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?"
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.
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 forgot the sarcastic smiley at the end. Bill Gates? The man that oversaw stealing or otherwise abusing monopoly power in an effort to force his sub-par crap on the world? I don't have any specific history on Carnegie's CEO exploits that are positive or negative, only noting that he rose to prominence during a time where such as he were termed "Robber Barons". I will note one positive - he actually did something good with some of his wealth - he created libraries. He also, unlike Gates, did not believe that philanthropy was merely the giving away of large amounts of wealth, but targeted his giving to help people help themselves. I would argue that Gates is primarily dropping bandaids, and has yet to make a single meaningful "gift", but I could be wrong.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Gates? You mean the billionaire who had the infantile meltdown at Connie Chung, screaming, calling her names because she mispronounced “DOS”.... That guy? Right..Great model.