How a Gesture Could Get Your Google+ Profile Picture Yanked

SharkLaser writes "It turns out that Google has started to remove Google+ pictures that have persons giving the middle finger in it. 'Our policy page states, "Your Profile Picture cannot include mature or offensive content." Your profile photo was taken down as a violation of this policy.' Google+ is supposed to be a universal social network and 'identity service,' and to allow sharing like in real life — a public venue for free expressions. Since the middle finger is such culturally-specific issue, will Google+ also start to remove things like showing the palms of your hands to people (considered an insult in Greece), showing the soles of your shoes (insult in the Middle East), and patting someone's head (an insult in Buddhist countries)? A good number of Google+ users have started to change their profile picture to include the middle finger to show support to MG Siegler, who got his profile picture removed by Google."

Comments

The advertisers

[Colin Smith]

Don't like it. It damages their image.

Re:The advertisers

[NeutronCowboy]

There might be some truth to it. Or Google is looking at MySpace, and how it was derided as the social network for angsty teens who are trying to shock themselves into relevance.

I think it's simpler than that though. Google is trying so hard to make a relevant social network that it is managing it from the top down. Unfortunately, Social Networks don't work that way. The only reason people will use one is because they get some benefit from it. If the main thing they get from is constant aggravation about playing by some arbitrary rules, they are going to leave.

I would love for there to be a social network around that competes with Facebook. The reality at this point though is that Google+, despite its nifty circles, ain't it. I should be their main evangelist, but I can't endorse a social network where some arbitrary and unknown rule is going to get the entire thing yanked. Dear Google, please let me fuck up my own social network. If I can't be trusted to not put up pictures of me that aren't offensive, will piss off my boss or have my girlfriend walk out on me, then please don't try to help me. You have no idea what is acceptable for 7Billion people, and shouldn't try.

This is the kind of thing where Google ought to keep in mind the old mantra about asking for permission vs for forgiveness - keep the heavy-handed stuff for when you're successful. Kinda like Facebook.

Re:The advertisers

[NeutronCowboy]

Here's the difference: seatbelts on vs seatbelts off is a very simple situation. It's easy to figure out which one is which, easy to figure out how much each situation costs to implement and to enforce, and how much benefit each one has to those impacted by the decision.

Offensive content, on the other hand, is near impossible to police on a world-wide level. It is impossible to know who is offended by what, the number of things that offend someone somewhere is much greater than those that do not offend anyone anywhere, the policing is horribly expensive, false positives abound and the benefits gained from this approach are unknown at best.

That's why Google's approach is wrong, again. I have to admit, I'm agreeing more and more with someone else's assessment that Google is, at its core, a tech company run by techies, and therefore unable (or at least has a much harder time) to produce something that tickles people's soft underbelly and need for personal validation. They have great tools - love gmail, love maps, love their search - but those are tools. I use them, then stop using them and don't think about them until I have to use them again. Their use is strictly determined by their usefulness: if something else comes along that is better, I will switch in a heartbeat. But they suck at producing an experience - something that makes me feel fuzzy on the inside every time I use it. And quite frankly, that's what Facebook is and does: it satisfies the urge of humans to interact and be social. Until Google understands the purpose of social networks and satisfies those needs, it's going to fail with its last-ditch attempt a staying relevant in one of the most important areas of the Internet.

Choice?

[jstg]

They caught enough flak with the making users use their real names. I can't see this going over much better. In order to compete with the Facebook's and Diaspora's you'd think they would need to take a more open minded approach to things.

Re:Choice?

[RicardoGCE]

COMPETE with Diaspora? Give me a break. Diaspora is alpha software that requires users to run their own web server. It's a fucking great concept that will nonetheless never catch on with a large enough audience to ever matter to anyone but its users.

The same could be said about desktop Linux, but Linux has found plenty of life in other markets. Until Diaspora finds that niche, there's no "competition" to speak of.

Re:Choice?

[DerekLyons]

In order to compete with the Facebook's and Diaspora's you'd think they would need to take a more open minded approach to things.

Competing with Facebook means competing for the thirty-to-fifty crowd - and your "open minded" scheme is precisely the opposite of what attracts them. The absolute last thing Google wants is to repeat the mistakes of MySpace and LiveJournal and have a reputation as being a has-been that attracts mostly teen and young adult drama. Facebook is already getting something of that reputation with all the party pics, etc... etc...
 
Why the thirty to fifty crowd? Because, as many Slashdotters fail to realize, Facebook introduced a seismic shift in the social network paradigm - it's not just for kids anymore. Social networking is now used by a variety of businesses and professionals, and where they go, people will follow. (Though Google seems to have missed that.) Where the older folks go, the slightly less older folks will follow to stay connected. You can't build a stable social networking system on fly-by-night, short attention span, follow the fashion, teens and twentysomethings. The name of the game now is slowly grasping each demographic in turn, and building a solid base from there.
 
As far as competing with Diaspora - that's like claiming the NY Yankees are competing with the little league teams that plays down the road from me. It's laughable. As popular as Diaspora is with the disaffected Slashdot and/or techie crowd... It's meaningless in the larger scheme of things. Those enamored of Diaspora are those pissed at other networks, and they'll get pissed and move on again. They're unstable and marginal.

Re:Google is an American

[InterestingFella]

Google is everywhere, and they have local companies too. Their headquarters might be in U.S., but you can't really say that Google is American company. Especially with the tax holes they use so they can pay less U.S. taxes.

I removed my G+ account

[TheTruthIs]

Cause I had the feeling that google was giving me the finger.

Re:Go cry to your mother

[InterestingFella]

Sure, but Google wants to be competitor to Facebook and have the largest social network on the planet. This means they have to accept stuff that is "immature" too. And that's not even counting the cultural issues.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[Anonymous Coward]

As you said it's business, and it's bad business for Google. That's the whole point of complaining. You write a complaint to a company to tell them that you care enough about an issue that you are willing to give them the chance to know why you are angry, instead of just walking out the door without an explanation. I don't agree in whining just to whine, but it's perfectly fine to critique actions from a company.

A better solution

[Cro Magnon]

Photoshop any hand pictures to remove the offensive finger. Who care if they have 4 fingers on each hand? Or, technically, 3 fingers and a thumb.

Re:Other Offenses

[mcgrew]

I'm offended at Google's immaturity. Minors aren't allowed to have a G+ account, right? Then what's the problem with someone flipping the bird?

Jesus, Google, grow the fuck up.

Re:Don't like it, Don't use it

[cheekyjohnson]

The fact that they can do it doesn't mean they're exempt from criticism.

No one has the right to not be offended.

[js_sebastian]

Offensive content, on the other hand, is near impossible to police on a world-wide level. It is impossible to know who is offended by what, the number of things that offend someone somewhere is much greater than those that do not offend anyone anywhere, the policing is horribly expensive, false positives abound and the benefits gained from this approach are unknown at best.

That's why Google's approach is wrong, again.

No. It is wrong because freedom of expression includes the right to offend others. Or to put it clearly, freedom of expression does not stop just because what I am saying is offensive to some people.

The fact that a prohibition on "offensive content" cannot practically be enforced on a social network is a relief, but the thing is, they shouldn't be trying. If you don't want to see someone's posts, just kick him out of your circles.