Slashdot Mirror
Google Buzz — First Reactions
Google announced Buzz today, as we anticipated this morning. CNET has a workmanlike description of the social-networking service, which is integrated into gmail. 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." 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 publicly or privately, at the user's option. This design choice places it between the public-by-default Twitter and the private-by-default Facebook. Lauren Weinstein sounds a note of caution about the inherent privacy risks of Google's method of filling out initial friend profiles by automatic friending.
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.
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 ?
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
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
Facebook, private by default? What is this nonsense!
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.
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....
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just like Google Wave, Google Live, Orkut, etc, etc, etc...
Oblivion Awaits
Anonymous Coward likes this.
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.
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.
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.
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".