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?"

Comments

SEC

[Nerdfest]

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.

Re:SEC

[westlake]

information exchange at the speed of molasses in an age where milliseconds matter.

If milliseconds matter, then something has gone seriously wrong. It is part of the SEC's job to keep markets reasonably stable and on the rails. Hair-triggered reflexes are usually a sign that you are about to shoot the wrong man.

Re:SEC

[__aaltlg1547]

We have financial disclosure laws and public-release laws because of situations like this...

The problem is that, as usual, the law hasn't kept up with changes in technology and how people communicate. It's possible to view anything posted on Twitter (to the best of my knowledge) without logging in to view it. That would make it, by definition, "public". Anyone can access it. This differs from Facebook where an account is required to view it.

Thus, Twitter at least would seemingly meet the requirements for public disclosure; The information is available equally to everyone, and at the same time. And yet, here we are. The fact is, social media websites are where people are, and if you want to talk to them, you have to go there. The SEC however hasn't caught up with that, and still believes in pomp and circumstance like quarterly meetings and reports -- information exchange at the speed of molasses in an age where milliseconds matter.

It is not the law's job to "keep up with technology" which will always be a moving target. It is the responsibility of people to be cognizant of the law and obey it.

The SEC exists to look out for the general interests of investors. It is not in that interest to have to monitor all of potentially thousands of publicly-available news sources for unannounced releases of information so they don't lose a millisecond-long race to buy or sell on the basis of such information.

Re:SEC

[pla]

It is not the law's job to "keep up with technology" which will always be a moving target. It is the responsibility of people to be cognizant of the law and obey it.

What a silly idea!

Of course the law needs to keep up with technology, because the law needs to keep up with society.

"The law" doesn't exist as some immutable monolithic construct laid down by our ancient forefathers for all eternity. We have mechanisms in place to change the law precisely because it needs to deal with the realities of today, not 4000BCE, not 1776CE, and not 1976CE.

That said, we also have "tiers" of laws that take more effort to change, because we consider them fundamental rules of human behavior rather than situationally dependent - But even those can still change, and in fact, that makes one of the best counterarguments to your premise: In 1800, the US didn't recognize slaves as complete humans, largely because the technology of the day required the use of human labor to keep the economy moving. By the civil war, technology had almost made (agricultural) slavery barely a breakeven (and more popular in the South largely because they had slow-moving swamps rather than the North's swiftly flowing rivers). By 1900, using human labor instead of technology would cost more than it would save.


The law doesn't always get it right. And when the law disagrees with reality, reality will always win - eventually.

Now only if...

[TWX]

...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.

Re:Now only if...

[TWX]

Slashdot is broken up into predefined topics though, and the topics are what dictate the discussion. We don't generally completely go off into other topics without some kind of relevant segue, and if we try then we run the risk of being moderated down. Additionally, factual incorrectness, baiting, or other inappropriateness in the discussion can result in downward moderation.

I like Slashdot's method of interaction for the most part. It's not perfect, but it's the best that I've seen so far.

Google+ head barred from Twitter?

[segin]

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?

Re:A wise man said

[Anonymous Coward]

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

-Batman

I've always disliked Batman for various reasons over the years, but if that is a real quote I think it highlights one of his
worst attribute. I'll keep this in mind when I introduce my kid to comics.

The world is not a large set of Boolean logic. Epic Batman fail. Even Superman (who seems to be either full-retard,
or alien-super-genius depending on the year) knows this.

Re:i had been wondering

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

If you like corporate-fudalism so much, why don't you... Oh, yeah. Too late.

Serf Music

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Everybody's Serf-ing now, Come on a safari with me.."
"Serf-ing USA!"

Re:A wise man said

[loufoque]

You couldn't misunderstand Batman more even if you tried.

When it was introduced, Batman was the first comic that didn't take place in a manichean world. The sentence means that anyone claiming to be pure white will in time necessarily become grey.

Committing a single thing against the law is enough to be villain, while you have to not do anything against the law to be a pure hero. Not white is not equal to black.

The point of Batman is that, unlike Superman, it is not a simple world of black and white, since even the main character, a dangerous vigilante, often fighting for revenge or his own selfish reasons, is morally ambiguous. The good guys can act like bad guys, and sometimes the bad guys do good things too (or at least have good intentions).

I suggest you don't teach any stupidity to your kid at all. Let him learn things by himself and reflect on them.

And of course the other point is

[gelfling]

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.