Slashdot Mirror
Google+ Chief Grounded From Twitter By Larry Page
theodp writes "Vic Gundotra, formerly Sr. VP of Social (and now, of Engineering) at Google, and head of the company's social networking service Google+, hasn't posted anything on his Twitter account since July 2011. Why? Responding to a question about his own social networking behavior at SMX 2012, Gundotra explained that he was asked by Google CEO Larry Page not to tweet anymore. 'I was asked not to tweet again.' Gundotra said (video). 'I was asked not to do that by my boss [Page]. I tweeted a tweet about two companies [Microsoft, Nokia] that went viral, went very very viral and made a lot of headline news.' So, what does it say when the Google CEO who reportedly tied all Googlers' bonuses to social networking apparently finds it too dangerous to permit the head of Google+ to participate in social networking?"
i had been wondering where the line was between non-disclosure and seemingly accidental tweets that leak info they allege they didnt want out there. Everywhere I've ever worked had made it abundantly clear upon interview that you dont social network about the company. People in the marketing/pr type departments probably have more leeway because they stir popularity for the products. As it stands, Salesforce.com, one of the world's largest CRM makers, incorporates a tool to analyze tweets and facebook posts of known employees of your customer companies so the leads are warmer to sell.
Didn't somebody just get investigated by the SEC for sharing something on FaceBook? It sounds like a smart decision. Sad and depressing that it needs to happen, but smart.
Larry Page is a dictator. A tyrant... but that's what we've conditioned our society to look for in a 'good' CEO.
Was Steve Jobs any different? Most of these CEOs sound like complete assholes (especially when you listen to them talk to or about other humans).
I really wish more CEOs would be like Carnegie or Gates. True models of men that more people really should emulate.
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
-Batman
...we could get everyone else to top using Twitter or other modern social networking...
Most social media is talking at each other, not to each other. Forums are already hard enough, but most forums are for a specific purpose and smaller in membership and thus easier to moderate. General purpose forums have proven impossible to moderate with all have access- Usenet was the first example of that.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
You say what we want you to, otherwise you lose your job...and trust us, we ARE watching. Very closely.
I sometimes wonder whether or not the reason Google gets away with a lot of what it does is due to them having databased "dirt" on just about everyone in the US.
Maybe it's just as simple as Twitter being the competition? Would Apple allow the head of their iOS division walk around 1 Infinite Loop touting an Android?
It is about which networks you use. The employees were encouraged to promote Google+, not just use any old social network. I imagine that Vic's tweet was only bad because it sent views to another site. If you are the head of any project, you really shouldn't be using the competition publicly.
If the gentleman in question uses Google+ then this is just a case of Google asking its own employees to eat their own dog food. And nothing in the world makes more sense. It's not one of those two-bit Linux companies where all "developers" use Macs XD
Vic posts all of the time on Google+. He hasn't been banned from social networking.
Except Google itself apparently has an official corporate Twitter account that's active and has 5.4+ million followers ("Verified Profile"). BTW, Apple also has an official YouTube Channel despite Steve Jobs' feelings towards Google.
So, what does it say when the Google CEO who reportedly tied all Googlers' bonuses to social networking apparently finds it too dangerous to permit the head of Google+ to participate in social networking?"
1) Because he's in a Senior VP! What he says can influence the stock price, among other things.
2) Twitter and Facebook are the competition.
That was very complicated, wasn't it?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
He was asked last year to stop because he revealed information that the SEC finds inappropriate for financial information. But I expect nothing less then this from the illiterate editors at Slashdot.
Google has 11.6 million "Likes" on its corporate Facebook account.
I'm sure he's still allowed to participate in other social networks such as... Google+.
This story made the rounds over a week ago, ran its course and faded into the background again. I was surprised to see it appear here - Slashdot is probably the last place on the web to run it as a front page story.
I don't think that everything that runs on Slashdot needs to be completely current, particularly if the subject is interesting, deep or has long term implications. This story is none of those things - it almost had a gossipy tabloid quality to it ("Vic Gundotra banned from Twitter!"). Oh, and the incident occurred over a year earlier, in June 2011 and seemed to be a non-event. Ho Hum. It should have been passed over in favor of a less stale story.
"Everybody's Serf-ing now, Come on a safari with me.."
"Serf-ing USA!"
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
What it says is that corporate officers need to be measured in all of their communications, much more so than most other persons. Twitter, in contrast, seems to tempt its users to make spontaneous postings.
It's not inconsistent for Google to say that Google+ is a good service for many, but not all, persons.
no really
dont care anyhow back to life
It means that "social networking" is often expected to be used, not for frank communications, but for company managed advertising. I've actually attended staff meetings where staff were urged to talk up their own company's products and to help drive criticisms of their products to the next page of product reviews. I was not surprised, but saddened: the flaws were very real and could have been used as a great opportunity for the company to address the problems and turn that negative review into a great example of customer support, at a much lower cost in manpower.
Everyone one of his posts is like a little time capsule. "Hey, remember back when that was news? Yeah man, good times. Can't believe we ever cared about that shit."
Because, even beyond disclosure. It makes sense to have the person in charge of your companies Social Network, to be using -it-, not your competitors.
Best way to develop a good product, is make the developers eat their own dog food and use it.
Using a competitor's product in a public way is bad business. He should be using G+, not twitter.
That would be like Bill Gates using gmail instead of .... whatever Microsoft is pushing today.
There is also the accidental release of proprietary data concern, especially for CxO level people in publicly traded companies to be worried about. Release if insider information, even by accident, is a serious SEC issue. Being "open" and staying within SEC rules usually isn't possible for key decision makers for companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft. Basically, they can only talk about items covered in the SEC filings.
What a load of arse. One can be banned from, warned off, or kicked out of something. Being grounded takes no indirect object; one is grounded or one is not, period.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"what does it say when the Google CEO who reportedly tied all Googlers' bonuses to social networking apparently finds it too dangerous to permit the head of Google+ to participate in social networking?"
It says nothing.
The social networking is a product, not an in-house employee tool. Just because a company sells something it does not mean that they want or should want their employees using it all the time.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Can you imagine a senior executive at Ford driving a Volkswagen?
Maybe a Coca-Cola executive publicly drinking Pepsi?
What about an executive from Microsoft using an Apple for a presentation with journalists?
Get the point? Employees, specially if they are very senior in their companies, are not supposed to adhere to competitor's products.
Using Twitter for the world to see is exactly adhering to a competitor product. If you work for Google and you are senior, you cannot do it.
Actually, what surprises me is not that Larry Page asked Vic Gundotra to stop tweeting. What is surprising is that he had to ask!
For sake, _he_ is a VP of Social Networking, can he not apply some judgement?
.... wouldnt you assume you were not allowed to say your boss told you to not use twitter....
Is that Twitter is horseshit. Worthless noisy horseshit and the people who do it should be punched in the face until they are more or less retarded.
All Google needs to do is fork the code and call it ... 'Glitter.'
VP can then Glitter all his penis demands. The homie needs to keep out of those 'Smack My Bitch Up' places that he loves, however, They got cams and are just too happy to get some pay-per-view of our Homie, Yo.
XD
When an exec of a public company as large as Google inadvertently tweets something that might be considered "material information", the SEC and class action lawyers tend to get involved. Sometimes they're not very nice.
Vic Gundotra has a normal interview, and it goes viral too!
Next up: Google+ chief grounded from normal interviews by Larry Page....
It means we're now beholden to shareholders, a board of directors, the whims of Wall Street, and can be made or ruined with overreactions to any statements coming from any known associate.
here's his profile
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+VicGundotra/posts
We used to say "the only intuitive interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned." GUIs are so successful because they use a pre-linguistic, "point and grunt" interface - something humans learn in their first year or two,
Then we grew up and found out that nearly all babies have to be taught to nurse properly (thanks, La Leche League!).
So now we say "No interface is intuitive, not even the nipple. It's all learned."
If you blame your users for not being able to follow instructions, you're ignoring the empirical fact that your instructions are clearly useless, either because they aren't really accessible to the user or because they just plain suck.
It's always popular to blame a victim, though.