I bought a 50" plasma TV and a nice surround-sound system last year ... I might watch it two or three times a month (and there's been at least one month I didn't turn it on at all).
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-09 16:55 · Score: 1

Old news - for years, they don't even need a warrant, just a "reasonable expectation" that the requesting agency "could" get one if they had to. It's right there in their privacy policy. No mention of needing a warrant.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-09 16:58 · Score: 1

No - but I want to see a future where "cloud computing" means everyone connected to everyone else, sharing what they want without some jerk in between trying to intrude on your and my civil rights.
Re:Public vs private by D+H+NG · 2010-02-09 17:13 · Score: 1

If that's the case, how does this make Google worse than any of the other search engines out there? How many search engines you know tells you up front what it knows about you and allows you to edit it?
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-09 17:44 · Score: 1, Interesting

People don't care about privacy until they need it - then they care a LOT about it. I'm sure you have at least one piece of personal info you don't want posted all over the Internet. People want to be able to control their personal information that's why it's called "personal information" - it belongs to the person, not to google or whoever else is holding it "in trust", or more often, in violation of trust when there's a buck to be made.
Facebook USED to claim people don't want privacy. They found otherwise the hard way, when Canada told them to fix their site or else. Sanctions include fines paid to the victims on a per-offense basis, so it could have been VERY expensive for Facebook to ignore it. BTW, violation of the protection of the whistle-blowers section is a criminal offense. We take privacy seriously, and we recognize that whistle-blowers play an important part in keeping companies honest.
Privacy allows us to ask questions we wouldn't necessarily want to ask to the whole world. When people write to me privately about their transgender issues, do you think they want me posting it all over the net? Seriously ... when a slashdotter or anyone else writes me that they're either [married | have kids | in a fundie church | work with rednecks | are republican] or any combination of those factors, and they have gender identity issues, they certainly have a right to expect me NEVER to share their personal information.
It's one reason I don't regret that I dropped my US-based host - Canada == much better privacy legislation. It's also why the privacy policy doesn't mince words - I don't say "we release information if we have a reasonable expectation that the requesting party has made an enforceable request" - which is google's way of saying "If we think they COULD get a warrant, we'll roll over on you." - it says "get a warrant"

Sharing of private data

3 words - "get a warrant.". Clear. Plain. Simple. Easy to understand. No weasel-words. Unequivocal.
Private data will not be shared with others, including government agencies and/or law enforcement, without a validly-issued warrant signed by a judge from a Canadian court.
"Requests" from outside Canada lack jurisdiction, even under "long-arm" statutes of countries like the United States, because transboutique.com is not a commercial site, so it fails to meet the "do significant business" requirement of the long-arm statute.

This is the only way to conform to Canadian privacy laws. A "reasonable expectation" that they "could" get a warrant is not enough.
Commercial sites could do the same - invoking the long-arm statute by a foreign commercial entity STILL requires a valid warrant.
Re:Public vs private by Idiomatick · 2010-02-09 17:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

From like ONE fucking line lower:
"If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities."

Clearly referring to the legal aspects. Stating that Google is subject to certain laws. So I suspect you are just being a troll/douche at this point.
Re:Public vs private by _Sprocket_ · 2010-02-09 18:17 · Score: 1

Not this again. There is nothing that backs up your claim. Yeah - Google being a central clearing house of personal information is a risk. And it's one people should take pause to consider. But let's have them thinking about the real issues, not phantoms.
Re:Public vs private by Idiomatick · 2010-02-09 18:23 · Score: 1

"We take privacy seriously"
If you work for facebook, in the interest of full disclosure you should say so :/

"They certainly have a right to expect me NEVER to share their personal information. "
Good. And as it should be. But if you got a warrant thrown at you it could be an issue. I think there needs to be laws made protecting issues involving confidentiality. Perhaps model it after doctor/lawyer confidentiality. Change it to 'professional confidentiality' and be done with it. But it hurts abilities to track criminals so it'd be realllllly hard to pass. (Pretty much anything used to catch criminals hurts everyone's privacy).

http://www.privacylawyer.ca/blog/2009/10/new-decision-on-warrantless-access-to.html
Is a Canadian law that is interestingly worded. I'd check your ISP's wording if I were you. I'm sure many of them will not look good. Also I'm not sure WHAT agreement Bell signed with it's resellers so Bell could fuck things up for everyone (like they have repeatedly).

Also, Eric Schmidt's comments about having to follow the law do not make them legally susceptible to anything. So... [citation needed] for the following:
"'we release information if we have a reasonable expectation that the requesting party has made an enforceable request' - which is google's way of saying 'If we think they COULD get a warrant, we'll roll over on you.'"
Re:Public vs private by pydev · 2010-02-09 18:27 · Score: 1

And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe.
The biggest data whores in the known universe are governments; or do you seriously believe that they can't listen in to everything you say or do online?
Your ISP, Google, Microsoft, your government--they are all likely getting most of your E-mails and appointments anyway, one way or another. You can't even escape it by switching ISPs, since your conversations go through their wires and onto their servers anyway.
Re:Public vs private by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 18:41 · Score: 0

Do you also wake up in the middle of the night and pee? Who gives a shit most people use google because they are the best around. If you want to use the second rate web have fun. i'll take my chances
Re:Public vs private by Miseph · 2010-02-09 18:51 · Score: 1

Not a troll, just a moron. It's like demanding that somebody keep a secret, then running out and telling everyone the first chance you get... what was the point?
How's this for a rule of thumb: if you don't think Google should know about it, DON'T TELL THEM ABOUT IT.
The internet is a near instantaneous global communications network: disseminating information is a primary function, transmitting data is a primary function, retaining anonymity and protecting privacy are tertiary functions at best. Bottom line: Schmidt has it right, don't put anything on the internet that you wouldn't want on the internet. Sounds pretty "duh" when you actually think about it.

--
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Re:Public vs private by nine-times · 2010-02-09 18:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

you've still shared it with someone who believes that you have no right to privacy, and that if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.
In fairness, he didn't say you had no right to privacy, and the quote is often taken out of context. It was in the context of saying:

If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines - including Google - do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.
So he's not saying, "screw you, I don't value your privacy." He's giving a warning that your information is probably not as private as you'd hope regardless of what service providers you're using. Microsoft also keeps records of searches for some amount of time (I believe it's at least 6 months) and they *will* turn that information over to the government. You know what? Your ISP has records of your web surfing, and will probably turn it over to the government if asked. Assuming you don't host your own email, there are employees at your email service provider who can read your email. These are things you should know.
His advice may be a little flippant, but it's not bad. If there's something that you would be totally ashamed if people found out you were doing it, then you should probably at least consider not doing it. That's true regardless of whether that "something" takes place on the Internet. Of course, the Internet, as it exists today, isn't any good at securing privacy. Most people don't encrypt their email, which means even if you want to, you can't. Websites keep track of which IP requests come from and your ISP keeps records of your IP. Unless you're rerouting encrypted traffic through proxies, you have TONS of information out in the open. It would be irresponsible of Google to claim that they can ensure your privacy.
So I'd put it this way: If you absolutely cannot afford to let anyone know that you've done certain things online, then you should either be taking strong enough measures to secure your own privacy that Google couldn't track you if they wanted to, or else you should just not be involved in those activities. Otherwise, you're just taking your chances.
I'd say the much more valid grounds for concern with Google is that, with all the services they offer, it's such one-stop-shopping for anyone looking to invade your privacy.
Re:Public vs private by martin-boundary · 2010-02-09 19:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

We are NOT helpless. The government is I/O bound, just like every organization and company out there. When it comes to your data, each repository costs a separate amount of time and effort to read. So if you distribute your data widely, then you increase the I/O cost of collecting your data for reading and searching.
Here's an example:
If you use Google services for search, email, socializing, writing your letters, IM'ing, etc, then the government can open an I/O channel to Google and get access to all your browsing habits, email, social data, letters, IM logs etc.
Now suppose you use Bing for search, your local ISP for email, Facebook for social, Open Office for letters, AIM for IM etc, then what? The government has to open an I/O channel to Microsoft for your search terms, then they have to open another I/O channel to read your mail with your ISP, then contact yet another company for I/O on your social links, etc. And on top of that, they have to send people to your home to get read access to your Open Office files. That's a lot more work, a lot more subpoenas, a lot more time, and a lot more cost, just to get the same amount of data about you.
And with so many different companies and locations, each company has different policies about retention, backup, willingness to preserve privacy, etc. Compare that with Google, where the special government backdoor allows uniform guarantees of simplicity and ease of access to your data. All the government needs is a single judge to say the word, and Google will comply.
Re:Public vs private by DerekLyons · 2010-02-09 19:01 · Score: 1

Read what he said - his exact words were "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,", not "If you're committing a crime ...".
Think of all the personal things you do every day that are just nobody's business.
Things "you don't want anyone to know about" aren't the same as "things that are nobody's business" in that the first are generally things you are trying to hide to avoid potential consequences.
Re:Public vs private by koiransuklaa · 2010-02-09 19:16 · Score: 1

You are the one being stubborn. The guy used clear words "something that you don't want anyone to know about" instead of "something illegal". Even a child understands the difference and would know when to use one or the other.
The second sentence does make it clear that the case at hand was terrorism (how handy) but that doesn't change the fact that the first sentence is a clear indication of how Schmidt thinks.
Re:Public vs private by badpazzword · 2010-02-09 19:50 · Score: 1

Unfortunately it takes more than a child to understand extrapolating a sentence from its context invariably changes its meaning.

--
When ideas fail, words become very handy.
Re:Public vs private by koiransuklaa · 2010-02-09 20:29 · Score: 1

Have you seen the interview? I have, and I don't understand what you mean. I didn't extrapolate (well, I'm not sure what "extrapolating a sentence from it's context" is but I think I didn't): In the interviewthat sentence is used fairly independently.
When I first saw that, I was pretty shocked. The guy really seemed to think what he said -- it might have been a fumble or a malicious edit by the NBC but like I said, the difference between the sentences I pointed out earlier is pretty damn simple...
badpazzword, tell me how should I understand Schmidts interview, if you think my interpretation is wrong?
Re:Public vs private by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 21:10 · Score: 0

We take privacy seriously
o rly
Re:Public vs private by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 21:22 · Score: 0

Already did...
netflix and hulu
Re:Public vs private by jasonq · 2010-02-09 23:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

I would chill out about stuff that we are helpless to do anything about (unless you are going to stop using the Internet).
And this is precisely how liberty is lost.
Re:Public vs private by bgarcia · 2010-02-09 23:42 · Score: 1

If anybody else needs help moving there stuff off of google, be sure to read through the Data Liberation Front. It's an attempt to document methods for moving your data out of (and into) various Google products.

--
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Re:Public vs private by xtracto · 2010-02-09 23:54 · Score: 1

The fact is, if you want to perform information sharing with some other person by sending text (email), images (jpgs), documents (say, doc ,xls, etc) or by visiting web pages (looking at some information, say porn, how to make a bomb, your credit card statement, etc) you cannot expect ANY privacy online (unless using some kind of cryptography, and sometimes that only protects you to a certain degree).
People do not seem to understand that when they are sending the google query "nice cute little pussies" or any other information, it passes several third party checkpoints (hubs, switches, routers, bridges, etc) that you do not control.
In addition, your information is in written in the open, with no "envelope" that can be used to detect whether the contents have been read once, twice or any times.
As for your quote:

"Schmidt thinks that your data, in his hands, is HIS data."

I believe that Google or any internet company is providing you with a service. Such service comes with some terms of use. If you use it, you must accept it. It is that simple.
Imagine I knock at your door and tell you that I can find an answer to any question you ask and give you advice on anything. In exchange, every day I bring you the answer to something, it will be on a paper which has several ads related to what you asked. And that I could use your data for other statistical purposes
Would you want that service?

--
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Re:Public vs private by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 23:57 · Score: 0

Of course you'd trust Microsoft more, they're too incompetent to do anything really evil with your data.
They're also too incompetent to keep anyone else from doing anything evil with your data.
Re:Public vs private by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 00:24 · Score: 0

HAHA, are you serious?
I mean really, are you seriously serious?
Wow, are you the biggest idiot ever? Where have you been since, oh, i dunno, forever?
Trust Microsoft more? Haha, you do realize Microsoft used the CEOs words against them, right? It's Microsoft for crying out loud, they are the biggest FUD spreaders in history. That statement applies to every single search engine there is, period.
Let us not forget that GOOGLE were the only ones who stood up to the government subpoena for search results, whereas Microsoft, your new buddy, happily told them all.
I can't believe there are idiots who actually fell for the FUD, ON SLASHDOT NO LESS.
Re:Public vs private by Daengbo · 2010-02-10 00:29 · Score: 2, Informative

The OpenSocial mailing list was notified today about a project that was announced at FOSDEM 10: OneSocialWeb. It extends XMPP to handle stuff like activity streams and third-party apps. It's set to be released under an Apache license and will provide a completely federated social network. I'm very excited.
Screencast with working client and server. The project is requesting developer help.

--
Put identity in the browser.
Re:Public vs private by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 02:12 · Score: 0

Giving the Patriot Act in the US (over which context the quote that is being used and abused was made) and similar laws in other countries, all over the world, which relate to providing information to law enforcement agencies when requested under a mandate, I hope you enjoy your living in the hoods. If you need supplies, make sure you avoid those establishments with CCTV and always pay cash (that last one almost goes without saying).
Re:Public vs private by tehcyder · 2010-02-10 02:19 · Score: 1

at this point, I'd even trust Microsoft more

Blasphemy! Burn the witch!

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Public vs private by maxwell+demon · 2010-02-10 02:44 · Score: 1

That doesn't tell you what it knows about you. It tells you what data is associated with your Google account. I'm pretty sure it doesn't tell you the data mined through doubleclick ads, for example (I can't check that, because I don't have a Google account; but then, thanks to AdBlock Plus there should not be too much data anyway).

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Public vs private by afrazkhan · 2010-02-10 02:51 · Score: 1

if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.
I'm 100% behind that concept. Give it a go for just one week, things become a lot simpler. "Complicated" issues which you think you have to lie about or hide, become so simple when you bring them to the surface unabashedly.
Sorry I know I'm on a terribly high horse at the moment, but I feel my balance is good :)

--
Apples, a healthy alternative to stabbing yourself in the eye.
Re:Public vs private by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 03:02 · Score: 0

actually "enforceable request" pretty much means warrant or subpoena. Enforceable means the cops have to make a request that if google said no, they'd face jail time for obstruction of justice.
And yes google has turned down requests for information from the FBI, telling them to get a warrant or subpoena. Similar requests were made to yahoo, aol, and microsoft, but only google told them to pound salt unless you have a warrant or subpoena for a specific case or investigation.
Re:Public vs private by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 03:07 · Score: 0

If they have no regards for authority imagine what they think about your privacy... Yeah they have the balls to do many things. Like taking advantage of your private data.
Re:Public vs private by oreaq · 2010-02-10 03:09 · Score: 1

So he's not saying, "screw you, I don't value your privacy."

In a way he is saying just that: Google decided to retain search histories for a couple of months. This retaining allows government agencies to get a warrant and look at your search histories. Now there is probably a valid business reason for keeping these records and Google values our privacy less than those business reasons.
But at least he is honest and that is the most you can expect from a company.
Re:Public vs private by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 03:09 · Score: 0

Google: A DoubleClick company. No longer innovating just buying their competition and following along with the latest trends. Often striving for even more over-the-top privacy issues than their competitor(s).
There's it's been said. Google as everyone knows it is only the search engine. Everything else is all for marketing exploits with user data and privacy.
Stockholders no doubt rejoice, but users beware.
Re:Public vs private by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 03:11 · Score: 0

If you want to be paranoid, you should be encrypting your email. Otherwise your smtp server or the other person's smtp server could be logging every single thing you send or receive. And better not store you're emails on anyone's server. Web based email is totally out of the question. Ideally you should be running an email server yourself. And better avoid IM and chatrooms altogether.
Anything less than that, you're trusting a company to abide by its privacy policy, and have a secure enough setup that no one's going to hack into it.
Re:Public vs private by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2010-02-10 03:14 · Score: 3, Informative

We are NOT helpless. The government is I/O bound, just like every organization and company out there.
Wait what?!? Every single thing I've ever read has indicated the government has huge amounts of data and is restricted by its ability to process and intelligently make use of that data, not by getting data from disparate sources.

Now suppose you use Bing for search, your local ISP for email, Facebook for social, Open Office for letters, AIM for IM etc, then what? The government has to open an I/O channel to Microsoft for your search terms, then they have to open another I/O channel to read your mail with your ISP, then contact yet another company for I/O on your social links, etc.
The government is probably already sucking in massive quantities of information from all these major players en masse. The best hope of avoiding coming to their attention is to do business with small players they may not have bothered with and doing business with companies with competent security and strong ethics regarding sharing your data. That is to say, look for companies that actually tell the government "no" and require a warrant at least.

And with so many different companies and locations, each company has different policies about retention, backup, willingness to preserve privacy, etc.
Ummm, if the government is asking all of them for your data anyway, then maybe you should be focusing on the ones with the best data privacy policies.

Compare that with Google, where the special government backdoor allows uniform guarantees of simplicity and ease of access to your data. All the government needs is a single judge to say the word, and Google will comply.
Getting a judge to sign an order puts up a significant block to getting your data. Sure they can do it, but it takes time and leaves tracks. Requiring a judge to do that is actually a much larger stumbling block to invading your privacy than the majority of your listed companies require.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-10 03:41 · Score: 1

I don't deal with Bell - I'm well aware of their continual screw-ups :-) Videotron *tried* to give out IP information without a warrant, and was barred from doing so by the courts. They got smacked down, they learned their lesson.
In the case you cite, the judgment was that the Ontario police were acting in good faith - but they did not have the right to the information. This doesn't create a precedent - to the contrary, they've now had their "one bite at the apple of good faith", and can no longer do warrantless fishing expeditions at Ontario ISPs claiming "in good faith", same as they can't in Quebec any more.
It would be VERY hard for someone to get the info, even with a warrant. The procedure is very simple - I take the warrant, draft up a motion for an injunction and damages, head downtown to the courthouse, talk to the "maitre de role" - the person who is i charge of what case is being heard where, find a judge who has 2 free minutes, get him to sign the injunction, if they don't like it, we have a hearing before the judge, I invoke the grounds. Lawyers charge big bucks for what any jerk with an hour or two and a word processor can do (I've filed dozens of motions, and when it comes time, I win, not because I'm good, but because I'm right. Pick your battles. :-)
"What if the warrant was issued by another jurisdiction?" you ask ...
Then I throw scan it and post it on the Internet and tell the people involved to get a judge with jurisdiction to issue one.
"What if they phony up one?"
Then they're facing 2 years in jail for each count of uttering a forged document (that's in addition to criminal trespass).
No warrant, no search. 2 years ago the police had reports of a guy being shot and stuffed into the back of an SUV. They followed the SUV - the driver pulled into his house and parked in his garage. The police had to surround the place and wait half a day before a judge would authorize them to enter the house to search it for the perp and the body.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-10 03:47 · Score: 1

Things "you don't want anyone to know about" aren't the same as "things that are nobody's business" in that the first are generally things you are trying to hide to avoid potential consequences.

And if it's nobody's business, according to Schmidt, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Or do you now propose a "MYOB" bit be added to every TCP header?
Re:Public vs private by gfreeman · 2010-02-10 03:48 · Score: 1

How are they trying to intrude on your civil rights?

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-10 03:51 · Score: 1

They could clear it up simply by stating that they will only comply with documented lawful requests - a warrant - as required by that "piece of paper" known as the Constitution.
They don't because it's one more revenue stream for them.
If you're so sure you're right, send them an email and ask them if they ever turn over personal information without a warrant issued by a judge who has jurisdiction. They should welcome the chance to clarify things.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-10 03:55 · Score: 1

Imagine I knock at your door and tell you that I can find an answer to any question you ask and give you advice on anything. In exchange, every day I bring you the answer to something, it will be on a paper which has several ads related to what you asked. And that I could use your data for other statistical purposes
Would you want that service?

Google is using it for far more than statistical purposes. Statistical purposes don't require the retention of as much data as they retain, unanonymized, for as long as they retain it, which is the problem that leads to the requests for the information by govt in the first place.
And to answer your question, I removed google from my browsers list of search engines as one of my new years resolutions. They are the most invasive, so they get to go bye-bye.
Re:Public vs private by Idiomatick · 2010-02-10 04:02 · Score: 1

Heh, well you are certainly going above and beyond for your clientele and I respect that. I doubt you could legally uphold people to such standards mind you.

And I do hope you are right about ontario law *hamiltonian*.
Re:Public vs private by Sobrique · 2010-02-10 04:04 · Score: 1

Or do it anyway, and brag about it on facebook.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-10 04:07 · Score: 1

That was the last time google didn't roll over - 4 years ago. A lot has happened since then. The wording is such that if they have a "reasonable belief" that the cops "could" get a warrant, they give the info. It's what their updated privacy policy says, so it allows for google to turn over data if an investigator says "I can always get a warrant ..."
"Reasonable belief" is so broad that they might as well say "any dick with a badge who asks".
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-10 04:15 · Score: 1

1. I don't use webmail.
2. My hosting provider is local, governed by the same laws. The servers are local, governed by the same laws. No hypocritically-named PATRIOT Act here.
3. I don't do IM or chat.
4. Switching as many people as I know to encrypted email is on my TODO list for this year - thanks for the reminder.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-10 04:20 · Score: 1

The law here pretty much requires those standards of privacy, and judges back it up with nice fines for offenders and punitive damages awarded to the victims whose private info has been leaked. They don't even have to hire a lawyer to sue - the province will do it for us if the offender doesn't make a satisfactory arrangement.
It's funny - Quebec used to be considered the boonies ... now more and more, it's large chunks of the US that are looking like backwaters when it comes to people's rights. What happened? And why are so many people just sitting back and accepting it?
I don't get it ... it's really, really disappointing. If this is the "new reality", I don't want it.
Re:Public vs private by DerekLyons · 2010-02-10 04:35 · Score: 1

Nice try, but go back and read the very words you quoted from him.
Re:Public vs private by Archangel+Michael · 2010-02-10 05:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Your only mistake is assuming the government doesn't already know more about you than you probably would otherwise want.
And this year, they are collecting even more information than before (Census), and you are REQUIRED by law to complete the entire census form, and then you are required to sign it under the laws of perjury and shit.
You want to FUCK with the government, fine. Just be willing to accept the consequences. Most people don't, because they are SHEEPLE. baaa.
And the problem is that people want all the services and *FREE* stuff the government provides, and then on the next breath complain about intrusion into every aspect of their life by government.
Want to eat cake and have it too? You can't. Compromise is always like that. And people like me are called RADICAL (or Troll) for wanting as little government intrusion and power as possible.
And next up is all your medical data. You left wingers complaining about privacy should realize that you're the ones promoting government intrusion into every aspect of our lives.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Public vs private by edmicman · 2010-02-10 06:10 · Score: 1

I get the 'what you look at on the Internet', and even TV watching if you Google show times, but how does Google or anyone for that matter know who you had supper with or when your last meatspace meetings were unless you *tell someone*?
Re:Public vs private by thetoadwarrior · 2010-02-10 06:44 · Score: 1

The government has taken away quite a few rights since 2001 and I don't hear any real backlash from it. The elderly and parents love police states and they out vote the young and intelligent so don't think avoiding Google is going to avoid the government stick its microscope up your ass.
Re:Public vs private by bennomatic · 2010-02-10 06:50 · Score: 1

Well, he could never get his hands on it if you don't put it on the Internet. When someone posts pictures of themselves throw-up-drunk on a public FaceBook page and then wonders why they didn't get a job at their local church, they shouldn't be surprised.

--
The CB App. What's your 20?
Re:Public vs private by _Sprocket_ · 2010-02-10 09:07 · Score: 1

If you're so sure you're right, send them an email and ask them if they ever turn over personal information without a warrant issued by a judge who has jurisdiction. They should welcome the chance to clarify things.
I'm not interested in doing your legwork for you. And I'm not after negating the privacy issue. The issue that I see is that you're throwing these quotes around like they come from a statement made by Google. However, they are only your own loose interpretation of a privacy policy document. You have no legal background that would offer insight as to what that legal language means nor do you have any additional sources to otherwise strengthen your interpretation. In short, stop presenting things as fact that are not fact.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-10 11:39 · Score: 1

They want to get into knowing where you are all the time - combine your mobile phone gps with mobile search and they can tell who you are with, where, etc., just by tying your mobile phones to the same location. The Nexus 1 etc. will allow them to do that. What, you thought google drive was free?
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-10 11:43 · Score: 1

I guess you never heard of the concept of the "anonymity of the crowd." But to your point, what if it was someone else who posted the pictures? Unfair, but your adherence to "don't do anything that you don't want people to know about" policy would allow it.
Re:Public vs private by zobier · 2010-02-10 15:39 · Score: 1

I hope you're also blocking Googlebot from indexing your websites, oh, you're not http://google.com/search?q=transboutique
Hypocrite
Also, I trust Google over Scroogle. What, you think Scroogle doesn't love them some user data? They don't even have a privacy policy!

--
Me lost me cookie at the disco.
Re:Public vs private by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-11 03:59 · Score: 0

What do you mean "when I first saw that"? I thought you said you saw the interview, which would mean you "heard" his comments, right? I saw the interview as well. Schmidt was talking about Google retaining information you give it. If you don't want people knowing what you're doing [online: searching for, etc.], don't do it. Like every other search engine, social site, etc., Google will comply with lawful orders to give up your queries. Online anonymity from law enforcement is hard.
Re:Public vs private by hittjw · 2010-02-11 04:16 · Score: 1

I like the term "data whore", and people just keep giving them more of it. Maybe they are addicted. Right now the only privacy people have is in their heads.

--
If you had everything you wanted, you'd just want more.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-11 08:05 · Score: 1

I have quite a lot more legal background than you, including arguing and winning cases based on, among other things, constitutional rights, which is why I don't have to do YOUR legwork, and not the other way around. I've paid my dues.
Re:Public vs private by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-11 10:37 · Score: 0

-1 for "SHEEPLE" plz
Re:Public vs private by _Sprocket_ · 2010-02-11 18:32 · Score: 1

Performing first aid does not make you a surgeon and standing in front of a judge does not make you a lawyer. Again - my criticism is solely on your repeated statements that are presented as if they were fact, often using bogus quotes and language that implies that you're referencing a source. Then when challenged on that, you have no reference but your own material. Everything else is a distraction from that point.
Having said that - kudos for fighting the good fight. I say that with no hint of cynicism. I have no idea what legal issues you've been involved in. But no matter what the cause is / was, I honestly believe there's something fundamental to individuals standing up for their Constitutional rights.
Re:Public vs private by tomhudson · 2010-02-12 04:12 · Score: 1

One of my implied points was that most lawyers don't have much in the way of "domain knowledge". You'd be surprised at just how stupid/not up to to date/whatever most lawyers are in terms of what the law actually is at any point in time. They use the same tools you or I use, and most of them have surprisingly weak logic skills, which is why they went into lawyering instead of programming.
Any experienced troll can, with a bit of research, usually run rings around them in court.

Now's the Time by whisper_jeff · 2010-02-09 14:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

With Facebook, yet again, "updating" their layout in such a way that they've made their site (again) less useful and more cluttered, now is the time for a big player to make a serious push for a replacement social network. Facebook has consistently managed to make their site less and less and less friendly and useful so much of what drew people to it is being eroded so if someone were to enter the market with a streamlined, elegant social networking tool that allowed people to easily stay in touch with their friends without useless crap getting in the way, they'd stand a very good chance of taking a bite out of Facebook.

And, for anyone (especially Facebook!) who thinks it's impossible to topple Facebook from their throne, just think back to MySpace. Everyone figured MySpace had the social networking website locked up and then this upstart came out with this streamlined and elegant tool for staying in touch with your friends and family. Now, Facebook is cluttered and bloated and becoming less and less useful - all traits that MySpace had shortly before the end began.

What will it take to steal people away from Facebook? Simple, initially - integration with Twitter and Facebook. If a new network can link into both of those sites and do it better than they do it themselves, people will switch because it's zero risk - you're not turning your back on your contacts on Twitter or Facebook - you're just using a different tool. And then, over time, people will talk more about "Buzz" (or whatever the network is to step up and do it) and less about "tweets" or "Facebook".

The time is now. I _really_ hope Google can do it with Buzz because I _REALLY_ loathe the new layout for Facebook. I hated the old new one but the new new one sucks hardcore.

Re:Now's the Time by ozdeadman · 2010-02-09 14:38 · Score: 1

I would have to agree with your sentiments. It seems that every few months Facebook feels the need to reinvent their layout, annoying and confusing many of the user. And the latest update is the worst yet, it really does suck. The news feed is no longer in correct chronological order and the requirement of going back to the homepage to access events etc instead of being able to access from every page on a little tool bar is retarded. Hell, why am i ranting about this stuff:(
Re:Now's the Time by Again · 2010-02-09 14:40 · Score: 1

I actually appreciate the new new one. In the old new one I was not able to read my most recent notifications because the notification box would be larger than my window. I'm on a netbook so I'm getting used to having to deal with that kind of thing but I can't exactly hold down alt and drag the window to where I would be able to read it.
Re:Now's the Time by zigmeister · 2010-02-09 15:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't even mind the different layouts so much as opposed to one another. I just find it really annoying to have to relearn how to use a freaking website every three months when I've been on it for a couple years. Also, if slashdot nerds get annoyed with relearning the UI, how do you think Jane Smith feels? Extremely confused, especially given that they've been changing their privacy settings around too. Some people might just give up. I don't know.

--
Failure formatting five FAQs of financial facts.
Re:Now's the Time by Eryq · 2010-02-09 15:27 · Score: 4, Funny

You should definitely ask Facebook for your money back.

--
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
Re:Now's the Time by MrCrassic · 2010-02-09 15:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hear this claim made a lot, though I never see any warrants to back it up. Lots of people have expressed how Facebook is "so much harder to use," but never say where. Frankly, I think Facebook's layout is extremely clean for being as feature-rich as it is. Seriously, it takes me less than thirty seconds (not including any manual activity on my behalf) to post notes, pictures or (especially) status updates. On top of that, it's still incredibly fast and reliable, especially given its scale. (I've seen it have some downtime, but nowhere near MySpace levels.)
Facebook is going to need one really strong David to take it down, and I look very much forward to the one that does, since that only means it will be even more awesome.
Re:Now's the Time by srothroc · 2010-02-09 15:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

People have been complaining about Facebook's layout changes ever since it started, but it hasn't put a dent in its popularity at all. Personally, I think the new layout is better than the old one, anyway.

--
http://www.tenjou.net/
Re:Now's the Time by biryokumaru · 2010-02-09 16:40 · Score: 1

Wait, are you trying to tell me that no one uses LiveJournal anymore?

--
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Re:Now's the Time by Racing_Turtles · 2010-02-09 16:43 · Score: 0

Well.... I don't think the new layout's totally heinous, but I do take issue with some of the recent Facebook changes and other design elements. First and Worst: News Feed versus Live Feed... Ugh! We already had tools to hide anything we didn't want to see; Facebook's not at all disguised plan to reduce system load by limiting the amount of data to render by default sucks. .. there is literally no benefit and it requires additional steps to work around it. And it guesses badly "what I want to see". It also bothers me that when you back out of a page, say a photo album or someone's profile, you then return to the top of your prior page, not the actual location you jumped actually jumped off from... makes it a pain when you are going through "Older Posts" to catch up on a couple days' updates. Older Posts is buggy too, often slow and sometimes causes FB to freeze up. In general, though FB is remarkably fast for its dynamic nature, features, and bazillion active users, it is noticeably slower than it used to be.
Re:Now's the Time by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 17:19 · Score: 0

I wish we could. All the advertising revenue they make from plastering ads up and down every page on their site, when I close my account, I'd like all the money back from every ad they've shown against my content,
Re:Now's the Time by martin-boundary · 2010-02-09 17:22 · Score: 1

You obviously have strong ideas about how to beat Facebook at its own game. Have you considered founding a startup to beat them? Paul Graham is looking for ideas, you still have time until the application deadline.
Don't fart around on slashdot, go ahead and see if your ideas really hold water.
Re:Now's the Time by hagrin · 2010-02-09 18:00 · Score: 2, Informative

I hear this claim made a lot, though I never see any warrants to back it up. Lots of people have expressed how Facebook is "so much harder to use," but never say where.

You've obviously never used Facebook then.

First, they separated the feed into two - the News Feed and the Live Feed. No one could fully understand what the News Feed even was other than a bastardized version of the more complete Live Feed. Then, no matter how many times you selected Live Feed, after a certain period of time, your home page would default back to the News Feed. Then, they changed their privacy settings so that if you once had a locked down account, the default settings would share more info than you were previously.

Now, with the most recent update, the Live Feed has just disappeared, the News Feed isn't complete, the Top Stories feed lists things completely out of order with new posts buried down on the page, the Live Feed has somewhat been broken out under the Friends -> Status Updates/Recently Updated section, but even that section is incomplete as I have friends who have made status updates today that don't display under any category. My lady friend whom I stalk with computer nerd like determination posted a new video of her animals that doesn't show up anywhere unless I click directly on her profile.

That enough examples for you?

--
Hagrin.com
Re:Now's the Time by Hadlock · 2010-02-09 18:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think they're trying to minimize database hits. Not really sure what criteria it uses to show what's "popular". You can bump the number of people the live feed shows up to 9999, which is what I have mine set to, so you still have full functionality of before.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:Now's the Time by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 18:42 · Score: 0

This is never going to happen.
Rich and powerful investors have invested way too much money into Facebook to let it fail. Facebook also has the Harvard name and mystique.
Facebook also has a very strict and strong policy about getting data from it, so you can forget integrating it with your fledgling website.
Re:Now's the Time by wall0159 · 2010-02-09 21:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

...and that's just the thing about paying with the coin of privacy - there are no refunds
Re:Now's the Time by Ma8thew · 2010-02-09 22:50 · Score: 1

Whenever anyone says that they hate Facebook's new layout because it's 'less useful' and 'cluttered' what they really mean is that they hate change. A fairly common emotion, but not one to broadcast on Slashdot. If anything, they new layout is less cluttered. Chat is now the only thing on the bar at the bottom and friend request, inbox and notifications have all been put in the same place, instead of spread to the four corners of the screen.
Re:Now's the Time by Daengbo · 2010-02-09 22:51 · Score: 1

Social media needs to be federated, and I think Buzz is a good move in that direction, but not all the way. Status should pull from and post to any StatusNet server. Chat should run through any XMPP server. Pictures, videos, and posted links should come through RSS feeds or some such. My data should stay wherever I want to put it. The social service just aggregates and supplies a unified posting interface.

--
Put identity in the browser.
Re:Now's the Time by Sobrique · 2010-02-10 00:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

See, in my book that's 'harder to use'. I find the fact that I'm not certain to see everything on facebook irritating too - I have a blog, I subscribe to see others, I want to see all their posts, not just some of them.
Meh, whatever. I'm on facebook because other people are. I'm hoping google will be less annoying and _also_ managed to drag people away from farcebook. I suspect this will not be so.
Re:Now's the Time by whisper_jeff · 2010-02-10 00:41 · Score: 1

Whenever anyone says that they hate Facebook's new layout because it's 'less useful' and 'cluttered' what they really mean is that they hate change.
No. When most people say they hate Facebook's new layout what they mean is they hate the fact that it's now easier to find out who friends have friended, what achievements friends have gotten in stupid games that you don't give a rat's ass about, and other virtually useless crap while it's become harder to see people's status updates and recent posts (notes, links, and photos).

Every time Facebook has updated their site, they've increased the ease for users to find garbage they don't care about and harder for people to find the core information they really do care about.
Re:Now's the Time by Sobrique · 2010-02-10 00:42 · Score: 1

I do. Although, I do make it post to Facebook, because I know more people bother to log in to facebook than bother to go and read LJs.
I don't mind overly - I can cope with the notion that inane drivel goes on facebook, and real content goes in a real blog. What annoys me is when people try to have a 'proper' discussion in the comments on FB, when it really just doesn't support it properly.
Re:Now's the Time by MrPhilby · 2010-02-10 01:18 · Score: 1

I always"log out" of Facebook after a viewing session due to privacy concerns. The new layout makes logging out that little bit more difficult. Instead of being in the top toolbar it's now hidden in the "account" menu. 2 clicks instead of one. They really do not like our privacy and seem to be continually trying to erode it.
Re:Now's the Time by wintercolby · 2010-02-10 01:41 · Score: 0

Actually, what they REALLY need to do is make it easy for app developers to integrate what they've already created for FB/FBML into their platform. This along with adding a feed, a streamlined interface and an application button would do it. I could really see this taking off, and they do it well enough to actually provide a consistent UI from anywhere. If social networking proves anything, the average social networking user cares little for their privacy. It even seems they've added the one critical feature that I'd really want, a public/private option. I don't care if they use automated systems to find better products that I would actually be interested in. Compare Google and Internet marketing to Broadcast advertising. I stopped watching TV because there were so many commercials about products that I didn't care to buy (many that I wouldn't accept for FREE). The parts of it that were interesting got shrunk to short breaks between advertisements.

--
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
Re:Now's the Time by windex82 · 2010-02-10 01:48 · Score: 1

Really? It wasn't until after this last update that you could block specific applications from showing up in your feeds.... well as far as I know because I was never able to find it in any previous version.
Click the hide link on an update from farmville or whatever annoyance you have and you now have the option to block all updates from that specific application. Makes it tons easier to see status updates....
I agree with the gp, its the change that people bitch about.
Re:Now's the Time by Sobrique · 2010-02-10 02:17 · Score: 1

Thing is, my LJ layout has remained pretty much the same since I got it in ... 03?
I spent a while fiddling around with it, to get something I was happy with and ... have left it the same ever since. Which is ok, because other people can apply their own custom layouts too.
But I don't really care about how facebook layers their info, only that they seem to have two 'sources' - top news and most recent - and between the two they still don't cover all the stuff I _want_ to see.
I'm all for change, but when it makes the user experience more annoying, I'd like to be able to opt out, thanks.
Re:Now's the Time by Cro+Magnon · 2010-02-10 02:30 · Score: 1

Personally, I think the new layout is better than the old one, anyway.
Which is really damning with faint praise.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Now's the Time by tehcyder · 2010-02-10 02:30 · Score: 1

and that's just the thing about paying with the coin of privacy - there are no refunds

Giving up your online privacy is like committing suicide by slitting your wrists, cutting your dick off, garrotting yourself with a cheesewire, gouging out your brain with a knitting needle through your ear, then jumping off a 100 storey skyscraper with a cruise missile stuffed up your arse and timed to explode mid-air.

There's just no going back.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Now's the Time by Hadlock · 2010-02-10 02:49 · Score: 1

You can set up a RSS feed. This gives you a lot more options than basic facebook.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:Now's the Time by Hadlock · 2010-02-10 02:56 · Score: 1

This layout is identical to the 2006 layout, with slightly more color:

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.downloadsquad.com/media/2006/09/facebook_news_feed.jpg

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:Now's the Time by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 03:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

I'm one of those ready to give up, as my status feeds appear hours old now. I'm not getting updates, or when I do, they disappear on the next refresh. My parents are also using Facebook and I've had to field calls from them because they can't find things now. For example they use the same computer and my mom could not find the logout option so she could log in and ended up just viewing my dad's stuff. The problem is Facebook is changing the UI way too often it was less than a year ago they went through another huge change. At least with Google Buzz, it's very similar to my Gmail which has not gone through huge UI changes, but instead uses incremental changes to not overwhelm and require users to relearn the whole site.
Re:Now's the Time by gfreeman · 2010-02-10 04:04 · Score: 1

... because the notification box would be larger than my window ...
Press F11 twice, a scroll bar appears.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:Now's the Time by DragonWriter · 2010-02-10 07:21 · Score: 1

You should definitely ask Facebook for your money back.
Or, better, if you aren't happy, stop giving them your eyeballs, which is the product they sell to their customers, who are their advertisers.
Just because a service is free of monetary charge doesn't mean you aren't giving the provider of the service something that is of value to them in order to use it.
The whole "its free, so you can't expect anything" argument is fundamentally flawed; things that are free of charge aren't free of cost (particularly, the opportunity cost of choosing to use it instead of doing something else), and a for-profit business that offers something "free" still is expecting to receive something of value to the business in exchange. If its not providing a value that justifies the opportunity cost, the business isn't going to keep getting the thing of value that it wants out of the deal. A business that takes users of a "free" service for granted while relying on them for the resource it is selling to its paying customers is in for a rude awakening when someone provides a superior competing service and steals the "free" users away.
Re:Now's the Time by grimdawg · 2010-02-10 14:55 · Score: 1

it's in your nature to complain. There's no beating facebook. The war is over, Facebook won. Sure, people migrated to facebook from Myspace and its predecessors, but these were a different brand of user. There's no way your mum is going to sign up for a new social media site - it took long enough to convince her that facebook was worth her time. Old people hate change. They're not the type to migrate.

--
There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary, and nine other kinds of people.
Re:Now's the Time by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 16:34 · Score: 0

Bumping the number of people up to 9999 doesn't give you full functionality. I have mine set at 9999 and still, two of my closest friends don't show up in any of my feeds. I've even clicked on "more posts" from them, and they still don't show up.
Re:Now's the Time by webreaper · 2010-02-10 19:58 · Score: 1

Have to agree, the new layout is just fine. But more importantly, I don't bother using the full version - I do everything from my Android device. Facebook haven't changed the mobile site (http://m.facebook.com) for over 2 years....

Not enough gmail contacts by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 14:30 · Score: 0

Although gmail is my primary email account, I just don't have enough gmail contacts for this to be useful...and I doubt the hoards of computer illiterate friends I've shown to post photo's on facebook will make the switch to Buzz.

Can't be worse than Yahoo's try at social media... by gandhi_2 · 2010-02-09 14:30 · Score: 2, Funny

Yahoo tells me when anyone I ever knew in Yahoo-land makes a comment on any Yahoo-affiliated website...and conversely rats me out to them too.

When your sister-in-law gets notified about your post on "Who has the Biggest Flickr Rack"... you know web2.0 has problems.

--
THL phish sticks

buzz off by jeanph01 · 2010-02-09 14:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

Well I don't have it yet and do not want it. Is Google trying to answer a need I have or trying to stuff me with things I do not need ?

Re:buzz off by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-02-09 14:35 · Score: 1

You're not forced to use it. At best, it'll be sitting there in the list of folders in your GMail account, just like that chat window also does even if you don't use it. And I expect you can turn it off if you want, anyway.
Re:buzz off by d3ac0n · 2010-02-09 16:05 · Score: 1

I have it on my gmail.
Yes, you can turn it off. Just go to Settings -> Labels -> Buzz : Show | Hide and select hide. Bye bye Buzz.
I've kind of poked at it with a stick since Facebook's Fuckup with the new new (new?) UI changes.
Buzz feels a bit... unfinished to me. It's just one box to put status updates in, and not much else. The average Facebook user is going to find it wanting, even if they hate the new Facebook UI.
But it's a start. And if it's one thing Google has, it's time and money to burn. Facebook better watch out.

--
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Re:buzz off by localtoast · 2010-02-09 16:40 · Score: 1

Buzz feels a bit... unfinished to me. It's just one box to put status updates in, and not much else.

Yup, it needs Farmville. Like anyone cares about what their friends are doing.

Privacy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 14:31 · Score: 1, Interesting

Do people really trust Google less than Facebook?

Re:Privacy by biryokumaru · 2010-02-09 16:43 · Score: 1

I dunno, I don't think there was ever a time when you could log into any gmail account using the password "Chuck Norris."

--
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Re:Privacy by maxume · 2010-02-10 01:15 · Score: 1

That was restricted to the Facebook office.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.

facebook is over by Surt · 2010-02-09 14:32 · Score: 1, Funny

They may as well accept defeat, they have no chance to survive with buzz in the market. The coolest people are already moving, and they will drag their friends, etc. Facebook probably has less than two years left to it at this point. Hope the founders got their money out.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking

Re:facebook is over by dskzero · 2010-02-10 00:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just like Google Wave, Google Live, Orkut, etc, etc, etc...

--
Oblivion Awaits

Social Privacy ? by Bob_Who · 2010-02-09 14:33 · Score: 4, Funny

The network is not to blame for the oxymoron.

Re:Social Privacy ? by nine-times · 2010-02-09 19:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well and let's be honest, the Internet just isn't a private place at this point.
When it comes to Internet communication, I don't think you get much more private than email, and yet I don't know a single person who bothers to encrypt their email as a matter of course. I don't. I have email sitting in multiple different accounts on servers owned by various companies. I know that there are employees at each company who are capable of reading my email if they choose to. I think they shouldn't and I hope they don't, but my email still isn't encrypted.
On the whole, we rely on really big numbers to keep us safe on the Internet. There are probably billions of email accounts in the world, and each of us it hoping that our email isn't interesting enough for anyone else to bother to look at. Whether you know it or not, that's largely what you're relying on to keep your privacy: your relative unimportance.
It's so much weirder to me that, with all the lack of real privacy online, people expect privacy on sites where the sole purpose of the site is to broadcast personal information about yourself.
Re:Social Privacy ? by maxume · 2010-02-10 01:21 · Score: 1

The problem isn't people's expectations, it is that we don't have the right language for the situation. "Data control" is probably a more accurate description than privacy, but it isn't as emotionally appealing, so instead of "Personal Information/Data Policies" mediating information that has been explicitly disclosed to a third party (i.e., made non-private), we have "Privacy Policies".

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Social Privacy ? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 05:22 · Score: 0

It's so much weirder to me that, with all the lack of real privacy online, people expect privacy on sites where the sole purpose of the site is to broadcast personal information about yourself.
We don't want privacy, we want compartmentalization.
When I'm on vacation, I want my boss to know that I'm having a good time.
When I'm on vacation, I want my friends to know how good a time I'm having.
The problem is, most people - even on /., much less in the "real world" - understand the importance of compartmentalization. My boss and my co-workers shouldn't see the sorts of degenerates I hang out with. My friends don't need to know that my cow orkers and I make $bignum at $foocorp. (You have no idea how much money there is to be made in the cow orking business!)
When there's overlap is where there's trouble. "Dude, how'd the interview go at $barcorp" isn't something my boss needs to see.
Facebook gets it - and rejects it in favor of a model that's partway to David Brin's "transparent society". Rather than having everything public, Facebook assumes you have one mass of friends, and you're all willing to share everything with all of them. In college, which was where Facebook got its start, that's pretty much true; there's relatively little to compartmentalize, and the worst consequence is a little social drama because so-and-so is cheating on such-and-such with you-know-who. Everyone knows each other anyways.
Problem with Brin's vision is that it ignores power imbalances. Once you're outa college, your boss has a completely different notion of what constitutes "drama", and he might simply avoid it by firing you. Not because you interviewed at $barcorp, but because your friends don't go to the same church as he does.
If Google Buzz can pull off the benefits of social networking and implement compartmentalization, it might have a shot. (They're free to mine the data on the back-end all they want, so long as the compartmentalization remains airtight to the end user. No one will never know why FSM-themed Italian restaurant opened up next to $foocorp. The owner asked Google, and found out that there were a lot of otherwise-anonymous Pastafarians in the vicnity. Your boss still has no way of knowing you're one of them, since he's at church on Sunday while you're at the restaurant, communing with the FSM.)
Re:Social Privacy ? by yurtinus · 2010-02-10 10:18 · Score: 1

Well and let's be honest, the Internet just isn't a private place at this point.

Was it ever really? I thought the entire point was the rapid share and exchange of information. Privacy has only become a concern as its use has become mainstream.

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Social Privacy ? by nine-times · 2010-02-10 10:57 · Score: 1

I didn't mean to imply that it used to be a private place, but rather that we could choose to make it more private in the future if we wished to.
Re:Social Privacy ? by yurtinus · 2010-02-10 11:51 · Score: 1

Certainly, and I'm not really trying to disagree with you. It just got me thinking that we want the internet to serve two masters-- Free exchange of information AND protection of privacy.

I don't know how to reconcile those competing objectives by design. One necessitates open systems and standards, the other needs lockdowns and safeguards on data. Really, it all comes down to education and people knowing what the risks are and what tools are available. But, try teaching that to your average facebook user!

--
+1 Disagree
Re:Social Privacy ? by nine-times · 2010-02-10 12:36 · Score: 1

I don't know how to reconcile those competing objectives by design. One necessitates open systems and standards, the other needs lockdowns and safeguards on data.
I don't think that's the conflict. You can have open systems and standards for security and privacy. Openness is in conflict with something like DRM, but not so much if you're talking about private key encryption in general. (SSL and GPG being fairly good examples)
The bigger problem, I think, is that there's a conflict between security and accessibility. Security requires a certain level of knowledge, and it can be inconvenient. On the Internet today, there's a lot of focus on making things as accessible as possible and easy for a novice to pick up on. For example, if you remove all cookies and user tracking on websites, then you can't really have site-wide preferences and online shopping carts don't work very well.
So yes, it's a trade-off. For the time being, we as a society have demonstrated that we're much more interested in accessibility and convenience than security and privacy.

Re:Can't be worse than Yahoo's try at social media by osu-neko · 2010-02-09 14:37 · Score: 3, Funny

When your sister-in-law gets notified about your post on "Who has the Biggest Flickr Rack"... you know web2.0 has problems.

Some might argue your sister-in-law has a right to know you've singled her out for having a big rack. ;)

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

Got it this afternoon... by dancingmad · 2010-02-09 14:37 · Score: 5, Informative

I actually got Buzzed this afternoon. When I was logging into Gmail the splash screen came up and asked me to try it out. I have been futzing around with it today, but will probably switch it off.

Random thoughts on it;
Google seems desperate to get this out; I thought I had been logged out of Gmail when the Buzz splash screen came up as I tried to get to my Inbox. Going a little hard to the hoop, I think.

Along the same lines, it has a big colorful icon next it under Inbox on the left hand menu. Again, seems desperate.

It autofriends some subset of people you know (I think it's people on your Gchat list), which is kind of weird. I logged in and already had one friend following me. It asks to follow your friends as well.

The site ties into some other sites; Flickr, Picasa, and Twitter, I think (that was in the menu that automatically came up). It also lets you connect to Youtube, Google Reader, and Gchat statuses (it looks like when connected activity on those sites will show up on your "feed.")

The status screen screams Twitter and Facebook. I guess there aren't many ways to do 140 character status updates, but it really resembles those sites.

It took me a few minutes to figure how to switch it off; I thought it would be in settings or in Labs, but there's a small link near the bottom of its window and the inbox (where you can also shut off chat). Again, I am glad they have a shut off but hiding it down there seems a bit desperate.

Otherwise there doesn't seem to be much to it yet. I was hoping for some settings or preferences to futz around with (why do I immediately go into a new program's settings or preferences, and why does it always make me so happy?). I am switching it off I think; while I love Gmail, connected sites makes me wonder about how much information Google already has about me and since my Gmail is my general e-mail, I don't need it mixing with facebook-style status updates or anything, and I am creeped out that it uses my name (from Gmail settings, I assume). I realize those can be changed and if I am careful my e-mail and Buzz will never meet, but I'd really rather just not have them together right now.

--
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)

Re:Got it this afternoon... by Idiomatick · 2010-02-09 15:37 · Score: 1

The whoring the new product thing will fade pretty quick after word gets out about it.
Re:Got it this afternoon... by carlzum · 2010-02-09 16:29 · Score: 1

I got it this afternoon too. It put a pie-chart icon to my gmail menu, added a few contacts to my "following" list, and connected me to Picasa and Google Reader, but not much else. I can post comments, links, and photos like Twitter, but I don't see Facebook features like polls, games, or quizzes. My initial impression is that it's simply a "me too" reaction to Twitter with nothing new to offer.

Privacy? by hitchhacker · 2010-02-09 14:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem, however, will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits.

Doesn't seem like a problem for them so far. I'm fairly sure only a tiny percent of the people using social networking services really care about privacy. Even Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg came out and said Privacy is no longer a social norm. The real hurdle for Google Buzz is going to be migrating the massive social graph that exists on Facebook. The usefulness of these sites is mainly due to who is participating. I'm guessing that's why they injected Buzz directly into gmail.. where they already have a sizable dominance.

-metric

Re:Privacy? by dancingmad · 2010-02-09 14:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree with you. As Facebook has been getting worse and worse about privacy (your data not being your own, Facebook staff having access to account, making it impossible to "hide" your account) I have pulled back. I had photos and I deleted them. I had information about me, that's gone. Basically right now all I have up on there is my name, cell phone number, and the schools I attended.
It's still too much information on a site which sees me as a commodity, but the real irony of the situation is, you need an account to control what other people put up of you as well (as much as you can, anyway).
The site itself has gotten worse too; this is the third big interface change I remember that happened today and it's even more confusing and obfuscated. The site regularly has errors when doing anything (for me anyway, under Safari), and it's chat is flakey as hell.
I put up as little information as possible, have as few friends as possible, and hide my account as much as possible. Buzz is just another sieve for that information to get out, so I am hoping not to use it, but as you say, if everyone else starts using it I might have to have another skeleton account there to manage my information and to keep in contact with others.

--
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Re:Privacy? by John+Hasler · 2010-02-09 15:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

> It's still too much information on a site which sees me as a commodity...
Any commercial site that you are not paying sees you as a commodity.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Privacy? by Onthax · 2010-02-09 16:45 · Score: 1

the good news - Your off Facebook, nice!!! the bad news when the photos were added you agreed to let facebook keep them, even tho you have deleted them they are still on their site, you can still be tagged in them, all your history of events youve been to, what's been posted is still kept
Re:Privacy? by Racing_Turtles · 2010-02-09 17:07 · Score: 0

Any web site that generates revenues or reduces operational expenses for any business in the world sees you (you the user profile, you the visit, you the unique visitor, etc) as a commodity, even more so if you pay for it
Re:Privacy? by Rocketship+Underpant · 2010-02-09 19:58 · Score: 1

"I'm fairly sure only a tiny percent of the people using social networking services really care about privacy."
You may be right, but that is surely spoken like someone who hasn't had to live in fear of imprisonment or execution for his opinions and personal relationships, unlike millions of other people today.

--
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Re:Privacy? by Tim+C · 2010-02-09 23:45 · Score: 1

Let me get this straight - you'd rather they have access to your cell phone number than your photos?

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 00:52 · Score: 0

>Any commercial site that you are not paying sees you as a commodity.
And the ones you are paying, doubly so.
Re:Privacy? by Sobrique · 2010-02-10 02:27 · Score: 1

What can someone do with your cell number? Phone you up? Yeah, that really sucks. I hate it when people do that.
With photos of you, they can see where you live, what you do, who you know, what you wear, what you look like, whether you're underage, whether you get drunk at parties, whether you're an exhibitionist who runs down streets wearing a tutu, and whatnot.
Cellphones are a means of contact - that's all. Phone numbers even get listed in the phone book and everything.
Re:Privacy? by DragonWriter · 2010-02-10 08:06 · Score: 1

The real hurdle for Google Buzz is going to be migrating the massive social graph that exists on Facebook.

The people with "automatic" access to Buzz (existing Gmail users) already have a massive existing social graph in the form of mail contact lists (which, if the user also has Voice, is also their Voice contact list, which may also be synced to their actual mobile phones contact list.)
The ability to search public Buzz posts, and the location-aware ability to view nearby public Buzz posts provide a discovery mechanism which doesn't rely on a pre-existing social graph (but which promotes further development of the social graph.)
Re:Privacy? by drinkypoo · 2010-02-10 13:00 · Score: 1

I'm guessing that's why they injected Buzz directly into gmail.. where they already have a sizable dominance.
Remember Wave? I couldn't give away my invites, after the first few. If this isn't Wave-powered, I'm very surprised. AFAIK this is just a way to try to get people to use Wave, by another name, and with another interface.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-11 23:12 · Score: 0

"Basically right now all I have up on there is my name, cell phone number, and the schools I attended."
Do you really have your cell # posted?!?
Re:Privacy? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-12 17:23 · Score: 0

"I put up as little information as possible, have as few friends as possible, and hide my account as much as possible."
Then why the hell do you use a social networking site? Do you go to parties and say as little as possible, meet as few people as possible and answer as few questions as possible?

Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one! by syousef · 2010-02-09 14:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't use my Gmail account much. If this takes off I won't use it at all. I use Facebook occasionally, especially for playing Lexulous (scrabble clone) with my wife lately. I already find the regular changes to their interface and lack of actual content annoying. I don't need to know what animals in what pretend farm my acquaintances from highschool just "bought" in some pathetic online farming game. That is not the same as staying in touch. It has nothing to do with their real lives. Nor does keeping up with changes to Facebook's rules and interface. So I begrudgingly use one poor excuse for a social networking site. I do not need another 60 clones pretending they're the best thing since sliced bread. Every time I come off Facebook I'm convinced I can feel another part of my intellect melted away (and certainly another part of my life wasted).

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer

Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one! by osu-neko · 2010-02-09 14:47 · Score: 2, Informative

I use Facebook occasionally, especially for playing Lexulous (scrabble clone) with my wife lately.
I love Lexulous. However, I don't even have a Facebook account. It's not required.

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one! by psithurism · 2010-02-09 15:50 · Score: 1

I already find the regular changes to their interface and lack of actual content annoying.
This is exactly what I hate about facebook, and is exactly what I hated about myspace before my friends and I made the leap to facebook to escape all that crap into facebook's nice unfeatured interface where you could find real information about people. Most of my friends are already on gmail, and I for one will be delighted to try out keeping in contact using a new interface without all the "features" that facebook has been adding to please the teenyboppers.

I don't need to know what animals in what pretend farm my acquaintances from highschool just "bought" in some pathetic online farming game. That is not the same as staying in touch. It has nothing to do with their real lives.
I hide farmville, astrograph, mobwars and what not, and hide statuses of most friends I don't hang out with. If you want to contact them in the future, you can still send them messages and check their profile info. Facebook has been trying (and doing rather well IMHO) to let you opt out of seeing all that crap your friends want to do.

I don't use my Gmail account much. If this takes off I won't use it at all
Chillax, you won't have to use buzz to use gmail. Its just a feature you can activate. Don't want it, don't activate it.
Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one! by LordLucless · 2010-02-09 15:52 · Score: 1

Meh, it's what you make of it. I hate all those stupid app updates too, so I filter them out. My feed mostly consists of status updates, notes, photos and relationship changes - that is, things that I'm actually interested in. I only friend people that I want to keep track of. I don't join a hundred stupid groups. My Facebook feed is useful and not any more intellect-destroying than a blog-feed.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one! by PCM2 · 2010-02-09 16:06 · Score: 1

I don't need to know what animals in what pretend farm my acquaintances from highschool just "bought" in some pathetic online farming game.
How come nobody seems to be able to figure out that if you just click the "Hide" button next to one of those updates you can opt to never hear anything about Farmville ever again, from anyone?

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one! by mdwntr · 2010-02-09 18:04 · Score: 1

Can you turn off updates for all additional apps, or must they all be done individually? If you can't turn them all off, why not? I stopped using it a while back for a bunch of reasons, it had only got worse in various ways since I started using it.
Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one! by claus.wilke · 2010-02-09 18:31 · Score: 1

If only it were that simple. How do I hide all the "X is now friend with Y" posts? Or the "X likes Y" posts? It would be trivial to implement this function, but for some reason Facebook thinks I have to see them.
Whatever, it just makes me use it less.
Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one! by syousef · 2010-02-09 22:16 · Score: 1

Because you miss half the damn inane conversation. If you're going to hide all the updates, and after all people do use those stupid apps, what's the point of being on facebook? Starring at a blank page with almost no content must be just as useless.

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one! by DragonWriter · 2010-02-10 08:10 · Score: 1

I don't use my Gmail account much. If this takes off I won't use it at all.

Uh, why not? Even with Buzz linked to Gmail, you can use Gmail without following anyone on Buzz. Not using Gmail because of Buzz makes about as much as not using Gmail because its UI has integration with GTalk and GCalendar.
Buzz doesn't turn Gmail into Facebook, although it allows you the ability to do something like what you can do on Facebook through the Gmail interface instead, if you want to.
Re:Buzz off, I'm not interested in another one! by PCM2 · 2010-02-10 11:34 · Score: 1

I've never seen anybody comment on a Farmville update. Most of my inane (but enjoyable) conversation is attached to status updates, photos, or links.

--
Breakfast served all day!

i was worried for a second... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 14:45 · Score: 4, Informative

...but it seems this is entirely optional:

If you disable Buzz via the link, then you are not part of the "buzz network."

In fact, even if you _don't_ disable Buzz, you're not part of the "buzz network" until you actually use it (e.g. add a comment, create a post).

(original here)

a lot of us aren't too terribly impressed with twitbook and whatever, and wouldn't really want anything like that to be integrated with our email accounts without our consent. it's good to know that google considered that.

Losing Appeal by coppro · 2010-02-09 14:48 · Score: 1

The great thing about Gmail is that it is^H^Hwas a very usable email service that didn't try to tie you into a bajillion other parts of a website and other features you aren't really going to use. The more stuff they add, the more likely I am to complain loudly about the death of Unix. If they go far enough (and they're close) I'll do something about it by switching to a more Unixy mail provider, like postfix. The loss of flexibility (nice easy access from anywhere; easy to set up filtering) will be repaid in my sanity.

Re:Losing Appeal by Urza9814 · 2010-02-09 15:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Um, you know you can use POP or IMAP with gmail extremely easily, right? I don't personally, their web interface is far more convenient (one less program to always be running), but really, just use POP or IMAP and your client of choice if the interface bothers you that much. That way you get all the great benefits of Gmail storage, you get the ability to access your mail from anywhere, and you still get the interface you want.
Re:Losing Appeal by macshit · 2010-02-09 15:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

The great thing about Gmail is that it is^H^Hwas a very usable email service that didn't try to tie you into a bajillion other parts of a website and other features you aren't really going to use.
But one of the nice things about Google's approach has been that they haven't changed the basic gmail interface much at all. They've added various features (some of which are actually very nice), but if you don't use them, they have little or no impact on the email functionality and interface.
Indeed, Gmail seems a bastion of stability and simplicity in a web where many sites seem completely out of control (FB, I'm looking at you...).
The same appears to be true of buzz: unless you use it, you won't notice it, or be affected by it.

The more stuff they add, the more likely I am to complain loudly about the death of Unix
That says more about you than it does about gmail...

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Re:Losing Appeal by PietjeJantje · 2010-02-09 20:46 · Score: 1

Let me fix that for you. Their web interface is a usability nightmare compared to native mail apps, and running a javascript mail client from a browser is far less efficient.
Re:Losing Appeal by ari_j · 2010-02-10 06:20 · Score: 1

I removed the Buzz 'folder' from my Gmail view and went to "turn off buzz" at the bottom, down with the "turn off chat" command. However, I am concerned about the automatic friending thing. I signed into Gmail this morning and clicked on the Buzz folder and it had automatically had me following a couple dozen people, most of which were people I had one or two conversations with and some of whom were one-time Craigslist contacts. Just what I need - a social networking site that keeps me connected to all the people I don't want to talk to again.
Re:Losing Appeal by Mars+Saxman · 2010-02-10 09:38 · Score: 1

Google's ecosystem is very strongly tied together. You might not notice this if you are already using GMail, but all their other tools depend on it. It is difficult to use any of Google's stuff without somehow getting roped into GMail.
Googletalk, for example, used to be, or at least look like, a stand-alone chat service; I signed up for a googletalk account and used it to chat for a while. Then I noticed that quite a few of my friends were having trouble getting email through to me - they kept referring to things they'd sent me which I'd never received. Huh?
It turned out that there is no such thing as a "googletalk account" - it's just a gmail account. Since I have never used gmail, I had no idea there was an email address associated with this thing. But any gmail user who chatted with me would find my googletalk address added to their address book - and would try sending email to it!
The same thing seems to happen with google groups, google wave, all these things. I have not been able to find any coherent explanation of which login systems will automatically create a google mail account and which ones won't. I get the impression that Google engineers tend to think of their new services as extensions to gmail, and don't really consider that people might not want to use gmail.

Open protocol anybody? by eparker05 · 2010-02-09 14:52 · Score: 1

The problem is that Gmail is a client for the open communication protocol known as e-mail. Many people use Gmail, but not everybody wants to. I doubt Yahoo mail, or AOL mail users are interested in dropping their mail service just to join Google's new social venture, or adding 'Buzz' to their list of things to check every day.

Google had a better idea with Wave: produce an open protocol that anybody could host. If Google did this from the get-go with 'Buzz', it would have a fighting chance. As it is, I doubt that it will ever reach wide adoption. Facebook is just too big to beat without an innovative product.

Re:Open protocol anybody? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 15:15 · Score: 0

Tada! http://code.google.com/intl/es/apis/buzz/
Re:Open protocol anybody? by eparker05 · 2010-02-09 15:26 · Score: 1

I realize that there is an API, but that only means that Buzz is open to development of plugins/extensions and other web integration features.
The Buzz system is closed. The only provider of Buzz is currently Google. And they have not announced plans to open Buzz as a protocol as they did with Wave. This model is no different than Facebook or MySpace, and that is the central problem.
Re:Open protocol anybody? by macshit · 2010-02-09 15:44 · Score: 1

Google had a better idea with Wave: produce an open protocol that anybody could host. If Google did this from the get-go with 'Buzz', it would have a fighting chance.
Perhaps, but it's not at all clear. Technical issues are only one part of the problem. The other part is social, mindshare, etc, and it's very hard to dictate that. Gmail is already very popular; presumably Google is trying to leverage that popularity in their attempt to gain some traction against FB. They might succeed with that where earlier "technical" approaches failed.
I also hope they'll publish some protocols so that more people can play, but at least in the short run, the connection with success seems tenuous. In the long run, who knows, but at least Google's an awful lot more clueful about such things than the likes of FB; they may yet do the right thing...

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Re:Open protocol anybody? by Daengbo · 2010-02-09 23:06 · Score: 1

Gmail is based on an open protocol. Gtalk is, too. I can only hope that Google includes StatusNet support in Buzz and helps push people to a model that can be federated (though I'm sure Google will make it extremely easy to just "Go Google" with the whole mess).

--
Put identity in the browser.
Re:Open protocol anybody? by DragonWriter · 2010-02-10 07:59 · Score: 1

The problem is that Gmail is a client for the open communication protocol known as e-mail. Many people use Gmail, but not everybody wants to. I doubt Yahoo mail, or AOL mail users are interested in dropping their mail service just to join Google's new social venture, or adding 'Buzz' to their list of things to check every day.
Buzz is an application that aggregates a number of existing services and which can be both fed and consumed via a number of open protocols.

Google had a better idea with Wave: produce an open protocol that anybody could host. If Google did this from the get-go with 'Buzz', it would have a fighting chance.

Google has gone one better with Buzz -- it uses a number of existing, and already in use, open protocols (Atom/RSS, PubSubHubbub, XFN, MediaRSS, etc.), rather than creating a new one. This seems to make it trivial to use existing tools to consume information from Buzz and to feed into Buzz.

It's just a telescope. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 15:09 · Score: 0

Over time all this SNW will collapse into lense where you are just looking at yourself. Oh wait. . . nevermind.

Mobile version of Buzz by valdean · 2010-02-09 15:11 · Score: 5, Informative

The mobile version of Buzz is more interesting than the Gmail version. Check out the Gizmodo review.

Re:Mobile version of Buzz by Brandee07 · 2010-02-10 10:12 · Score: 1

The by-location posts are quite interesting. It doesn't use your location unless you tell it to, like all iPhone apps. I took a look and there are a lot of pictures of snow being posted by people in my neighborhood, cause that's the big new thing happening in DC, right now.

Screenshot by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 15:13 · Score: 1, Funny

Wot? No Catch-22 characters in the screenshot!? Not-Taking-Self-Too-Seriously fail.

facebook private? by elfprince13 · 2010-02-09 15:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Facebook, private by default? What is this nonsense!

Re:facebook private? by freemantoy · 2010-02-09 15:35 · Score: 1

Yeah, right, and I've got some igloos for sale.
Re:facebook private? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 15:43 · Score: 0

Sustainable habitat is so gay.
Re:facebook private? by jibjibjib · 2010-02-09 19:13 · Score: 1

Private by default, as in "If you haven't changed any privacy settings then your updates aren't accessible to the public." Unlike twitter in which generally anyone can see your updates.

Yep, Facebook is turning into another Myspace by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 15:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

People wouldn't be so excited over Buzz if Facebook wasn't turning their site/service into another Myspace mess that is just painful to use. Initial impression of Buzz is that it is very clean and pleasant to use compared to Facebook which just feels clunky for anything other than just casual status updates of friends.

Re:Yep, Facebook is turning into another Myspace by freemantoy · 2010-02-09 15:27 · Score: 2, Funny

WTF Facebook definitely is irritatingly trying to monetize networking. Someone will come along that isn't the least bit interested in monetizing and attracting eyeshare. It won't be Goog either. Goog and Facebook should just get out of the way instead of sticking their face where they shouldn't. Like watching a DVD and someone sticks their butt on the side of the TV to get a few strokes. Look, I get more strokes so I win and can charge for it. Spare us.
Re:Yep, Facebook is turning into another Myspace by witherstaff · 2010-02-09 16:23 · Score: 1

Yeah I hate those companies that try to monetize their service to break even. It only took facebook to hit the 300 million mark to get into the black.

Backlash? by Gudeldar · 2010-02-09 15:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

Where is this backlash that CNET is talking about? I've never heard any express any worries about Google having too much information about them outside of Slashdot and certain technology blogs. That represents a tiny fraction of the Internet, most people are happily handing over the every detail of their lives to Facebook, their search queries to Google, etc.

Most people just don't really care that much about Google, Facebook or Yahoo having information about them no matter how many +5 comments on Slashdot tell you otherwise.

Re:Backlash? by MichaelSmith · 2010-02-09 15:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

It just occurred to me that if I create a google account from a normal computer I can use any name for myself that I choose. But a phone running android must use my real name (its in the contract for the phone) so android may be a way to associate made up identities with real identities.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Backlash? by UrduBlake · 2010-02-09 15:54 · Score: 2, Funny

That's just paranoid. Google's pledged to do no evil. Besides, they've provided so many free cloud services, Gmail, Gmaps, Gtalk etc. Does an evil corporation provide free stuff? Unlikely isn't it. :)
Re:Backlash? by psithurism · 2010-02-09 16:19 · Score: 1

Where is this backlash that CNET is talking about? I've never heard any express any worries about Google having too much information about them outside of Slashdot.
I do hear about this, but my friends are the type to read /..
There is a chain email going around my family (who aren't ./ types) about the google/nsa partnership. That issue seems to be on many news organizations minds as well: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS354US354&q=google+nsa&aq=f&aqi=&oq=
You may be right about the lack of public concern; I'm not sure how we could get a survey of public opinion on this.

most people are happily handing over the every detail of their lives to Facebook
Many don't understand what they are doing; I had some non-tech-savy friends review my web-development-homework awhile back they were freaked out that I could log their IP addresses, swipe their clipboards and read their referrers. Some were ready to go to the google-opt-out-village after I explained that I wasn't hacking their computer and that's just what they send to every internet host.
The reason /.ers are freaked out is because we know about data mining and see the implications that are there. A little education about how all of their anonymous Google searches can be traced back to them and people _would_ backlash.
Re:Backlash? by adolf · 2010-02-09 17:41 · Score: 1

When I got my Droid, I paid for the whole thing ($539) in cash. I signed no contract and agreed to no terms.
YMMV.

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:Backlash? by PietjeJantje · 2010-02-09 20:51 · Score: 1

You made no points. So what is it you want? It's ok to give up privacy because everybody does, and people who don't are bad? Why would you post something like that unless you are corrupted?
Re:Backlash? by miffo.swe · 2010-02-09 20:54 · Score: 1

There is no backlash, thats why we only read about it from a selected few mouthpieces. Someone is trying to create one but it looks as if its in vain. Imagine being Microsoft, the company with the worst possible pr rating of all. Now imagine trying to compete with Google on perception? The only way for Microsoft to look good is to bring Google down into the mud.

--
HTTP/1.1 400
Re:Backlash? by MichaelSmith · 2010-02-09 21:30 · Score: 1

When I got my Droid, I paid for the whole thing ($539) in cash. I signed no contract and agreed to no terms.
YMMV.
In many countries you have to give your real name and proof of identity to connect to a telephone network. I am assuming that android can access that information from the SIM or by other manipulations of the network.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Backlash? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 00:29 · Score: 0

Google's violates their own privacy clause every time you use their any of their services. They also retain this data for six month or more and sell it for a profit that then pushes you ads that you most likely don't want. In other words they are spammers, they just use unwanted ads.
Facebook may pimp your data as well but they are far more transparent about it.
Re:Backlash? by windex82 · 2010-02-10 02:07 · Score: 1

Whats your point? You have to provide your real identity to get the service anyway. This is about customer service and making sure joe sixpack's phone works when it leaves the store so that both verizon and google look good.
When you leave you can feel free to delete whatever account they setup for you and you can setup your MichaelSmith account.
Re:Backlash? by windex82 · 2010-02-10 02:08 · Score: 1

erm, my experience was with verizon so I used them as an example, but i would imagine the same applies to tmobile, att, etc...
Re:Backlash? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 03:37 · Score: 0

For a large number of people yes, but as per the nexus one, you can buy phones unlocked and use prepay (aka pay-as-you-go) SIMs ie. no identity verification is needed.
If you bought something on the android store then you'd have some way of verifying an identity, as I believe you need a google account to use the store (I use a nokia so this is guesswork), this is fairly similar to the iphone/itunes in this respect.
OVI handles things slightly differently by deducting the purchase directly from your phone account. The phone account can be a prepay one though so again your identity is not really verified.
Re:Backlash? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 20:04 · Score: 0

You don't need to use your real name. The phone has to be registered to a google account to get the main set of features such as sync, push email, etc. But you can quite easily use the Android-optimised websites and use a completely unrelated account which has no link to your real name.

Reality check: more Farmville users than Twitter by brokeninside · 2010-02-09 15:23 · Score: 2, Informative

Seriously, more people play a crappy-assed, viral game on Facebook than use Twitter. Facebook could lose every single Twitter user on the planet not lose a tenth of its userbase.

This is not to say that some new site might not be able to come along and dethrone Facebook from being the top of the heap. It's just that Twitter integration isn't going to do it. Some company needs to come along and supply a better, easier to use platform for serving up crappy-assed, viral games.

Wait A Minute??? Icons...With Colour!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 15:25 · Score: 0

"Along the same lines, it has a big colorful icon next it under Inbox on the left hand menu. Again, seems desperate."

My god! Google actually made an icon...with COLOUR!?!

That really is a sure sign of desperation.

Wa just about to respond in kind... by IANAAC · 2010-02-09 15:25 · Score: 1

IMAP works nicely for me. I also use Google calendar. And I use them within Thunderbird, although I suppose you could use them within whatever your favorite client is.

No intrusiveness, no being tied into other serivces I don't want or need.

Not a threat for now... by MrCrassic · 2010-02-09 15:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch. Most people, myself included, use Google Mail (or at least their web interface) to check and compose e-mail. That's it. With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email as well as follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc. All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond.. Thus, I don't really see this being a threat to Facebook at all because people go on Facebook precisely for these kinds of things. It's Facebook's walled garden paradigm that makes these interactions even feasible, since friends share this kind of information in real life as well.

Additionally, whatever happened with Wave? Wasn't that platform supposed to be the springboard for this "revolutionized email?"

Re:Not a threat for now... by Bieeanda · 2010-02-09 16:05 · Score: 1

Wave is a conferencing/collaboration tool, not an e-mail replacement. Like Orkut, Gmail jabber support, and Google's IMVU clone, it's basically died on the vine.
Each time they add something like this to Gmail, I get a little closer to just abandoning their web interface completely.
Re:Not a threat for now... by That's+Unpossible! · 2010-02-09 16:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch. Most people, myself included, use Google Mail for.....
Wow, you've queried other Gmail users? Please publish your findings!
With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email as well as follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc. All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond..
Get off your lawn, while we're at it, Mr. Annoying?
TURN IT OFF.
So you don't want to use it, jesus who gives a shit? Just turn it off.
In your opinion, the "Google Mail team" is losing touch by offering a new feature that lets people connect with each other more, in a way very similar to two other extremely popular ways to do the same... yeah, you're right, they're really out there in left field! What were those crazy loons thinking!
Additionally, whatever happened with Wave? Wasn't that platform supposed to be the springboard for this "revolutionized email?"
Oh, wait a second, suddenly you're interested in cutting edge ways to communicate with people? Weren't you just telling us one paragraph ago that Google Mail people are totally out of touch because you and every person you surveyed uses Gmail in one specific way and isn't interested in anything new? But now you're asking about Google Wave?
Google Wave is totally different from this product. They're still beta testing it. For someone that thinks like you do, imagine Google Wave as Google Docs, if the Google Docs team suddenly lost all touch with reality, and decided to add a new feature that let people communicate with each other in new ways.
Cry me a river!

--
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Re:Not a threat for now... by MichaelSmith · 2010-02-09 16:32 · Score: 2, Funny

I feel that Buzz is a sign that the Google Mail team is losing touch. Most people, myself included, use Google Mail for.....
Wow, you've queried other Gmail users? Please publish your findings!
Ironically, Google Buzz would be an ideal way to do that.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Not a threat for now... by MrCrassic · 2010-02-09 17:15 · Score: 1

I don't really like crying for trolls, honestly.
I'm not stupid. I know that it can be turned off, and I know that it's an innovative approach to how people interact. I respect that. However --- and you might want to hold on; this might blow you away --- I can make opinions, and my opinion on Buzz stands: it is not what email was intended for and is a bit out-of-focus.
Now, if you email others with the expectancy of receiving status updates on their lives, or more simply put, expect to have your email work like Facebook, then this product is right up your alley. I was actually very interested in Wave and did a good bit of research to start playing around with it; the reason why I made that comment was because I thought that Wave was going to kick off the new socially-aware collaboration platform that was really supposed to give Facebook a run for its money. While we're at it:

In your opinion, the "Google Mail team" is losing touch by offering a new feature that lets people connect with each other more, in a way very similar to two other extremely popular ways to do the same... yeah, you're right, they're really out there in left field! What were those crazy loons thinking!
This new feature makes it seem like they're either (a) providing something of a teaser until Wave matures enough to take off (which I think it will when its purpose becomes clearer to people) or (b) trying to unite social networking with daily email, which I feel are pretty mutually exclusive to each other. Finally,

Wow, you've queried other Gmail users? Please publish your findings!
You'd really have to be out of it to not know how most folks interact with their e-mail.
Re:Not a threat for now... by Landshark17 · 2010-02-09 19:20 · Score: 1

I'm on the Wave preview right now, and I'm surprised they didn't put this Buzz feature into that instead. I suspect they were trying to get it out the door in time to beat Facebook's email system to the punch and retain/grab users.

As for Wave, I like it alot. I can't see it replacing email, though. For correspondence between just two people email is simple and effictive, no ammount of bells and whistles that Google or any other company can throw in will change that. What Wave does do extremely well is group communications. I use it to coordinate Bad Movie Nights with my friends, and I've even recommended it to some former co-workers and given them invites to try it out within their organization. I've seen how nasty and incomprehensible emails can get when 3 or more people are involved and all responding, and I'm sick of it. Wave isn't revolutionized email, but it will fill a niche where email is lacking.

--
This sig is false.
Re:Not a threat for now... by Just+Some+Guy · 2010-02-10 04:07 · Score: 1

All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond.
Outside the Slashdot clique, "pictures, videos, status updates, etc." is how people correspond.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Not a threat for now... by CAFED00D · 2010-02-10 09:18 · Score: 1

I have this "Google Buzz" in my GMail, but I'm still waiting for some SIMPLE FILTER ORDERING. Please.
Re:Not a threat for now... by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · 2010-02-10 10:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Most people, myself included, use Google Mail (or at least their web interface) to check and compose e-mail. That's it. With Buzz thrown in the mix, now people can check their email as well as follow the people they're emailing through pictures, videos, status updates, etc. All of these things are way outside the realm of emailing, which is, like regular mail, to simply correspond..
I don't mean to be insulting by this at all but it sounds like you're old and out of touch with how most people communicate in 2010. The email only crowd is generally 30 plus. The "under 30" idea of corresponding is exactly "pictures, videos, status updates, etc." That makes Buzz a natural fit with gmail. It's kind of a one stop shop for all you're communication needs. Buzz probably won't catch on but I hardly think it's out of place.

--
"Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."

Watch The Terminator movies again by kriston · 2010-02-09 15:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

All I can suggest is to watch "The Terminator" movies again.
Google's explicit goal is to collect all data possible and index it for the benefit of humankind. This includes artificial intelligence--indeed a senior director of Google is an acknowledged AI scientist. The application of AI to the corpus of all data possible is profound. The digitization of books, the collection of browing habits, the analysis of web sites, and the analysis of all GMail users' email data, compounded with myriad other data sources could provide an interesting advanced intelligence. Even if it's just a Deep Blue style of brute-force thinking, the corpus upon which this "hive mind" will draw is profound.
Google is the real Skynet.
Nobody knows what will happen, but it's going to be profoundly amazing.

--

Kriston

Re:Watch The Terminator movies again by scdeimos · 2010-02-09 15:55 · Score: 1

I expect we'll all be connected to the Google Hive mind and communicating with Google Talk long before we need to worry about the robots equipped with Google Buzz saws breaking out of the Google Labs.
Re:Watch The Terminator movies again by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 16:14 · Score: 0

AT&T seemed evil until IBM took over.
IBM seemed evil until Microsoft took over.
Microsoft seemed evil until...
Re:Watch The Terminator movies again by mdielmann · 2010-02-09 17:19 · Score: 1

...so you're saying Google hasn't taken over yet? Or just that Apple will never be evil? ;-)

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Re:Watch The Terminator movies again by nolochemical · 2010-02-09 19:09 · Score: 1

..collect all data possible and index it for the benefit of humankind... Even if it's just a Deep Blue style of brute-force thinking, the corpus upon which this "hive mind" will draw is profound.
I think I would enjoy them downloading my 3 gigs into a cylon robot so i can unleash my bender like qualities to the masses..

As far as I'm concerned Buzz can kiss my shiny metal ass.

--
We may only attempt to reverse engineer the future.. for now...
Re:Watch The Terminator movies again by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 21:49 · Score: 0

"The application of AI to the corpus of all data possible is profound."
"...which this "hive mind" will draw is profound."
"...but it's going to be profoundly amazing."
If there is one thing we can draw from your comment, it is that what you have to say is anything but profound.
Re:Watch The Terminator movies again by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 00:42 · Score: 0

At least we don't have to be afraid of a GoogleBot android that's out to terminate us... uh, wait!
Captcha: encore
Well thanks, I'll be here all week!

Early Glimpse by Anthony+Rosequist · 2010-02-09 15:59 · Score: 1

Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail, but most won't yet (this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse).

If you can switch your user agent string to iPhone, you can get this to work in any browser, not just Safari. I just verified it in Firefox.

Re:Early Glimpse by Anonymous+Cowar · 2010-02-09 17:21 · Score: 1

I've had it since this afternoon. It's really a non-event now. AOL had a social network, email, games, and a "community" in the early 90's, why are we amazed that google is trying its best to recreate AOL 15 years after the fact?
Re:Early Glimpse by thatskinnyguy · 2010-02-09 18:22 · Score: 1

Damn you're good. The comment and the name.

--
The game.

switch it off? HOW by drDugan · 2010-02-09 16:01 · Score: 1

but will probably switch it off.

I've tried it this afternoon too. Not really interested in sharing more with yet another invasive, free "service" that I don't own or control, but I can not find any way to "switch it off". It appears Buzz will be a new fixture in the gmail interface. After looking at the help links, it does not appear possible to remove it. If anyone has a way to remove it, disable it - please reply.

Buzz? by dangitman · 2010-02-09 16:15 · Score: 1

So, Jason Donovan is reading my email now? Will the 2.0 version be Buzz Quiz World? Why doesn't my toupee fit properly?

--
... and then they built the supercollider.

Re:switch it off? HOW by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 16:15 · Score: 0

On the bottom of your Gmail page, there is a link to turn off buzz, next to the turn on/off chat, older version, and basic HTML links.

This is fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 16:26 · Score: 0

Not a day goes by without at least a dozen Google stories. We only need a few more and we are on quota. Come on - you can always fall back on some "omgz android chrome is the best open source search engine that sticks it to M$" story if all else fails. It will be guaranteed to get the fanbois and google astroturfers out in force as usual.

Slashdot: "news for nerds, stuff about Google"

Beyond lame by SleepyHappyDoc · 2010-02-09 16:30 · Score: 2, Informative

I heard about it earlier today, and clicked it up on my iPhone to check it out. It asked me if it could use my current location, and I said OK, and immediately it brought up a location thousands of miles away from me, in another country. Since this wasn't right, i tapped it, scrolled down to the search function, and typed in my current location. Buzz had the audacity to tell me that the location I typed in didn't exist, because it was not near the location it had auto-detected. Well, no shit it was nowhere near what it detected...that's what I was trying to tell it! And it was trying to tell me that I didn't know what I was talking about. It's not like I am out in the middle of nowhere (my current location is near a medium-sized American city). Fail!

--
Stasis is death. Embrace change.

Re:Beyond lame by Asdanf · 2010-02-09 20:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm pretty sure Buzz is just using the html5 location API (it's about the only way to get at location from a webapp), so if it gets your location wrong that's a bug in your iPhone, not Buzz.
Re:Beyond lame by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 20:37 · Score: 0

Just hope you don't get arrested for a crime you committed at this location Google knows you were at.
Re:Beyond lame by RMH101 · 2010-02-09 22:29 · Score: 1

Working here, using GPS. WHen I signed in on my iPhone it even suggested the office that I'm working in as a location, based on nearby organisations and buildings. I'm "Ric Harris" in Manchester, UK if you want to test. Be nice.
Slightly concerned that this exposes my main email address to the world though, not worked out yet if this is exploitable by spammers, but I guess I'll find out soon enough if it is...
Looks pretty promising, although it's slow as a (admittedly very clever) web app on the iPhone 3G.
Re:Beyond lame by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 01:26 · Score: 0

The GPS on my HTC Dream occasionally places me in middle of the Netherlands (I'm actually in the UK). It was a little disconcerting first time this happened when I was using Google Maps...
Re:Beyond lame by SleepyHappyDoc · 2010-02-10 07:40 · Score: 1

Agreed, but the inability to manually correct it is all on Google. That's the fail.

--
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
Re:Beyond lame by YodaYid · 2010-02-10 18:20 · Score: 1

Awesome! Big Brother can't track you yet. Maybe you should buy a GPS to ensure that Google knows where you are at all times.

Re:Reality check: more Farmville users than Twitte by biryokumaru · 2010-02-09 16:39 · Score: 1

That example is not really representative, as the twitter user base is about being read, not about posting. I would argue that there are likely significantly more people who follow twitter users than have actual accounts. It's just not a viable comparison.

--
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!

But by slack_prad · 2010-02-09 16:53 · Score: 1

where's the profile page? How do people know how cool I am etc etc., by looking at my profile page?

--
Sent from my desktop computer

Re:But by DragonWriter · 2010-02-10 09:02 · Score: 1

where's the profile page?

At http://www.google.com/profiles/<long string of digits>
if you are logged into your Google Account, and go to http://www.google.com/profiles/me it will redirect you to your actual profile. (If you haven't used a Google service that requires a public profile, like Buzz, you may not have one.)

Re:switch it off? HOW by SnowZero · 2010-02-09 16:56 · Score: 1

2-second method: drag the "buzz" link to the "more" link on the bottom of the left nav bar. In fact, that works for all of the folders and labels on the left nav bar.

4-second method that doesn't require dragging: Settings/Labels/Buzz [hide]

Do you actually use gmail much?

Eh, maybe by ChinggisK · 2010-02-09 17:14 · Score: 1

Eh, I wouldn't mind trying it out. At one point I did use Facebook a good bit to keep up with friends, but lately I haven't been using it much with all the ridiculously annoying apps and such. Those and the fact that all the old farts in my family won't leave me alone (let me off your lawn?); sorry to any of you folks having your aunt friending you is a little creepy to me. Maybe this will become popular with us college kids again and we'll get back our own space for a while.

As far as privacy goes, sorry, but meh. I know that anything I put online is public and I treat it as such. I don't have a lot of information on my Facebook, there are a lot of pictures that friends put up but I tend not to do anything *too* terribly stupid so you won't find pictures of me wasted or stoned or anything that would jeopardize a job opportunity. I know I should be concerned about teh ebil googles tracking my browsing/emailing/etc habits but I figure we're all screwed anyway so there's not really much point in worrying.

Re:Eh, maybe by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 10:04 · Score: 0

Hey, partition your lesser desirable family members into a group that you lock down. Solves it for me.

Re:Can't be worse than Yahoo's try at social media by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 17:27 · Score: 0

You forgot the link http://www.flickr.com/groups/42852929@N00/ (Warning: NSFW)

Strong AI is nowhere near on the horizon by melted · 2010-02-09 17:32 · Score: 1

Not even Google has Strong AI, moreover, there's scarcely anyone, anywhere even working on the basic fundamental underpinnings of it.

The current crop of "AI" tech is best described as pattern recognition (which in turn can be described as function approximation). That's all there is to it. There's no cognition, no logical inference, no consciousness, none of that. No one has a foggiest clue how to do this at a sufficiently large scale to get something even remotely resembling a human brain.

The system goes on-line February 10th, 2010... by jamesswift · 2010-02-09 17:43 · Score: 3, Funny

Human decisions are removed from strategic advertising. Google begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, February 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

Electricians From $30 / H
Compare Quotes From Electricians
+1000 Electricians Ready To Quote

Need Electrical Supplies?
Unbeatable Prices. Leading Brands.
Same-Day Dispatch. Trade And Retail

Your Licensed Electrician
Call now 1300 679 274
For your $50 Discount

--
i wish i could stop

Re:The system goes on-line February 10th, 2010... by twitchingbug · 2010-02-10 09:02 · Score: 1

not to be a buzzkill (pun intended), but there's no feb 29th this year.

Feed Back to Google That Would Not Fit by nolochemical · 2010-02-09 18:48 · Score: 1

You people make billions of dollars, why would you sully up an awesome product to follow someone else's {insert profanity here}..

Someone over there must have been smoking crack, when they thought "hey lets let everyone tweet from google!!"

This is part were Gibbs would smack Denozo up side the head for being an idot..

You guys need an idea copy/borrow/steal/improve ?

1) You know that show FlashForward ? Build Mosaic!! yeah that would have came in handy for all those earthquake victims in haiti, ..., ...., etc huh!!? yeah well not everyone has a laptop you say; I seen a guy iphone himself through a serious injury on the tube. People always find a way to McGuyver sh$t when times get tuff. You should be able to hack andriod into a $5 cheese grater by now.. retail it for $50 - $30( I'm throwing numbers since were smoking crack ) for R&D and you still have profits..

2) Hp is building a global senor network that will obviously need a web infrastructure that will scale well... can someone say " Yeah we should Buy NOW?! "

3) I know you guys and gals can spell holographic.. I want to google medical journals and have them signed to me via a holographic tutor.. look ma NO SOUND.. [ http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/18572/?a=f ]

All of the projects above for Google's man power, war chest, and ingenuity are do-able..

Common Really... Get it together people.. Its 1:30 est time and I'm out of tv references, Im going going to bed hoping this was a nightmare that will go away...

W...T...F... ?!

--
We may only attempt to reverse engineer the future.. for now...

Re:Feed Back to Google That Would Not Fit by maxume · 2010-02-10 01:35 · Score: 1

apropos.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.

Re:switch it off? HOW by Petrushka · 2010-02-09 19:37 · Score: 1

Normally "Hide" != "turn off", so it is far from obvious that your solution is correct. Since elsewhere you have claimed to work for Google I must presume that there's a good chance your advice does actually work; but you must admit it's not obvious that your advice is equivalent to "turning off" Buzz.

privacy by hyartep · 2010-02-09 19:43 · Score: 1

in article: "This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook"

Facebook is no way private and every change moves it to less privacy.

The general public? by miffo.swe · 2010-02-09 20:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

"the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public"

I dont for a second believe that the so called backlash stems from the same general public that happily posts medical, sensitive, embarrassing and sexy stuff on Facebook/Myspace. The "backlash" is a PR-stunt.

--
HTTP/1.1 400

Re:Can't be worse than Yahoo's try at social media by grouchomarxist · 2010-02-09 20:36 · Score: 1

FYI. The biggest rack is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/theogeo/4167451445/

Can someone write a ranomization app for that? by mrmeval · 2010-02-09 21:23 · Score: 1

How about a plugin to Firefox that randomly searches innocent words and phrases in the background. Maybe issue a click that goes to a various websites but aborts the page load without being considered a dos. Maybe someone can come up with a click pattern that smooths out your information so you look as bland as a Midwestern housewife.

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty

Re:Can someone write a ranomization app for that? by LordAndrewSama · 2010-02-09 22:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Here you go:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3173
http://mrl.nyu.edu/~dhowe/TrackMeNot/

I don't actually use it, I just googled it.. oh the irony.
Re:Can someone write a ranomization app for that? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-11 04:11 · Score: 0

This is a nice plugin. But, its automated searches do not include controversial terms like "gay porn", which means
that you can readily identify users who actually search for these terms, regardless of whether
they use the plugin or not.

Error in Article by zdrtx · 2010-02-09 22:06 · Score: 1

I can't help but point this out.

"A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz — one interesting one being its ability to post an update either pubilcly or privately, at the user's option. This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook."

Last I checked, one could easily set the audience (public, friends of friends, all friends, subset of friends, etc.) of Facebook posts on a post-by-post basis.

Re:Can't be worse than Yahoo's try at social media by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 22:20 · Score: 0

Who has the Biggest Flickr Rack

My excuse would be that i was drunk and thought i was looking at... server racks, or something.

Why?! by xmgarcia · 2010-02-09 23:41 · Score: 1

How about getting a real social life, and leaving this to the social nerds? Need to say something to a bunch of people? Write a bloody mail! I'm not on facebook, and don't get me started on twitter... Ok, I started... "Hi guys! I'm on the toilet!" "Hi guys! Now I'm washing my hands!" First 3 thoughts: 1. Who cares?! 2. Does he/she have a waterproof phone/laptop (or even scarier, a waterproof desktop in the toilet)? 3. The first text had dirty hands...

Re:Why?! by psithurism · 2010-02-10 14:24 · Score: 1

How about getting a real social life, and leaving this to the social nerds?
We're talking about buzz here, not /.

Need to say something to a bunch of people? Write a bloody mail!
...um...is that a mail?

"Hi guys! I'm on the toilet!"
See if we were on buzz, I could just "stop following" you right there, but we are on ./ which does not give me the privilege.
Don't like my reply? "Stop following" me! Oh wait, can't do that here, maybe if we were talking on Buzz.
BTW facebook has the "ignore" and "hide" options and unfriend if they pm you too much, I believe twitter is also "stop following"

Not using Google for searches isn't enough by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-09 23:55 · Score: 1, Informative

There's more to shaking off Google than not using their searches for Firefox users.

By default FF sends every URL you visit to Google as part of their anti-forgery protection thingie. And by default any bad URL in the FF address bar is turned into a google search.

Type "about:config" in your address bar, type "google" in the filter and remove/replace the 5 or 10 entries that are still there with 127.0.0.1.

Then there's Google Analytics, their ad service, which is used by many sites. Everytime you visit a site with Google-served ads, Google knows, and they link it with the rest of the session information. Use the Ghostery extension to block it.

Finally, make sure Firefox is configured to delete cookies when you close it (except for white-listed sites). Always a good habit.

Re:Not using Google for searches isn't enough by tomhudson · 2010-02-10 04:02 · Score: 1

"Houston, we have a problem ... it's full of google!"
Thanks.

'Followers'? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 00:52 · Score: 0

Did anyone notice how it doesn't call friends 'friends', but 'followers' instead?

They should have named it 'Google Cult' instead :-p

Where is your 'Don't be Evil' motto now eh?

Re:'Followers'? by maxwell+demon · 2010-02-10 03:30 · Score: 1

Did anyone notice how it doesn't call friends 'friends', but 'followers' instead?
Maybe they just recognized that those "friends" usually aren't.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:'Followers'? by DragonWriter · 2010-02-10 09:13 · Score: 1

Did anyone notice how it doesn't call friends 'friends', but 'followers' instead?
"Followers" is an accurate description of the relationship that is being identified -- they are people that are following your Buzz. They may or may not be your friends. They might be business associates. They might be business rivals following your public Buzz. Labeling the relationship for what it is, rather than something inaccurate designed to produce warm-fuzzy feelings, seems to me to be an intelligent choice.
This is distinct from, e.g., Facebook (but analogous to Twitter, which uses similar terminology), where the main type of relationship is a mutually agreed friendship, which by default implies mutual following of status updates posted with default visibility.

No WebOS support by Fallen+Seraph · 2010-02-10 01:18 · Score: 1

http://www.precentral.net/no-buzz-google-webos-spoofing-fails-fool

I still can't understand how it is that they're completely ignoring Palm's WebOS despite the fact that it's 99% identical to the iPhone's browser...

They did the same goddamn thing for Latitude and Wave. Both of those apps work fine on WebOS, but they block non-Android/iPhone user agents. Why are you blocking my phone even though your mobile web apps either 99% or 100% work on it Google? e_e

Blocked at work, and trying to get 'win-backs' by cornercuttin · 2010-02-10 02:13 · Score: 1

google has a tough uphill battle.

first of all, they already tried to have a somewhat social networking site (remember Orkut), and it failed.

second, Gmail is blocked at many places of business (especially gov't installations), while Facebook and Twitter is not. FB & Twitter is (wisely) seen as a way for workers to communicate with each other and really not waste too much time (I may spend 3-5 minutes on FB in a workday), whereas Gmail tends to focus on communication with the outside world (outside of work).

therefore just getting access to Buzz is hard, because Gmail is not as accessible as FB or Twitter.

third, it is hard to convert. i was a twitter user, and recently switched to FB because i realized it was a superior product. with the filters allowed on FB, the ability to post to select groups, and the pics and things like that (screw the apps, never used a single one), I think it's nice. to convert people from FB to Buzz means a superior product with superior features; integration with Gmail is not enough. plus, Google has to be aware that every good feature it has, FB will immediately replicate.

those concerned about privacy are idiots. there is no privacy on the Internet, and anything you post is fair game to everyone. you pick your poison, and continue on carefully.

Re:Blocked at work, and trying to get 'win-backs' by Cro+Magnon · 2010-02-10 02:48 · Score: 1

second, Gmail is blocked at many places of business (especially gov't installations), while Facebook and Twitter is not. FB & Twitter is (wisely) seen as a way for workers to communicate with each other and really not waste too much time (I may spend 3-5 minutes on FB in a workday), whereas Gmail tends to focus on communication with the outside world (outside of work).

Interesting. I haven't tried to access GMail from my work computer, but I have tried FaceBook, and it's blocked. And FB seems like a bigger time-sink than email, and why would I talk to a cow-orker by FB/Twitter instead of work email/IM?

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Blocked at work, and trying to get 'win-backs' by maxwell+demon · 2010-02-10 03:22 · Score: 1

FB & Twitter is (wisely) seen as a way for workers to communicate with each other
If I had a company, I'd prefer if the employees communicate with each other over company-owned services while in the company. After all, there's always the danger that information accidentally gets outside that isn't supposed to. A service used primarily for outside communication is less dangerous in that respect, because there people won't accidentally communicate internal stuff.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Blocked at work, and trying to get 'win-backs' by cornercuttin · 2010-02-10 03:38 · Score: 1

the government is weird when it comes to outside email.

there are a few reason:
- they want to be able to stop the sharing of sensitive information
- the government requires that all emails be kept for a certain amount of time (2-4 years, i think), and they dont want people using private emails to subvert the record keeping (coinciding with the first reason given)
- but mostly, the main reason is because people are so stupid that they constantly download viruses. they want all emails to go through the in-house system so that they can do their filtering. most gov't places don't deal with really sensitive info, so the first 2 points aren't that big. keeping people from being stupid is actually a lot harder than keeping them from being honest.

FB is only as much of a time-sink as any other site (such as tech forums...). in the end, it is down to how much time the worker feels like wasting that day. if he/she wants to waste time, he/she will find a way to do it.

but many gov't agencies & companies are trying to include themselves in the social media networks, and it would be odd for them to lock workers out of sites/networks that the agencies are promoting (i.e. if you run a gov't research facility, it would be nice to see some activity from the actual researchers/scientists on that agencies' FB fan page).
Re:Blocked at work, and trying to get 'win-backs' by cornercuttin · 2010-02-10 03:42 · Score: 1

i agree.

unfortunately, it's not that easy when it comes to gov't. to choose an in-house system in the gov't, you have to go through a ton of red tape (specs, bids, security...).

companies can run themselves according to their own rules. when i work with companies at their own offices, they often use chat/IRC or other tools. but they can implement as they see fit without the need for red tape.

most people won't post sensitive stuff to places like FB, because it is so easily tracked back to the account (no anonymous posting). but outside email is an easy way to spread info, and that is why it is often blocked. this is where Google might be in a tough spot.
Re:Blocked at work, and trying to get 'win-backs' by DragonWriter · 2010-02-10 09:24 · Score: 1

Google has to be aware that every good feature it has, FB will immediately replicate.

So, Facebook will immediately replicate the ability for external sites to both aggregate updates and supply them using open protocols that Buzz has now?
Buzz's approach is an anti-walled-garden approach that goes directly against Facebook's entire approach to business. To replicate Buzz's attractive features, Facebook would have to fundamentally change its entire approach. Which would be a win for Google of a different type.

obligatory by jDeepbeep · 2010-02-10 02:24 · Score: 2, Funny

No pokes. Less privacy than FB. Lame.

--
Reply to That ||

Re:obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 08:12 · Score: 0

All the things you post don't have to be public. You can create as many groups as you want, putting the proper people in the proper groups.. then when you "Buzz" you get to choose which groups can see it. MUCH better than Facebook IMHO. Give it some time and play with it a little.

I said `users' not `registered accounts' by brokeninside · 2010-02-10 02:41 · Score: 1

Last spring, Twitter had 6 million registered accounts and 14 million users. Even if both of those numbers doubled, they'd have fewer active users than Farmville. Heck, even if they trippled, they'd probably have fewer active users than Farmville.

Re:I said `users' not `registered accounts' by biryokumaru · 2010-02-10 03:12 · Score: 1

I find those values highly suspect. Wil Wheaton alone has 1.6 million daily followers. It's extremely unlikely that the remaining 12.4 million are spread out across every other twitter account, unless there is significant overlap to the extent that every follower follows thousands of accounts.

--
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!

I don't want to see this crap in my gmail. by justicenfa · 2010-02-10 02:42 · Score: 0

I don't have twitter for a reason. I don't need gtwitter. Thanks.

Beyond automatic friending by Quiet_Desperation · 2010-02-10 03:08 · Score: 1

They are also going to give you lots of new family members by giving groups of people new middle names like "Daffodil-5" or "Peanut-12". You could hang out with all the other Daffodils or all the other 5s.

Hi ho!

Please explain slashdot RTFT policy. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 03:59 · Score: 0

Am I expected to read the entire twitter posting, or just skim the first part?

Re: Wave??? by colinnwn · 2010-02-10 04:33 · Score: 1

You are right currently, but Wave is intended long term (+5 years out) to be an email replacement, with many cool features that are currently not available, or are ugly grafts onto the email protocol. It most certainly isn't dead. I use it at least once a week. It was just released much earlier in the development cycle (like pre-alpha) than Gmail usually does with its "betas". Because of this, it is much harder to get an invitation. I only have 21 to give out, as opposed to 100 when I signed up with gmail.

I don't understand your disdain for the Gmail web enhancements. Personally I love most of them, and ignore the rest. But you can still turn almost every one of them off, and use Gmail just like it was 2001. They are even still offering the non-ajaxey html interface. Which I think is an amusing archaeology experiment.

Just turn it off. "Turn off buzz"! by positiveexperience · 2010-02-10 04:37 · Score: 1

Just see gmail footer and click "turn off buzz"! Nice to meet you!

Re:switch it off? HOW by darrylo · 2010-02-10 04:44 · Score: 1

How about the easy way: use the clicky, "turn off buzz", link at the bottom of the gmail page ...

no pseudonymous option = DO NOT WANT by ffflala · 2010-02-10 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm only willing to be part of a social network if I can have granular control over the personal information presented to it, and the members of that network. My compromise for fb has been to use a pseudonym; that plus a picture has been sufficient to obtain contacts of people I actually know. It's not foolproof, but it is for me an acceptable privacy buffer.

Gmail is a different story. There is simply too much private info in the account that I am unwilling to subject to a social networking context. Using an anonymous gmail account for Buzz in the same way would defeat the purpose. Using Buzz seems little different than allowing fb comb my gmail account for contacts.

Its irrelevant by Snaller · 2010-02-10 05:42 · Score: 1

I have to be logged in to gmail to use it? I have to use email addresses? I have to *know* people to use this?

Looks bad - but then I can never use any of googles other "apps" because of their bad web design, the rss reader might have been interesting, but because they are trying to shoehorn a WYSIWYG design into something that should be scalable (ie, i need big letters to see them) i can't use that. Same thing with google groups which has gone straight to hell in their "aimed at 20 year olds" design.

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating

Hack Buzz invite by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 06:08 · Score: 0

those who do not see Buzz in Gmail and want to try it out... can try this hack http://bit.ly/dnHhN2 .
It seems that Buzz works for iPhone and other mobile browsers... just to limit userbase. so hack your user agent and get into Buzz

What backlash? by DragonWriter · 2010-02-10 07:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

CNET identifies a central obstacle Buzz will have to overcome to gain traction: "The problem, however, will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits."

While complaints of this type are frequent from privacy-oriented action groups, and Slashdot users, I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence that there is a whole lot of traction for this kind of anti-Google sentiment in the general public. I think sometimes tech journalists confuse the circle of other technical journalists they associated with and technical-user-focussed media that they consume with the "public".

Meaning of "Private" vs. "Public" in context by DragonWriter · 2010-02-10 08:20 · Score: 1

in article: "This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook"
Facebook is no way private

Facebook status updates are "private" by default (in fact, AFAIK there is no other option, so its more "exclusively" rather than "by default", the only option -- recently added -- is that you can make some visible only to a named subset of your Friends list) in the sense that they are only viewable by your friends, Twitter posts are "public" by default (and, again, I don't think this is merely a "default") in the sense that they are viewable by the world, not a group you specify.

Buzz posts are by-default public, but can easily be set to be private to a particular contact group, which (in terms of controlling who can see them) gives you functionality that encompasses both what Twitter can do and what Facebook can do, its not so much a compromise position between Facebook and Twitter so much as more general functionality that goes beyond either Facebook or Twitter, generalizing both.

Protocols supported in Buzz by DragonWriter · 2010-02-10 08:45 · Score: 1

I also hope they'll publish some protocols so that more people can play

Ask, and ye shall receive. Everyone can play.

It's not an email replacement by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 09:56 · Score: 0

...my opinion on Buzz stands: it is not what email was intended for and is a bit out-of-focus.

Buzz is not email, that's what gmail is. Yes, it is hooking into the same webpage, but isn't that better than having yet another tab open. It's not out-of-focus, indeed it's really hardly different from Facebook, but it has much more control and is missing the cruft. I'm not saying it's the end all, but neither was Facebook two days after it was released either. I'm mostly correcting your thinking that it is a replacement for email which it isn't.
(Posting as AC because I don't want to loose my moderations this story.)

Self selection by brokeninside · 2010-02-10 10:41 · Score: 1

I suspect Wil Wheaton fans are more likely to be Twitter users than your average bear. As of this past summer:

the HubSpot State of the Twittersphere study reports low activity levels for a significant number of users. Specifically, 55.5% of users are not following anyone, 54.9% have never tweeted and 52.71% have no followers.

Hence the relatively low numbers for /users/, defined as people that actually /use/ Twitter, and for /registered accounts/ which I should have qualified as /active/ registered accounts.

Latest research on Twitter users: http://mashable.com/2009/09/14/twitter-2009-stats/

That's 18 million people who access Twitter at least once per month.

Compare to Farmville: http://mashable.com/2009/12/02/farmville-bigger-than-twitter/

69 million users who play at least once per month

It's even more lopsided that I suggested.

Follower Control? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 13:51 · Score: 0

Here's something I noticed about Buzz: I unfollowed a casual (non-"friend") contact in Buzz, but that did not stop them from still being listed as following me. How about Google lets ME control who follows me, eh? It smells a bit like a privacy scandal story waiting to break.

Actually, I'm wondering if the mechanism is the same as Google Chat's, or at least similar. What I mean is, if you don't choose the option to outright block a contact in chat (either in gmail or the google talk client), instead of simply not showing them, does the other person still get to see your online status, even if you've removed or delisted them from your own chat? Actually, choosing Block simply gives you the message that "you will no longer see chats from ", but that says nothing about unauthorizing THEM from still seeing your online status.

The controls for UNauthorizing formerly approved (or auto-approved) chat/buzz contacts is, at the very least, unclear, and at worst non-existent.

Didn't get buzz till today. by psithurism · 2010-02-10 14:44 · Score: 1

I know I'm late to the conversation but I didn't get buzz till today.

The...good?: like facebook but for google with more features in your posts and no spam from games (yet). Also it's new and as we've previously discussed, boredom can kill.

The bad:
- automatic friending.
- Beyond that it looks like people can choose to follow me without my consent. Of course I can block them later, but not till they've rooted through my posts I assume. Anyone else see some problems like this?
- Everything also seems to be public by default and I'm having trouble figuring out how to change these things and I'm worried Eric disabled them.

In short, my privacy fears came true and expectations for something new were not met.

Re:Didn't get buzz till today. by DragonWriter · 2010-02-10 17:56 · Score: 1

Beyond that it looks like people can choose to follow me without my consent. Of course I can block them later, but not till they've rooted through my posts I assume.

Followers can only see your public posts, which anyone can see without following you; public posts are searchable (and if they are posted with location information--e.g., from the mobile app--can also be seen by anyone in the area that uses the "view nearby" function in the mobile app.
Public posts are just that--public.
If you want to post things that can only be seen by a particular group of your contacts, you can do that. And then only those people will get it.

Everything also seems to be public by default and I'm having trouble figuring out how to change these things and I'm worried Eric disabled them.

Its essentially a microblogging service. Yes, posts are public by default. Its trivially simple to post privately. What "things" do you think "Eric" disabled?
Re:Didn't get buzz till today. by psithurism · 2010-02-11 09:13 · Score: 1

If you want to post things that can only be seen by a particular group of your contacts, you can do that. And then only those people will get it.
Hoah! That public/private button (next to post) is awesome! Did not see it and could not find it in help.

Its trivially simple
K, I'll admit to having a little interface retardation.
In light of further evidence, I revise my previous post, this service is 10times better than facebook status because I can post only to my friends or only to my family or only to my coworkers instead of censoring myself to not offend any of the three. Well it will be awesome, if they sign up.

I did notice by psithurism · 2010-02-10 14:58 · Score: 1

I did notice, and I hate it!

My Facebook addicted aunts and friends who are excited to update from their bathrooms don't know I've got their statuses hidden.

I'm still their "friends" because we are still what I would consider "friends", we've got each other's contact info and life stats for the times we actually care what the other is doing.

However, in buzz they are going to see me automatically added to their followers and then opting out.

We'll see how that goes.

Buzz's Open Federation Protocol: PubSubHubbub by DragonWriter · 2010-02-10 18:44 · Score: 1

I realize that there is an API, but that only means that Buzz is open to development of plugins/extensions and other web integration features.

"Only" plugins/extensions and other web integration features? What else is there?

The Buzz system is closed.

Wrong. If you actually read the page on the Buzz APIs, Buzz is an open system that can be fed to or read from using (among other means) the Atom and RSS syndication protcols, either by traditional polling or via real-time updates via the PubSubHubbub protocol.

And they have not announced plans to open Buzz as a protocol as they did with Wave.

PubSubHubbub is the real-time integration protocol for Buzz that serves essentially the same function as the Wave Federation Protocol does for Wave (its a simpler, HTTP-based protocol than the XMPP-based Wave protocol.) They haven't "announced plans to open" it, they already have opened it. (That is, the specification is open, there is a publicly available PubSubHubbub server running on AppSpot, and the Python source code for that PubSubHubbub server is open.)

What is missing?

Google who? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-10 19:08 · Score: 0

I thought Buzz was by Jeskola. The well-established / evolutionary modular audio host thats been around for 10+ years and who's impact was so great that's been cloned 900 times across multiple O/S's. Not to mention still in development?

Who is this Google everyone is talking about, and is their Buzz clone any better than Aldrin or Buze? Where can I download it?

Slashdot Mirror

Google Buzz — First Reactions

310 comments