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

[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.

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?