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.
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.
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.
The network is not to blame for the oxymoron.
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."
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)
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
(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.
The mobile version of Buzz is more interesting than the Gmail version. Check out the Gizmodo review.
Facebook, private by default? What is this nonsense!
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.
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
Wow, look at you. Roughin' it, all off the grid and shit.
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
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).
When will you be ditching your TV?
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.