Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google ToS Change Means Your Photo Could Go In Ads

Posted by timothy on from the ok-ok-I-like-nutella-and-coffee dept.

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."

35 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. Attack? by OptimalCynic · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Attack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      Who the hell uses Google+? They keep annoying me to use it and I can't find a single use for it.

    2. Re: Attack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Attack? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Attack? by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      look, I only technically have a google+ account because google tricked me into getting one. I could resist them on gmail. but as soon as I changed my youtube account to "new style" (or some shit like that) then BAM! I was as a google+ user.

      you know why they did that? to drive up g+ user stats. fucking peons hunting for fake user numbers, that's what they are.

      I'm not aware of fb using say instagram to trick people into becoming stat manipulation users..

      and I sure as fuck don't want my social network to be handled by the guys who handle my search and mail..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Attack? by rasmusbr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most people who actively use it seem to be using it as a replacement for Skype. That's a pretty big market in terms of users, so I'd guess there are probably tens of millions of people actively using G+.

    6. Re:Attack? by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Out of curiosity, would you be okay with Google using your publicly-published reviews and comments as endorsements in ads if you were paid a portion of the ad revenue?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Attack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      you can use grease monkey to block that annoying google popup trying to force you to open a google+ account. here is one http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/153375

    8. Re:Attack? by game+kid · · Score: 2

      It's a direct attack on the people who search, get their mail, and watch videos through Google, and a direct love letter to Facebook and their vile business model.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    9. Re:Attack? by swillden · · Score: 2

      Maybe, if they got my clear, express consent by some means other than obscure fine print buried in a multi-page TOS.

      In this case, they're getting your consent by putting a big blue notification bar on every single Google page you visit, until you click on it to see the terms, which are presented in a single page of clear English, with a nice three-bullet summary at the top, with a sub-bullet that gives you a direct link to the opt in/out.

      Really, I don't know how it could have been made any clearer.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  2. Opt in? by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 3, Informative

    As I read the ToS, this is an opt in. So if you for some reason want to show your google+ friends, followers, or the world that you "+1" something, your can turn this feature on.

    1. Re:Opt in? by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Opt in? by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Informative

      They've effectively been doing it already with the play store. You can see if any of the people in your circles have added a +1 to any of the apps. It's actually pretty handy.

    3. Re:Opt in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

      No, you are wrong. The checkbox is off, you have to opt-in. That doesn't mean they won't change that at a later date, though.

    4. Re:Opt in? by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, I just looked at my google+ account: "Shared Endorsement" is "off" on my account, even though I accepted the new ToS. The ToS I received stated it was something I could enable if I wished.
      Doesn't seem evil to me.

    5. Re:Opt in? by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Informative

      that just means you disabled that setting, likely when you joined google+. that doesn't change the fact that the default is for it to be on. look it up.

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57607100-93/google-wants-to-sell-more-ads-using-your-name-and-profile/

    6. Re:Opt in? by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Informative

      wrong. if your check box is off that merely means you disabled it prior to this announcement, probably when you joined, but look it up, FACT the default has always been for that setting to be ON when you joined gooogle+. it is ON by default..

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57607100-93/google-wants-to-sell-more-ads-using-your-name-and-profile/

      google: do evil

    7. Re:Opt in? by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 2

      I'm opted out by default. The setting is unchecked without me having to change anything. Presumably it's the same for Peter H.S. too.

    8. Re:Opt in? by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Opt in? by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Opt in? by JanneM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually some people where opted out by default. I and others were opted in. There's no discernible pattern I can figure out for who was opt-in and who was opt-out. It does not depend on what you already agreed to previously, and it does not seem to depend on the jurisdiction where you live.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    11. Re:Opt in? by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:Opt in? by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      I don't mind "opt-in" in the form of stepping through the settings on sign-up where you are shown the option checked and need to un-check it, but I'm not sure if that's what's done here. I usually manually step through the settings for stuff, but I don't remember being walked through it on first use. Opt-in without that important step is at least somewhat slimy.

    13. Re:Opt in? by BradMajors · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can only partially opt-out. Google is intending to use your name and picture without your consent:

        "This setting only applies to use in ads, and doesn't change whether your Profile name or photo may be used in other places such as Google Play,"

  3. Don't be evil by The123king · · Score: 2

    because we'll be evil for you!

    --
    If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
  4. It isn't that bad by Chemisor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This only happens when you participate in a similar activity, such as using +1, writing a review, or following a product. These actions already act as endorsements within your circles; the new ads only make them more explicit. In my view, this is merely yet another reason to avoid putting anything on your Google+ profile, if you needed one. All this spying and marketing is slowly but surely making social network users shut up - a very good thing indeed.

    1. Re:It isn't that bad by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  5. The big differences... by OpenYourEyes · · Score: 5, Informative

    It seems like there are three big differences between how Google is handling this and how Facebook handled this:

    1. Google is blasting the notice pretty visibly all over the place. Open a tab and you can't help but see info about it. It is in your notifications. They are making it loud and clear that this is going to happen, and being pretty transparent about what it means.
    2. Google is making it easy to opt out. If you opted out of some things, or if you're in an apps domain, you're already opted out. If not, there are prominent links telling you how to opt out of this.
    3. This is only happening for public activities. You can argue if a +1 or a review should be public or if it violates Google's own concept of circles, but they're making it clear this won't apply to things you share privately.

    I may have issues with how they're forcing some activities to be public only, but I can't fault them for trying to make it very clear what is public, what is private, and how they intend to respect the difference between the two.

    1. Re:The big differences... by moteyalpha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Vast amounts of personal information are already available on the internet. The focus is to monetize what is publicly available. The issue seems to be -who- gains from what is laying around in the open or what can be inferred. The present model seems to revolve about connecting products to sales and taking a cut. That does not seem to be a sustainable gain. It requires that the consumer be actively involved in the process and people can simply stop using the internet without dying. The internet has exposed almost every person to scrutiny. Information does not act by itself. It is the motives and real world actions of those who observe that information that matter.
      I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see.

  6. There are ads on Facebook?!?! by websitebroke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oh, right, I forget that people actually use the web without an ad blocker.

  7. TOS and what Google Does. by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  8. My new profile pic will be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    My new profile pic will be
    a picture of myself holding a sign, "Don't buy this stuff please" :)

  9. Re:Now Do Evil by fast+turtle · · Score: 2

    I've expected Google to do this since I signed up for gmail. They're an advertising corporation and only make money from adverts. Does this bother me? Not really as I've taken steps from the beginning to devalue my worth to them for advertising purposes - the first step was to never complete the fucking profile - it has my handle and an avatar with a nonsense location of "Out of my Mind".

    --
    Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
  10. I'm so glad they are doing this (seriously) by greggman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Attack on privacy by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 2

    Attack on privacy is a far more correct and honest asessment.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!