Google ToS Change Means Your Photo Could Go In Ads

An anonymous reader writes "Google [on Friday] announced an upcoming change to its terms of service that will let the company add users' names and photos to certain parts of its advertising as of November 11. Make no mistake: this is a direct attack against Facebook. One of the few advantages of Google+ is that it features no ads. To be perfectly clear, Google isn't changing that. Google+ will still have a clean interface, at least for the foreseeable future. Instead, Google is tying Google+ into yet another one of its properties, and arguably its most important one: Google Ads."

Comments

Attack?

[OptimalCynic]

How is this an attack against Facebook? Are they competing for the title of "most hated social network"?

Re: Attack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better an obscure IRC channel in your own server and sharing with friends than Google+/Facebook and sharing your life with NSA.

Re:Attack?

[hairyfeet]

Sorry but I'm with the AC, after they changed their TOS the first time and bugged the living shit out of me to use my real name everywhere they can take G+ and shove it, I avoid it like an STD.

And this is part of another trend I REALLY don't fucking like, corps avoiding copyrights when its good for THEM but royally screwing you if you dare do the same. Well screw you Google, my pics are copyrighted,wanna use 'em? PAY ME. of course i won't be putting them into either FB or G+ and I'd strongly suggest nobody put jack shit that you care about in either, but maybe you should upload pics to let them know how they feel about these changes....a nice Goatse perhaps?

Re:Opt in?

[rubycodez]

no, you have it backwards. you are opted in by default, you have to opt out.

The default setting for "Shared Endorsements" is to use your google+ information in ads.

do no evil, huh?

Re:Opt in?

[Nerdfest]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the last time I went through it that it was on by default. As I mentioned above, they only used it for thing on the Play store though. If people are "+1"ing businesses and products though, what is their intention ... who are they indicating "approval" too? I suppose it might just be a way of bookmarking something for themselves, but I always hought it was more meant for the subject of the approval and others to see anyway.

Re:Opt in?

[Peter H.S.]

The whole point of pressing "+1" is that other people can see your vote. It is like writing a product review on Amazon; doesn't make much sense if your default setting for writing reviews or pressing "+1" is "that no one can see what you do".

But google makes it very easy to turn it off if you want (superb user panel IMHO).

So the only news is that you now can allow your photo etc. to show up on the "endorsement" like a product, or a political cause. You actually have to write a review first using your google account for this ever to happen, even if you have "Shared Endorsements" activated.

Not something for me, but I am sure that there are some who get a kick out of seeing their own face and review among google search results.

Re:It isn't that bad

[peragrin]

NY comic con thought it should tweet from visitors accounts. this means if you ever look up a product on amazon all your friends know you were surfing for (insert fetish here).

Companies are trying to force you to support their products so they can cheap out of advertising as real advertising is about 5% successful(on a good day).

Word of mouth is the best advertising So by crosslinking into your social networks companies can advertise with words that appear to be coming out of your mouth.

I have avoided social networks for just this reason. people think I am paranoid but damn sometimes it sucks to be right.

Re:Opt in?

[Peter H.S.]

google: do evil

Oh, so now the bar for doing evil is set at "being allowed to voluntarily add a photo to your google product reviews."

If that is your definition of evil then I wonder; do you have any words left for describing what was going on in the Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek and Treblinka death camps.

TOS and what Google Does.

[bmo]

The last time I logged into Google, there was a banner on the top of the browser window. "Our Privacy Policies Have Changed" and such, in bright Google blue.

I actually read the privacy policy change.

Then I unticked the box. They won't be using my "face" in ads. Bam.

This is really, really hard to do.

I wish some other (nearly all) companies were this forthcoming with their privacy policy changes. Especially when they put the onus on the user to actively diff the changes for their own selves in order to actually find them. They don't even take the minimum effort to post a notice.

--
BMO

I'm so glad they are doing this (seriously)

[greggman]

I would like all my reviews to show up publically when people search for stuff. That's why I wrote the reviews. I've put reviews on Amazon, TripAdvisor, Yelp, Booking.com, etc... When a product or service has been outstanding I want others to know it worked for me. When a product or service sucks I want to help steer people away from them.

Google's implementation seems great. I can choose to review something, I can choose to make it public or private or share it with specific people like "family" so that 6 months later when my mom is looking for a digital camera and types "digital camera" into google she seems my reviews. That sounds awesome to me.

Of course if Google only shows positive reviews that would be bad but AFAICT that's not what they're doing. I've certainly googled for stuff and seen 1 and 2 star ratings.