4 ms·
I'd argue that they invested way too much into Google+ actually. They tried forcing it on everyone, almost killing the YouTube community in the process, and peo
by int0x2e 5y ago
I'd argue that they invested way too much into Google+ actually. They tried forcing it on everyone, almost killing the YouTube community in the process, and people started fighting back.
Facebook didn't gain its users overnight and without a good amount of manipulation and tricks on their part, but they were smart enough to not make it feel as aggressive or directed as Google did with Google+
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pornel 5y agoG+ had a Real Name Policy, apparently for no reason other than copying Facebook. And then because every Google product had to have G+, Google effectively banned anonymity/pseudonymity everywhere. It was so dumb and heavy-handed. For me that was the end of using Google products.
- shadowgovt 5y agoG+ had a real names policy because Google's other social network, Orkut, did not, and Google had observed that the average Orkut use had chosen an anonymizing handle. They wanted to do something different with Google+, because the handles in Orkut made it very hard to find people you already knew in real life. Personal opinion, they went about it entirely the wrong way. Facebook does technically have a real name policy, but they got the ecosystem of people using their real name that they have not by strenuously enforcing that policy, but by incentivizing people through the design of the product to use their real name. If memory serves, I got my Facebook account via a link that had been auto-emailed to my college email address, and that link pre-filled in my real name in the account setup process.