4 ms·

I'm going to take the contrarian stance: Google+ belongs to Google. They can censor it however they want. You don't like it? Build your own web site. I'm seriou

I'm going to take the contrarian stance: Google+ belongs to Google. They can censor it however they want. You don't like it? Build your own web site. I'm serious: do it. The Internet was built to be free an non-centralized. Your profile on a social network is a rented space, provided under whatever terms the owner wants. You don't have a right to post things on their site any more than they have a right to hang posters in your living room. They provide a service because they want to, and you consume it under the conditions they specify. Don't like their rules? Get your own space. Build a web site. That's what the Internet is about. If you like social networks, build a decentralized one. But stop deluding yourself. If it isn't your site, you don't make the rules.

Pedrom 15y ago
I am completely agree with billybob here. After all that's why Hacker News community is so different to Reddit, because the rules of each community right?
Jach 15y ago
I don't think your stance is contrarian at all--that is, I don't think anyone is arguing that Google shouldn't be able to do what Google wants. The point of the article is to say "Google+ is a jerk" and to mock their attempts at censorship (and vague criteria such as 'offensive gestures' which, as the author noted, are culture-dependent). Whether this sparks enough community-rage for Google to change because they want to preserve their consumers, we'll see. (Probably not.)
- billybob 15y ago
  Ok, good point. Voicing disagreement is healthy. I just often see these kinds of stories turn into discussions about "free speech", and I'm trying to head that off. I have a right (in the USA) to say whatever I want (barring clear and present danger). I don't have the right to compel anyone to help me say it. I have the right to print leaflets, but not the right to use your printer. People sometimes act as though they are entitled to use Google's or Facebook's service as they see fit. I'm saying they have a right to complain (which may change things) and a right to leave, but not a right to control what isn't theirs. Issues like this puncture our illusions about what these sites are and are not. They are useful. They are not ours. But maybe nobody here needed to hear that.
  - a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
    "People sometimes act as though they are entitled to use Google's or Facebook's service as they see fit." Google and Facebook are going to have to be careful, otherwise their sites and services are going to get really popular and they'll be treated as a public space, in the same way that malls are public spaces and have to allow free speech.
  - tripzilch 15y ago
    > I have a right (in the USA) to say whatever I want (barring clear and present danger). Of course you do. You also have habeas corpus, human rights, legal certainty, a constitution, separation of church and state, a functioning healthcare system, and other such wonderful notions of Western civilisation. Must be. Says right here in the USA™ Terms that you can't claim otherwise and if you don't pretend hard enough, the upside-down people will come and take away your Values in the night, like they did with Curly.
mrleinad 15y ago
This is a false dicotomy. We can protest about a service all we want, because we have the right to do so. They also have the right to not listen to those complains. But it's not a question of having the right to do something or not, it's about what power that right gives you. When enough people complain about something, and that drives your userbase to the ground or gives you a bad reputation, having complained about something will have been worth the effort.
tripzilch 15y ago
Why do people always conveniently forget the other side of this equation? Yes, Google+ belongs to Google, so yes they can censor it however they want. But also: Google+'s users are individuals and they can disagree with these terms, they can complain about these terms, in fact they can do whatever they want: they can write Google about it, they can leave for another social network, they can build their own (but there's no law that says they have to), they can re-upload their photo as many times until they get banned, they can slightly tweak the photo until it's barely acceptable skating the boundaries until the ridiculousness of the rule becomes apparent, they can blog about their complaints, they can link that blog on HN and finally they can flip the bird to people that slavishly whine "obey or build your own site" because that is how you affect change, regardless of whatever "terms" the owner specifies. Those "terms", incidentally, don't mean a thing. They're only meaningful because Google enforces them. Conversely, if Google enforces something that is not part of their terms, you're just as "powerless" as when it is. So, basically, you're just counting on Google doing what's "right". In this sense it's "right" for Google to enforce only rules mentioned in their terms. But in that same sense, because there's no such thing as "kinda sort of right", those terms should also be reasonable, where "reasonable" is something that is agreed upon between Google and its users. If their terms aren't reasonable, they might as well just do with a blanket "Terms: Google does whatever it wants." (and nothing else).
powertower 15y ago
> I'm going to take the contrarian stance: Google+ belongs to Google. They can censor it however they want. You don't like it? Build your own web site. I'm serious: do it. You have no idea how quickly your argument will fall apart as soon as you realize that it's the users, and their content, and their behavior (ad-clicks, dataminded info, etc) is what makes a site like this successful. It's a partnership. And Google needs to treat it as such.
- billybob 15y ago
  Absolutely it is user content that make them successful. But Google doesn't "need" to do anything unless users force them to need to. Meaning, if their complaints aren't answered, leave.
andrewcooke 15y ago
since when is arguing for the rights of big companies to trample all over small customers "contrarian"? is this some kind of anti-hippie backlash? something like "i'm with the man" or "big corporations rule" or "fuck the whining powerless" or "up with power"?
pinaceae 15y ago
ah well, what is the business model behind google again? every user of free google services is part of the product. not leeching some free resources, but the core product. you want me to be on your website/service so you can sell my eyeballs to advertisers? ok, then fucking treat me nice. i am your product.
fauigerzigerk 15y ago
I want to agree with you, but two observations make it difficult for me to agree: 1) In order to publish content on the internet you're going to depend on someone voluntarily doing business with you. You need an IP address, back bone access, a domain name and even for the things you don't rent, no vendor of anything has any obligation to deal with you. 2) There's a handful conglomerates controlling ever greater parts of the internet including all kinds of things necessary to make anything commercially viable. Lots of others depend on them for their livelihoods and cannot afford to ignore or fight them. These two things combined have the potential to enforce moral standards way more restrictive than the law in most western countries. It could well be more profitable for these conglomerates to ban everything controversial than to have a controversy with some powerful group of fanatics.
- billybob 15y ago
  Excellent points. There is a place for laws to prevent discrimination. Just like a restaurant can't refuse me service because of my race, a registrar shouldn't be able to refuse me a domain name because of my political views. We need laws like that to protect free speech.
lwhi 15y ago
I'm sorry - but I'm sick of hearing this (perhaps unintentionally) disingenuous response. We need to demand the right to be able to use these services on our own terms. We DO pay for these services; we pay for these services with our attention and through the act of using them (and supplying the parent orgs with behavioural data). However, because money doesn't change hands - we don't have the usual recourse to compensation if the services don't meet our expectations. I think this is a very sad thing - because it allows the companies running the services to use and propagate your argument; it's free .. don't like it? tough, build your own / don't use it. In most cases it's not realistically possible to build a completing service - and even the choice of opting out is becoming impossible; e.g. Spotify won't be the last company to require a Facebook for access to their services. There comes a point when direct competition with a corporation like Facebook or Google is virtually impossible for any organisation other than another corporation of similar size.
- billybob 15y ago
  "direct competition with a corporation like Facebook or Google is virtually impossible..." Even if that's true, it doesn't follow that those corporations MUST do what we want. I can't realistically build my own car, but it doesn't follow that Toyota has to build the kind of car I'd like to build. They'll do it if, and only if, there is enough market incentive to do so. "and even the choice of opting out is becoming impossible; e.g. Spotify won't be the last company to require a Facebook for access to their services." So? I have quit Facebook. If Spotify doesn't want to bother to give me a way to sign in, I won't bother to sign in. See? Opting out is easy. Either someone will offer me a service at a tradeoff I can accept, or they won't get my business.
ntomkin 15y ago
You look at Apple and you see similar things, difference being, Apple mostly gets away with it because their fan-base sees the reasoning behind it; i.e., killing an app for an instant snap feature using the volume buttons, but then releasing the same feature themselves. Google's fanbase (or fanboys of Apple's) won't tolerate this kind of bait and switch. In this case it's "you said you were about freedom and here you go censoring us". The truth is, Apple does what it does for good reasons and most people are on-board with that logic. So companies like Google will try and mimic Apple's policies and how they stand behind them. You can see that some levels of censorship increase the overall quality of content and relationships to that content. To that end, Google hopes to create a higher-quality atmosphere like the one observed on the App Store. Google hasn't made the case, for better or worse, as to why G+ has a different approach to the way the service is used by us. Or why these terms ripple down to other services, like Gmail and search. Apple has had that conversation with it's customers many, many times and did so unapologetically. Google wants to do no evil, but on paper it shows that they must.
- vectorpush 15y ago
  The truth is, Apple does what it does for good reasons and most people are on-board with that logic. So companies like Google will try and mimic Apple's policies and how they stand behind them. Says who?
  - ntomkin 15y ago
    Says who? The market. People who love Apple products understand the logic of having a gate-keeper. I've had an Android and an iPhone and one crashed more than the other. I don't need to tell you which one, because you already know. Not only do you know which device it is I am talking about, but you know exactly why that particular device needs to be rebooted more often than the other. Now, broaden the conversation into user services.
scottschulthess 15y ago
Google certainly has the right to do this, I think OP wasn't arguing with that. That doesn't mean we have a) not talk about it or b) not like it

Pedrom 15y ago

I am completely agree with billybob here. After all that's why Hacker News community is so different to Reddit, because the rules of each community right?

Jach 15y ago

I don't think your stance is contrarian at all--that is, I don't think anyone is arguing that Google shouldn't be able to do what Google wants. The point of the article is to say "Google+ is a jerk" and to mock their attempts at censorship (and vague criteria such as 'offensive gestures' which, as the author noted, are culture-dependent). Whether this sparks enough community-rage for Google to change because they want to preserve their consumers, we'll see. (Probably not.)

billybob 15y ago
Ok, good point. Voicing disagreement is healthy. I just often see these kinds of stories turn into discussions about "free speech", and I'm trying to head that off. I have a right (in the USA) to say whatever I want (barring clear and present danger). I don't have the right to compel anyone to help me say it. I have the right to print leaflets, but not the right to use your printer. People sometimes act as though they are entitled to use Google's or Facebook's service as they see fit. I'm saying they have a right to complain (which may change things) and a right to leave, but not a right to control what isn't theirs. Issues like this puncture our illusions about what these sites are and are not. They are useful. They are not ours. But maybe nobody here needed to hear that.
- a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
  "People sometimes act as though they are entitled to use Google's or Facebook's service as they see fit." Google and Facebook are going to have to be careful, otherwise their sites and services are going to get really popular and they'll be treated as a public space, in the same way that malls are public spaces and have to allow free speech.
- tripzilch 15y ago
  > I have a right (in the USA) to say whatever I want (barring clear and present danger). Of course you do. You also have habeas corpus, human rights, legal certainty, a constitution, separation of church and state, a functioning healthcare system, and other such wonderful notions of Western civilisation. Must be. Says right here in the USA™ Terms that you can't claim otherwise and if you don't pretend hard enough, the upside-down people will come and take away your Values in the night, like they did with Curly.

mrleinad 15y ago

This is a false dicotomy. We can protest about a service all we want, because we have the right to do so. They also have the right to not listen to those complains. But it's not a question of having the right to do something or not, it's about what power that right gives you. When enough people complain about something, and that drives your userbase to the ground or gives you a bad reputation, having complained about something will have been worth the effort.

tripzilch 15y ago

Why do people always conveniently forget the other side of this equation? Yes, Google+ belongs to Google, so yes they can censor it however they want. But also: Google+'s users are individuals and they can disagree with these terms, they can complain about these terms, in fact they can do whatever they want: they can write Google about it, they can leave for another social network, they can build their own (but there's no law that says they have to), they can re-upload their photo as many times until they get banned, they can slightly tweak the photo until it's barely acceptable skating the boundaries until the ridiculousness of the rule becomes apparent, they can blog about their complaints, they can link that blog on HN and finally they can flip the bird to people that slavishly whine "obey or build your own site" because that is how you affect change, regardless of whatever "terms" the owner specifies. Those "terms", incidentally, don't mean a thing. They're only meaningful because Google enforces them. Conversely, if Google enforces something that is not part of their terms, you're just as "powerless" as when it is. So, basically, you're just counting on Google doing what's "right". In this sense it's "right" for Google to enforce only rules mentioned in their terms. But in that same sense, because there's no such thing as "kinda sort of right", those terms should also be reasonable, where "reasonable" is something that is agreed upon between Google and its users. If their terms aren't reasonable, they might as well just do with a blanket "Terms: Google does whatever it wants." (and nothing else).

powertower 15y ago

> I'm going to take the contrarian stance: Google+ belongs to Google. They can censor it however they want. You don't like it? Build your own web site. I'm serious: do it. You have no idea how quickly your argument will fall apart as soon as you realize that it's the users, and their content, and their behavior (ad-clicks, dataminded info, etc) is what makes a site like this successful. It's a partnership. And Google needs to treat it as such.

billybob 15y ago
Absolutely it is user content that make them successful. But Google doesn't "need" to do anything unless users force them to need to. Meaning, if their complaints aren't answered, leave.

andrewcooke 15y ago

since when is arguing for the rights of big companies to trample all over small customers "contrarian"? is this some kind of anti-hippie backlash? something like "i'm with the man" or "big corporations rule" or "fuck the whining powerless" or "up with power"?

pinaceae 15y ago

ah well, what is the business model behind google again? every user of free google services is part of the product. not leeching some free resources, but the core product. you want me to be on your website/service so you can sell my eyeballs to advertisers? ok, then fucking treat me nice. i am your product.

fauigerzigerk 15y ago

I want to agree with you, but two observations make it difficult for me to agree: 1) In order to publish content on the internet you're going to depend on someone voluntarily doing business with you. You need an IP address, back bone access, a domain name and even for the things you don't rent, no vendor of anything has any obligation to deal with you. 2) There's a handful conglomerates controlling ever greater parts of the internet including all kinds of things necessary to make anything commercially viable. Lots of others depend on them for their livelihoods and cannot afford to ignore or fight them. These two things combined have the potential to enforce moral standards way more restrictive than the law in most western countries. It could well be more profitable for these conglomerates to ban everything controversial than to have a controversy with some powerful group of fanatics.

billybob 15y ago
Excellent points. There is a place for laws to prevent discrimination. Just like a restaurant can't refuse me service because of my race, a registrar shouldn't be able to refuse me a domain name because of my political views. We need laws like that to protect free speech.

lwhi 15y ago

I'm sorry - but I'm sick of hearing this (perhaps unintentionally) disingenuous response. We need to demand the right to be able to use these services on our own terms. We DO pay for these services; we pay for these services with our attention and through the act of using them (and supplying the parent orgs with behavioural data). However, because money doesn't change hands - we don't have the usual recourse to compensation if the services don't meet our expectations. I think this is a very sad thing - because it allows the companies running the services to use and propagate your argument; it's free .. don't like it? tough, build your own / don't use it. In most cases it's not realistically possible to build a completing service - and even the choice of opting out is becoming impossible; e.g. Spotify won't be the last company to require a Facebook for access to their services. There comes a point when direct competition with a corporation like Facebook or Google is virtually impossible for any organisation other than another corporation of similar size.

billybob 15y ago
"direct competition with a corporation like Facebook or Google is virtually impossible..." Even if that's true, it doesn't follow that those corporations MUST do what we want. I can't realistically build my own car, but it doesn't follow that Toyota has to build the kind of car I'd like to build. They'll do it if, and only if, there is enough market incentive to do so. "and even the choice of opting out is becoming impossible; e.g. Spotify won't be the last company to require a Facebook for access to their services." So? I have quit Facebook. If Spotify doesn't want to bother to give me a way to sign in, I won't bother to sign in. See? Opting out is easy. Either someone will offer me a service at a tradeoff I can accept, or they won't get my business.

ntomkin 15y ago

You look at Apple and you see similar things, difference being, Apple mostly gets away with it because their fan-base sees the reasoning behind it; i.e., killing an app for an instant snap feature using the volume buttons, but then releasing the same feature themselves. Google's fanbase (or fanboys of Apple's) won't tolerate this kind of bait and switch. In this case it's "you said you were about freedom and here you go censoring us". The truth is, Apple does what it does for good reasons and most people are on-board with that logic. So companies like Google will try and mimic Apple's policies and how they stand behind them. You can see that some levels of censorship increase the overall quality of content and relationships to that content. To that end, Google hopes to create a higher-quality atmosphere like the one observed on the App Store. Google hasn't made the case, for better or worse, as to why G+ has a different approach to the way the service is used by us. Or why these terms ripple down to other services, like Gmail and search. Apple has had that conversation with it's customers many, many times and did so unapologetically. Google wants to do no evil, but on paper it shows that they must.

vectorpush 15y ago
The truth is, Apple does what it does for good reasons and most people are on-board with that logic. So companies like Google will try and mimic Apple's policies and how they stand behind them. Says who?
- ntomkin 15y ago
  Says who? The market. People who love Apple products understand the logic of having a gate-keeper. I've had an Android and an iPhone and one crashed more than the other. I don't need to tell you which one, because you already know. Not only do you know which device it is I am talking about, but you know exactly why that particular device needs to be rebooted more often than the other. Now, broaden the conversation into user services.

scottschulthess 15y ago

Google certainly has the right to do this, I think OP wasn't arguing with that. That doesn't mean we have a) not talk about it or b) not like it