Slashdot Mirror
4chan Founder Chris Poole Will Try To Fix Social At Google (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Google never "got" social. For all the resources thrown at it, Google+ just never quite felt human. But luckily Google just hired the guy behind 4chan -- a site that epitomized the good, the bad and the ugly of humanity on the internet. Chris Poole started 4chan in his bedroom at age 15. In the 12 years since, he built it into a 20 million active user image-sharing community around topics ranging from cosplay and cute animals to anime porn and the notoriously uncensored anonymous channel /b/. While Google probably won't force him into a suit and tie, Poole now has a much more corporate job: He'll be working under Google's Bradley Horowitz, VP of streams, photos and sharing. Poole writes: "When meeting with current and former Googlers, I continually find myself drawn to their intelligence, passion, and enthusiasm -- as well as a universal desire to share it with others. I'm also impressed by Google's commitment to enabling these same talented people to tackle some of the world's most interesting and important problems."
This'll work.
#DeleteChrome
MooT!
This should be interesting.
I gave up on Google+ a couple of years ago, but still frequent 4chan...
Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans. No-one sees motorcycles
Poole continued, saying: "But what I mostly appreciate are the millions of dollars that Google is giving me."
For some of us, this is a feature, not a bug.
The summary seems to imply there was something fundamentally wrong with Google+, and that's why it didn't take off as Google had hoped. But is that really the case, or was Google+'s main obstacle just that Facebook already existed and was spectacularly successful?
...this thread blows up with memes and fail
Google's new Facebook competitor to be named...
(People who've been on 4chan long enough know what I'm referring to without having to click the link.)
4chan is social in the way a mosh pit is technically people interacting in a social environment.
Can you get any more fucked up designs and user experience. Every time I go to my accounts I'm scratching my head as wtf happened since I was here last time. I only used it for my shop and gave up after one day there was a new page for my business which replaced my other one that was linked to when my shop shows on the side search. After a 30 min of wanting to smash someones face I said fuck it its not worth the headache besides social media is useless for selling promoting a business unless you a multi national brand.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
1. Do not talk about /b/ /b/!!!
2. Do NOT talk about
3. we are anonymous
4. anonymous is legion
5. anonymous never forgives
6. anonymous can be a horrible, uncaring senseless monster
7. anonymous is still able to deliver
8. there are no real rules about posting
9. there are no real rules about moderation either-enjoy your ban
10. if you enjoy any rival sites, DON'T
11. all of your carefully picked arguments can be ignored
12. anything you say can and will be used against you
13. anything you say can be turned into something else-fix'd
14. do not argue with trolls - it means they win
15. the harder you try the harder you will fail
16. if you fail in epic proportions, it may just turn into a winning failure
17. every win fails eventually
18. everything that can be labeled can be hated
19. the more you hate it the stronger it gets
20. nothing is to be taken seriously
21. original content is only original for a few seconds before getting old
22. copypasta is made to ruin every last bit of originality
23. copypasta is made to ruin every last bit of originality
24. every repost is a repost of a repost
25. relation to the original topic decreases with each post
26. any topic can easily be turned into something totally unrelated
27. always question a persons sexual preference without any real reason.
28. always question a persons gender-just in case its really a man
29. in the internet all girls are men and all kids are undercover FBI agents
30. there are no girls on the internet
31. TITS or GTFO-the choice is yours
32. you must have pictures to prove your statements
33. lurk moar. Its never enough
34. there is pron of it. No exceptions.
35. if no pron of it is found at the moment it will be made.
36. there will always be more fugged up crap than what you just saw
37. you cannot divide by zero (just because the calculator says so)
38. no real limits of any kind apply here-not even the sky
39. CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
40. EVEN WITH CRUISE CONTROL YOU STILL HAVE TO STEER
41. desu isn't funny. Seriously guys, its worse than Chuck Norris jokes
42. nothing is sacred
43. the more beautiful and pure something is the more satisfying it is to corrupt it.
44. even one positive comment about something Japanese can make you a weeabo
45. when one sees a lion one must get into the car
46. there is always furry pron of it
47. the pool is always closed.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
If they add anonymity to Google+ (anonymity to the public that is, not the back-end for obvious Google reasons) the service might actually have a differentiator.
It started as a 2chan clone
For Mootles friends a little home
A place to chat and call their own
and let ideas free to roam.
When you let ideas free
There is no way to certainly
contain their strength and make them be
again your own, So Moot did see:
A visitor, or two or ten
and hundreds more who came to lend
a thought, a hand, a new-found friend
But bigger! moar! it would not end.
By word of mouth there rose a roar
No longer dozens, came by score
of thousands, millions! many more
their thoughts and dreams to there outpour.
And what had once been just a board
and just a place to strike a chord
or crack a joke, well now they warred
against some random other horde.
The memes! the battles! lulz and games!
Boisterous with varied aims
to close a pool or mock a dame's
unworthy vapid haughty claims.
And so our 4chan grew and grew
it gave us wings to fly, and glue
and with our posts turned us into
the family that we never knew
But all good things will find an end
The highest fall.. our souls did rend
Right in the back, a knife did send
our once beloved leader, friend.
Cuck! Cuck! the evil fuck
who sold his family for a buck!
Who sold his soul and freedom's cry
for some ugly bitch he saw pass by
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Moot do.
Way to sellout to the most vile, villainous, and scummy company on the face of the earth.
Have gnu, will travel.
I'm waiting for the punchline here.
Seriously. I'm waiting!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Why say it is lucky that Google hired a social media guy? Who wants Google to be in the social media business? I sure don't, and the evidence is that a lot of other people don't want it either.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
~ > dig plus.google.com
plus.google.com 600 IN CNAME 4chan.org.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Woot?
Fuck Chris Poole and his feminist SJW bullshit.
Actually, wait, I just realized I don't give a shit about Google+, or even Google for that matter anymore. Nevermind.
I actually like google+, especially its new look, better than FB. And the people generally seem a bit more civil and into exchanging information and opinions with less flaming.
Google must be quite desperate having hired this guy to solve their 'social' issues.
Captcha: disgorge
Google's problem with social isn't social, it's Google. Google knows too much about us already, and people are starting to realize that. And because Google already provides a huge portion of our digital footprint, they thought they could get away with being heavy-handed about tying all their services together into a single, "use your real name or else" profile, and everyone balked. I almost posted a YouTube comment the other day (which I can't remember ever doing before) until I got the dreaded "use your real name" popup.
Eric Schmidt works for the Pentagon, Christopher Poole works for Google - the revolution will be commercialized.
4chan's success is mainly due to appealing to the lowest of the low that the Internet has to offer, that and the fact that you're completely anonymous and can say any damn thing you want there with essentially no consequences. It's always been a haven for criminals, pedophiles, and the throw-away undesirables of society. As soon as you implemented a account/login requirement, it would have fallen to pieces and been off the Internet shortly thereafter due to lack of interest. The 'moderator' staff (such as they are) are so overworked policing all the illegal and site-rule-breaking posts that the vast majority get left up indefinitely. Christopher 'Moot' Poole must have really done a top-notch con-job on Google to convince them he can create a legit, mainstream social-media site for them. I give the whole thing maybe 3 months at most before he's out on his ear.
The UI of Google+ was and still is a disaster, although that should come as no surprise to anyone who has ever used any Google service. The company's devs simply have no concept of what makes a good UI at all.
Google services with clear, functional UIs are almost non-existent, beyond the single input box of Google search. Gmail is a total joke compared even to primitive email clients of the 1980's, and it gets worse with each "improvement" made to it. (People use Gmail simply because it's free and has good spam filtering). Awesome services like Google Wave died miserably owing to Google's incompetence at UIs and nothing else.
But that's not really what prevented Google+ from succeeding --- it was their attempt to eradicate user privacy, and their Eric Schmidt. To understand why that killed G+'s chances you need to consider the demographic of Google users up until then. This was essentially the demographic of email accounts, a community in which pseudonyms are not only normal but absolutely essential for a huge number of reasons. When Google tried to force a Facebook-like "real names" policy onto its Gmail-oriented userbase, the pushback was severe. And then Schmidt compounded the problem for Google by making it very clear that he wanted user privacy abolished, the final straw for Gmail users who saw their pseudonymity vanishing to forced integration with G+.
Although Google has drawn back (slightly) from Schmidt's failure to understand his own userbase, it's not enough to restore trust in a company that makes its billions from connecting advertisers to users, and thus hates privacy at its core. This won't change, regardless of who they bring in to restore confidence.
his name was never Christopher Poole. And you don't want to know why he uses that name in news papers.
I work at Google. It's very hard for one person to have an impact at Google these days. Google is a freight train, and changing its direction on anything is very, very hard, unless you have a position right up near the top, where you can dictate what engineers work on. (Even then, half the time the engineers will work on what they want to regardless of your direction, unless you pull rank and force them in a specific direction, like, say, has happened with Material Design, which I think represents some hopelessly bad design decisions, not the least of which is the gratuitousness of most of the animations -- but I don't call those shots.)
.. an ugly shit one at that, and he's a God?
This, 100 times.
I almost never heard anyone say good things about the real name policy (except Google themselves of course, when forced to), and can't imagine anyone who would, except marketing drones. If you want me to participate in an online community in a lasting and meaningful way, there's no way in hell I'm using my real name.
Even worse, Google tried to confuse the issue (i.e. talk out of both sides of its mouth) by drawing a practically meaningless distinction between your "real" name and your "common" name. See, your common name is "the name that you commonly go by in daily life," as opposed to your real name which is . . . fuck if I know. IMO, it was intentional double speak so they could claim "it's not actually a real name policy" whenever convenient.
Add to that at least one false start of rescinding the policy (is this one for real? Who knows?), and it's no wonder most of the internet judged them no more trustworthy (and of course potentially more dangerous) than Facebook.
It's also telling that in numerous Google+ post mortem pieces, you never hear the execs and PR people address the real name policy as a root cause, despite the widespread criticism and rejection of it. They wouldn't feign rescinsion of the real name policy if they didn't know everyone hated it, and they wouldn't fail to acknowledge it as a problem if they really intended to fix it.
He is a solid choice, I mean, who else on the entire Internet knows better about all the ways that social media can go wrong? Lets face it, he has probably seen every fucked think on the net, and probably has a few good ideas on how to steer clear of them.
The real question isn't 'why moot', the real question is what does Google hope to do that other providers aren't doing better/faster/more already? If their only goal is 'hey facebook, me too!' then they have already failed, and they only have to burn through a few hundred million in budget before they can make with the 'we quit social media' press release.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Given that there are still some hideous problems with YouTube in the wake of the forced integration with G+ and then the unwinding of that mess -- could Google please focus on fixing these bugs before embarking on another round of "new functionality that nobody wants but everyone will be forced to adopt"???
People trying to comment on my popular (YouTube channel partnered) channel still get an "Unknown Error" result -- more than a week after the problem surfaced.
The response has been pretty much "take an asprin and call us in the morning if the problem persists" -- which it does.
When will they learn that Google users would much rather that the existing functionality worked reliably than have to put up with another round of unwanted and unneeded crap forced on us.
wut
They just want him to apply rule 34 to G+
Hope you brought lube.
> and the throw-away undesirables of society.
Aka "mmmaaallleeesss".
Fuck you SJW.
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
>Also: see: Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate)
If you're looking for some real estate expertise, I hear the leadership of Daesh is looking to branch out. Something about a cash flow problem. At any rate, their track record on acquisitions really can't be beat. You should talk to them.
This " intelligence, passion, and enthusiasm" can actually mean perfectly brainwashed by Google.
Given that he was behind the purge of traditional 4chan, this is just another placement of a SJW.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I don't see much of the appeal of websites like facebook, google+, etc.
I have a facebook account, but I pretty much use it like an address book where the people can update their own contact information.
I don't post and I don't read posts. So what is my incentive to get a second account like that?
Everyone already has facebook, and I don't want to maintain multiple of these stupid things.
I don't see how they can fix that fundamental problem.
Maybe they should have kept working on google wave.
That actually seemed useful to me.
I have wanted to delete my Facebook account for ages, but never had the balls because I have so many "friends" there that I don't know how to contact otherwise. But guess what? If your only way to contact them is FB, they are probably not real friends.
I know I'm not alone in this, most people want to close their FB account, but just feel they would miss out.
If you feel this way (about FB, G+, MSN, Buzz, HI5, MySpace, etc), just close your account without thinking too much, and be done with it. Good riddance. No more worrying about companies selling your personal information to third parties.
Follow me and let's go back to the simple ways, where e-mail, mailing lists (and maybe public XMPP servers) are the ways to communicate with your family, friends, and strangers.
So long Facebook! I won't miss you!
You think that fucking failure at the basics of life is going to fix G+?
LMFAO.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The formula is simple, and I see it replicated everywhere. You need anonymity, few rules, and funny assholes. That's it. The few places left online that have that magic combination, have communities like 4chan - they're active, they aggressively hate each other from time to time but also are tightly knit.
There is no way google can replicate that. People want to be anonymous a lot more than they want a corporation to know their business, and their entire posting history to be one missed privacy setting away from being exposed to the world.
This kid lives in a reality distortion field that would make Steve Jobs weep.
Getting them "fixed" is how they became "girl" friends in the first place.
And, oh, dear lord, if I see one more twit burning cycles at a science fiction talking about their "non-gendered asexual" identity and wasting my party time on it, I'm going to go out and sleep with their 3 best girlfriends just to show how it's done.
And yes, I've done it before.
So does that mean Google+ users can now be . . .
Wait for it...
Anonymous?
oh the circle jerk that is google......
The founder of an anti-social site, dominated by sociopaths, somehow will fix social at Google.
This will not end well.
G+ was great. I got to follow stuff I wanted to with out all the drama.
...If you consider the fact that the employees of Google knows pretty much anything there is to know about humanity by now - the 4Chan guy is probably an angel in comparison.
Think about it - you KNOW just PARTS of the stuff that can be found on the internet, Google knows there's MASSES and MASSES of this stuff, and they also know that a LOT more people have a dark side than most could even comprehend.
The thing is - eventually humanity will learn and understand that what people think of - isn't necessarily how they will act later on, but if there's anything Google knows from all and everyone on the net - no one is really that innocent - but everyone wants to KEEP things that way, so...
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
I've never visited it neither
TITS or it didn't happen.
Please don't confuse social networks with social media.
Social networks are the backbones/internet in a particular form while social media is the content itself. The media and so called social media pre dates the internet.