3 ms·

Summary: Guy doesn't read the fine print ("User Content and Conduct Policy") when accepting his account, posts a picture in violation, and is surprised when it

by akadien 15y ago

Summary: Guy doesn't read the fine print ("User Content and Conduct Policy") when accepting his account, posts a picture in violation, and is surprised when it is taken down. Bottom line: don't like the policy, don't use the service. Don't have an alternative, go develop one where people can flip the bird all day long.

hmottestad 15y ago
That seems like a childish response. It's like saying "don't like the politics?" -> "leave the country" We want to influence and change the policies. 1. Any forced changes to content posted on google+ should be accompanied by a notification (eg. an email). 2. Do we really need such stringent rules for content. What if I post a satirical photo? (Like those you see in the New Yorker)
- akadien 15y ago
  It's not. Politics are different from private property, Google+ being the latter. Just because it's free to use doesn't mean you own the infrastructure and it doesn't mean you are the customer. It is their server and service, and its their rules. I think it seems childish to break the rules, get caught, and act as if one is morally injured by enforcement. That said, (1) would be a courtesy, and perhaps a reasonable one, for Google to consider. Google already answered (2) in their user content guidelines. Thought experiment: what if Google's policy was "anything goes"? What if advertisers decided not to use Google anymore once content degenerated into frat party and "rate my vomit" pictures? What if Google stopped making enough money to support Google+ and had to shut it down?
  - ugh 15y ago
    Calling out idiotic behavior is not childish. It’s perfectly appropriate.
- bmj 15y ago
  Isn't this a bit different than your analogy? Google+ is a free service, and is hardly the only content-hosting/blog-esque product available (and it's free). Certainly, if you (and others) don't like Google's policies, by all means, let them know, but realize that until those policies are changed, they will enforce them (and we know that Google's "customer service" is lacking, so it isn't a surprise that the poster didn't receive notification). I don't necessarily agree with Google's actions here, but Google+ is what it is--a service provided by a corporation, bounded by rules for content. If you don't want to live with such rules, take your content and go elsewhere. If enough people do that (including high visibility users), I'm sure Google will listen.
  - Supermighty 15y ago
    Google+ is free in name only. In truth we pay by being there, filling it with our personal information. Google isn't a non-profit, they see a way to make money off all the users. Do you think google+ would still be around if it only had one million users, no, they would shut it down. They need us to use their toys just as much as we want to use them. And if they want us to use their toys then they better let us use them any way we like.
    - bmj 15y ago
      That's kinda my point--if you don't like the service, then you should leave. That seems to get the attention of tech companies these days.

by akadien 15y ago

hmottestad 15y ago

That seems like a childish response. It's like saying "don't like the politics?" -> "leave the country" We want to influence and change the policies. 1. Any forced changes to content posted on google+ should be accompanied by a notification (eg. an email). 2. Do we really need such stringent rules for content. What if I post a satirical photo? (Like those you see in the New Yorker)

akadien 15y ago
It's not. Politics are different from private property, Google+ being the latter. Just because it's free to use doesn't mean you own the infrastructure and it doesn't mean you are the customer. It is their server and service, and its their rules. I think it seems childish to break the rules, get caught, and act as if one is morally injured by enforcement. That said, (1) would be a courtesy, and perhaps a reasonable one, for Google to consider. Google already answered (2) in their user content guidelines. Thought experiment: what if Google's policy was "anything goes"? What if advertisers decided not to use Google anymore once content degenerated into frat party and "rate my vomit" pictures? What if Google stopped making enough money to support Google+ and had to shut it down?
- ugh 15y ago
  Calling out idiotic behavior is not childish. It’s perfectly appropriate.
bmj 15y ago
Isn't this a bit different than your analogy? Google+ is a free service, and is hardly the only content-hosting/blog-esque product available (and it's free). Certainly, if you (and others) don't like Google's policies, by all means, let them know, but realize that until those policies are changed, they will enforce them (and we know that Google's "customer service" is lacking, so it isn't a surprise that the poster didn't receive notification). I don't necessarily agree with Google's actions here, but Google+ is what it is--a service provided by a corporation, bounded by rules for content. If you don't want to live with such rules, take your content and go elsewhere. If enough people do that (including high visibility users), I'm sure Google will listen.
- Supermighty 15y ago
  Google+ is free in name only. In truth we pay by being there, filling it with our personal information. Google isn't a non-profit, they see a way to make money off all the users. Do you think google+ would still be around if it only had one million users, no, they would shut it down. They need us to use their toys just as much as we want to use them. And if they want us to use their toys then they better let us use them any way we like.
  - bmj 15y ago
    That's kinda my point--if you don't like the service, then you should leave. That seems to get the attention of tech companies these days.