Google Launches Google+ Social Network

Randyll writes "Today, Google announced its decisive entry into the world of social networks by introducing Google+, a social network tied around Google services. Its aim is to be different from other networks with emphasis on privacy and a different kind of social networking. Instead of connecting with your friends, Google+ aims to center connections around specific groups—colleagues, projects, or groups of friends—with the ability to use high-quality video chats and a unique and rich web-based user experience. It is currently in beta with opt-in invites." Several other readers submitted speculation about another mysterious new Google service as well.

Comments

Wait, there are Google services NOT in beta?

[elrous0]

It is currently in beta

Am I to understand that this is notable information?

Couldn't be worse

[Afforess]

It couldn't possibly be worse than Facebook. With Google's transparency with privacy, and already working business model (has facebook ever posted a profit?), I'd trust them over Facebook in a heartbeat.

Facebook screws me over daily. No, I don't want any facebook credits. No, I don't want to play farmville. Disgusting...

Re:Couldn't be worse

[Abstrackt]

Do I have a choice?

Yes, you always have a choice. It may not be a good choice, but it's there.

Co-workers/Friends (use the term "friend" losely) get insulted if I don't "like" or comment on their inane ramblings at least 3-4 times a week.

It sounds like your friends list could use a trim. A good metric is to ask yourself who you would have coffee with. Anyone who doesn't pass that test and isn't family probably shouldn't be there. If your friends and coworkers get annoyed that you don't comment on what they post online just tell them politely that you would much rather communicate with them in person as you value your relationship with them.

Re:Couldn't be worse

[interkin3tic]

It couldn't possibly be worse than Facebook.

Back in MY day, we only had myspace. Instead of yer "farmville" we had REAL farms (in civ) and instead of "poke wars" we had "annoying music blaring anytime you load someone's profile."

Instead of friend requests, we had annoying garage bands from New Jersey constantly urging us to check out their new hip hop album.

And we liked it! We loved it! You had exactly 10 friends that mattered and everyone else knew you didn't like them, and you got on with your life rather than wasting time posting cute animal pictures from the huffington post!

This is will be like wave!

[Daniel_is_Legnd]

This is going to be just like Google Wave. Only Bigger!

Re:This is will be like wave!

[city]

Google Tsunami?

Bizarro Buzz

[MrEricSir]

It's the polar opposite of Buzz. You have to add friends manually, and manually assign them to one of four "circles" (Family, Friends, Acquaintances, Following.)

Then with EVERY damn thing you post, you have to assign to one or more groups.

So you get very fine-grained control, but at the cost of usability. It really is the opposite of Buzz in that way.

Good Opportunity

[sgt scrub]

Facebook has been making too many mistakes. This is the perfect opportunity to bring back wave in a context that fits. Like Facebook though, I don't think I'll participate. I've never understood the desire to make personal information about yourself public. I had a near miss with an employer that wanted everyone constantly available through skype, twitter, and facebook. If I wanted to share my personal life, phone conversations, and listen to someone's pointless babble I'd get back together with an old girlfriend.

Re:Good Opportunity

[hey!]

I've never understood the desire to make personal information about yourself public.

Well, it's no wonder you don't understand the desire to make everything about your life completely public, because for most people *total* exposure isn't a feature of the Facebook model; it's an unfortunate side effect.

The problem with Facebook is that it assumes you have only *one* social network. That your work colleagues, family, and spouse swapping club are just different entry points into one big homogeneous social network. This is manifestly false, but Facebook wants every individual's social network to be as large as possible because that's more profitable. That's why Facebook's twiddling of its privacy controls only produces more confusion. Users can't *get* what they really want with Facebook's network model, so any attempt to impose security on top of that model only makes it harder to share what they *do* want to share with the people they want to share it with.

The big question is how much of this is deliberate? Some think Facebook has a goal of training people to accept less privacy. I don't think that their goals are that long term. Still, I do not think Facebook is unaware that they're not providing the service that people want, nor do I think they are unable to give people what they want. The one homogeneous network model happened to be the one that maximized revenue in the short term. With the gathering backlash against Facebook's usability and security, I think users have figured what Facebook probably already knows: Facebook isn't the service they need.

This is going to fail.

[slasho81]

Facebook specifically benefits from the lack of privacy of its users to generate attention grabbing content to as many users as possible. The endless time people spend on Facebook is not spent creating content or communicating - it's spent stalking other people. Facebook is like a super-tabloid or like gossip on crack.

Businesses everywhere promote Facebook by requesting users to Like them. Most users are blissfully unaware that by Liking they aren't just anonymously adding 1 to the Like count, but they are also endorsing the business and giving permission to the business to spam them. The friend counter is like an addictive game with the aim to accumulate as many points as possible with shame built-in if you don't have as many points as others have.

Facebook is a useful communication tool, but it's also evil. It takes advantage of its users in order to promote itself and its interests. If Google isn't ready to go full evil, they have no chance to compete in that arena. Sure, people will use the new awesome services Plus will offer, but it's not enough to get the attention Google wants for its advertising needs. People who can't kill will always be subject to those who can. Same thing applies to businesses who won't turn evil.

I'd be wary of Google services

[Bloodwine77]

They are starting to rack up a nice stack a corpses made from discontinued Google services. Google Wave, Google Translation API, Google Health, and Google PowerMeter to name a few.

I would hate to get too invested in a Google service only to have it disappear on me. As far as I am concerned, Google Search and Gmail are their only sure bets.

I actually may use it, but not how they think

[odin84gk]

This does look promising.

If they truly allow group video conferencing using a browser, I will certainly use it.
If they truly implement voice chat, I would gladly replace Skype, possibly even Vent. (Depends on how it gets implemented)
If they implement group chat that works across cell platforms, I will certainly use it. I would love to use something like this to organize weekly spontaneous events instead of massive text messages. (Email is too slow and unreliable for the last-minute changes, phone calls takes too long.)

However...
This must be painfully easy to use, no special invites and 10 day waiting lists. If this thing gets rolled out using small groups, it will die.

Re:I, for one...

[vlm]

and a picture of my hat (my hat is custom made and very distinguishable)

I LOL as I remember an oldie, but a goodie...

"I put on my robe and wizard hat"

http://bash.org/?104383

Boobies anyone?

[dclozier]

Who loves boobies? (now that's pretty funny)

Finally, a social network that won't.... err wait

[dontmakemethink]

Isn't Google already guilty of all the issues people complain about in Facebook?

Visiting from Google Future

[retroworks]

Hi, I just found this website "Slashdot" using "Google Time Machine" app. I'm posting from here in the year 2078. Google says I'm 234 bitcoins away from getting my children back, and I can earn credit by doing this research, polling Geeks of the Past about what efforts they may be hatching to keep this Google Universe from occurring (or slowing it). By the way, I see many references to something called "facebook", what is it? And what's a farmville?

Google... transparent?

[caitsith01]

Google's transparency with privacy

In what possible universe is Google transparent about privacy?? Can you go somewhere to see what data they have collected about you? I think not.

You have literally no idea what data they have in the no doubt comprehensive profile they have built about you based on search and gmail. If you read their privacy terms there are an alarming number of "outs" for them to basically use that information however the hell they want. Add to that their creepy wifi data collection, creepy streetview cars, etc etc. Hell, a Google search is a pretty good record of your thoughts.

I consider Google one of the biggest threats to privacy going around. By comparison Facebook is child's play.

Re:Google... transparent?

[SpecialFred]

Try https://www.google.com/dashboard/. It has everything associated with your Google account, and you can manage most of the information. See also http://www.dataliberation.org/, and, in the future, https://www.google.com/takeout/