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."

38 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, yeah by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    This'll work.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Oh, yeah by kelarius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The creator of the biggest hive of scum and villany on the internet has gone to work for google, and will "fix" social. What could go wrong?

      --
      Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
    2. Re:Oh, yeah by GolfBoy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I look forward to dickbutt on the search page.

    3. Re:Oh, yeah by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      If you think truth is stranger than fiction, you clearly haven't been reading the self-published dinosaur porn that's been showing up on Amazon.

    4. Re:Oh, yeah by KGIII · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, Moot is moot now. I guess he has been since he sold the place. Ah well, it's a Moot point.

      *is not proud of this post*

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Oh, yeah by Darinbob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google+ is working just fine for me. I don't know how it compares to Facebook or other social media because I don't use them or care. But 4chan mentality applied to Google+... This is one of those times when "if it ain't broke don't come within ten miles of it" might apply.

      This guy would be a junior programmer anywhere else given his age and amount of experience. I've seen what happens when twenty-somethings who think they know everything get put in charge. That's how we got infected with social media in the first place.

    6. Re:Oh, yeah by korgitser · · Score: 2

      Well google is also one of the biggest hives of scum and villany on the internet, so they might get along just fine.

      --
      FCKGW 09F9 42
    7. Re:Oh, yeah by GNious · · Score: 2

      Considering the target is Facebook, and from what little I've used Facebook it seems to be a repository of shitty, crummy, hateful shitstains, he may in fact be just what Google "needs".

  2. Poole continued by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Poole continued, saying: "But what I mostly appreciate are the millions of dollars that Google is giving me."

    1. Re:Poole continued by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      And good luck to Poole, whoever he is. Never heard of 4Chan, well "heard" of it in that it could have been a web camera for all I knew.

      Grandma! What did I tell you about coming to places like Slashdot!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. Was Google+ really so bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Was Google+ really so bad? by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The summary seems to imply there was something fundamentally wrong with Google+,

      The thing that most pissed me off was the aggressive way they pushed it and damn the consequences. For example, deleting functionality from Google search to make way for their Google+ crap. The idiots.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    2. Re:Was Google+ really so bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The thing that most pissed me off was the aggressive way they pushed it and damn the consequences. For example, deleting functionality from Google search to make way for their Google+ crap. The idiots.

      I think this needs said a few (million) more times.

      The thing that most pissed me off was the aggressive way they pushed it and damn the consequences. For example, deleting functionality from Google search to make way for their Google+ crap. The idiots.

      Google's fucking nuking of functionality, the underhanded way they would convert people who accidentally click ok to an unrelated question to g+, the way it was impossible to undo it on your YT channel, costing people who never wanted this shit in the first place to lose their following, and the way they fucking insisted on real world names is why it failed. Fuck everything about google+.

      The thing that most pissed me off was the aggressive way they pushed it and damn the consequences. For example, deleting functionality from Google search to make way for their Google+ crap. The idiots.

      We can only hope that he scraps the entire naming system and replace it with tripcodes. That way, we can call anyone trying to maintain a consistent identity "tripfag".

      The thing that most pissed me off was the aggressive way they pushed it and damn the consequences. For example, deleting functionality from Google search to make way for their Google+ crap. The idiots.

      But hey, at least it's not a goddamn fucking SJW, right?

    3. Re:Was Google+ really so bad? by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      The part that is fundamentally wrong, is the whole real name thing.

      There must have been a whole crowd of people who told them it was a stupid, moronic, and retarded idea and they did it anyway.

      I don't really care if Google knows my real name or not, but I'll be fucking goddamned if they are going to re-broadcast it without my permission or a way to opt out. FUCK THAT. And FUCK THEM.

    4. Re:Was Google+ really so bad? by shawn2772 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The part that is fundamentally wrong, is the whole real name thing.

      That makes no sense. If that were the issue, why is Facebook successful? Google+ rolled back the real name policy after a year or so, while Facebook has kept it, and yet Facebook is huge.

    5. Re:Was Google+ really so bad? by Tehrasha · · Score: 4, Insightful
      FB already existed, but there are many people like myself who -loath- FB and want an alternative. G+ looked like it might be what we were looking for, but then a the stipulations started cropping up making people dump it like a hot rock. First you had to use your real name. Then they force bundled all of the google products to your G+ account, whether you wanted them separate and unique or not. Then there was the periodic addition of some 'feature' that got activated by default, and most recently, forcing changes to the UI, similar to the way youtube does.

      IMHO, it really all comes down to user choice (or lack thereof) as to how the social structure was regulated. They need to pick a layout and refine it instead of radically changing it every few months, or better yet, allow user customize-able themes.

      After all this, I still prefer G+ over FB, entirely due to the signal to noise ratio. I dont want G+ to be another FB, where everyone and their dog (literally) has an account.

    6. Re:Was Google+ really so bad? by Xest · · Score: 2

      Facebook doesn't enforce it's real name policy particularly well though, it's mostly only used to beat spam accounts and so forth over the head. A number of my friends on Facebook have never used anything other than blatantly false aliases (blatant because they couldn't possibly be people's real names, or are obviously the names of well fictional characters).

      In contrast, Google was trying to get people to prove their names by sending in real ID from day one no matter how harmless you were and if there's one thing people aren't going to do, it's send Google even more sensitive personal data like passport and driving license details.

  4. in b4... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...this thread blows up with memes and fail

  5. Google doesn't get social by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    4chan is social in the way a mosh pit is technically people interacting in a social environment.

  6. OP's new set of Google rules by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. Do not talk about /b/
    2. Do NOT talk about /b/!!!
    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.
  7. Ode to a cuck by Iamthecheese · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.
  8. But luckily ???? by frovingslosh · · Score: 3

    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.
    1. Re:But luckily ???? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think this announcement qualifies as the sound of the other shoe dropping.

      Remember a few months ago, when Google said they were starting to extricate the Google+ login requirement from all their services? Well, now we know why - because they're about to introduce a different social network we'll be forced to join in order to log into stuff like Gmail and YouTube.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:But luckily ???? by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If that new social network is one that respect anonymity and freedom from censorship like 4chan then is that a bad thing? Those things alone would already make it a better social network than just about every other one out there.

      Part the reason Google+ failed so early on was because Google insisted hard on a real name policy and that got them a bad reputation for their social network from day 1. If they now have someone looking at social who actually understands the real internet than the pretend internet then it may well work out.

    3. Re:But luckily ???? by houghi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I do not have a need to log in to YouTube as their comenting is terrible. I do not read the comments. In fact I have a bookmark that will point to my website when I am on YouTube (code http://houghi.org/yt.php?code) so I can see only the thing I want to see.

      I also have dropped Gmail for gmx.com. For image search I use Bing, as they do not think they must protect me from female nipples.

      I obviously block their ad domains and I do not use their DNS servers.

      That does not mean they are not getting any data from me, but I try to keep it as little as possible, because I have seen what happens when companies get to big to fail.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    4. Re:But luckily ???? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      8chan is where it's at now

      If by "it" you mean the stuff that collects under the refrigerator.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  9. Obvious fix is obvious? by throx · · Score: 2

    ~ > dig plus.google.com

    ;; ANSWER SECTION
    plus.google.com 600 IN CNAME 4chan.org.

    --

    Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means

  10. The problem is Google, not social by Dracos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Moot! by sumdumass · · Score: 2

    I gave up on Google+ the moment they started trying to force it into everything connected to Google. It even seemed to carry over into crap not connected to Google.

    I'm betting a lot of people are permanently put of by that too. Of course it could just be me and my disdain for Facebook and ilk. But I know I'm not alone in that. I doubt this move will change anything.

  12. Re:Moot! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Informative

    I liked Google+'s features in theory but disliked the real name policy. It meant that I couldn't use it for my blogging activities (on which I use a pseudonym) without risking getting all my Google services shut off (including things like e-mail which I used as well) just because my pseudonym isn't my actual name.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  13. Google can't do UIs, and forced integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:Goggle+ is horendous by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    I view it as more of an "anti-social" network. If you want some information to die a quick death, post it to Google+. I started skydiving in July 2012 and posted all my skydiving shit on Google+. Never heard a peep from relatives, assumed they were OK with it. Took my sister and her daughter on tandem jumps a year later and kept them company on the ride up. Second they post that shit on facebook, I get a call from Mom, "WHAT DID YOU DO?!" Aah... priceless.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  15. Mod Parent Up by Kunedog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Mod Parent Up by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2

      I loved the real name policy, and that was the primary reason I choose to use Google+ over other social sites.
      I know I'm in the minority in this, but I thought I should let you know that we DO exist.

  16. Good choice by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    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!
  17. Re:Moot! by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They no longer have a real name policy. But I think Facebook added a real name policy in the meantime. But people looove facebook and haaate google, so it's hard to treat any comments on the matter objectively. Basically people who are herd animals are on facebook not because they love it but because other members of their herd are on facebook, and people who are on google+ are there because they like the communities or to keep track of a small group of friends.

  18. Google hired a "Kassie Washington" SJW by sethstorm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  19. He couldn't even fix his SJW 'girlfriend' by Khyber · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.