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

[__aaltlg1547]

I don't find it sad, other than it's sad that some public companies are run by people who don't understand their responsibilities to the public.

We have financial disclosure laws and public-release laws because of situations like this: http://www.businessinsider.com/worst-insider-trading-scandals-2011-11?op=1

Re:SEC

[girlintraining]

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.

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?

This isn't about social networking

[Tr3vin]

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.

Re:This isn't about social networking

[vlm]

It is about which networks you use.

Twitter is a service primarily organized for paid PR shills release carefully crafted tweets under corporate branded officer names which journalists read and comment on. Its basically the worlds briefest PR news release distribution company which is open to the general public, although most people don't use it. Its completely inappropriate for an underling to issue his own news releases without talking to his boss first, and apparently Sr. VP Eng is not supposed to upstage the marketing department by releasing his own PR messages.

G+ is not quite the same business model. If you want to publish cat pictures or comment on your competitors, or whatever, do it there.

Vic

[Anonymous Coward]

Vic posts all of the time on Google+. He hasn't been banned from social networking.

Re:Vic

[DMiax]

Yes but even Larry Page knows no one uses G+, so who cares...

Google Corporate Continues its Twitter Use

[theodp]

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.

Why?

[MysteriousPreacher]

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?

Re:It says...

[Gr8Apes]

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.

Re:A wise man said

[vakuona]

That wasn't Batman. That was Harvey Dent, before he became Twoface.