5 ms·

Tom Anderson gets it the wrong way round, and completely misses Siegler's point. The question is not is why does Siegler care. He can reasonably expect to care

by twp 15y ago

Tom Anderson gets it the wrong way round, and completely misses Siegler's point. The question is not is why does Siegler care. He can reasonably expect to care: it's his photo attached to his personal profile and his photo is part of how he chooses to portray himself online. Siegler now knows that he cannot be himself on Google+, and now thousands of others know that they cannot be themselves on Google+ either. The question is: why does Google care so much that about the minutae of how individuals choose to portray themselves while they face much greater problems related to the success or otherwise of their new social network? Putting aside the spam problems that render Google+ at best noisy and at worse useless, if Google is so intolerant that it silently censors a hand gesture considered impolite in where their HQ is based, how else will they behave? Will they censor every gesture that might be considered offensive somewhere in the world (there are many)? Or will they remain purely focused on the North American hand gestures, and, by extension, North American culture and the limited audience that it brings?

rhizome 15y ago
This is how he humanizes himself? I'm not buying it.
9999 15y ago
There are public sections of G+ and private sections. If you have a private album limited to 4chan buddies or whatever with tubgirl, goatse, the lemon party, etc. and they took that down, I would find issue with it. But if you've got goatse as your public profile picture, that is an issue that Google has to deal with. I use those examples not because they are directly comparable to what Siegler put up, but because I imagine most of the people here on hn would find those images offensive. When you're dealing with a really massive user base, you're inevitably going to have a lot of people that would find an image of a guy flipping the bird to be horribly offensive (their heads would simply explode if they ever saw goatse). Should you cater to those people? Where do you draw the line? Do you go with the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of obscenity? Siegler's picture is certainly not obscene, but it would certainly make a prude think twice about signing up for G+. I would rather not cater to the prudes of the world, but if Google wants every person with access to the internet on G+, then they'll have to offer some concessions to them.
- redcap 15y ago
  So what if people are horribly offended? Let them be offended. It's not like anything bad will happen. "Someone flipped me the bird, I found it offensive and the next morning I had leprosy!" (Riffing off Steve Hughes, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg watch this, it's pretty much my whole argument) It's a finger for fuck's sake. It's not hurting anyone. If you're offended by it you really need to grow up and stop living in 19th century Victorian England. Yes, pictures of dicks and gore is disgusting, but a finger? That's just childish, and reacting to that is also childish. The adult thing is to just ignore it.
  - user-id 15y ago
    It's a finger for fuck's sake, so get over it.
    - tatsuke95 15y ago
      It's a <insert whatever YOU find ofensive> for fuck's sake, so get over it. The amount of moralizing over what people are "allowed" to find offensive here is amazing. If it were my network, I wouldn't give a rat's ass what MG was doing in his picture, but it isn't my network.
  - Fluxx 15y ago
    It's Google's social network that they give everyone for free, they can refuse service to anyone. I don't agree with the level of censorship personally (it's a little bit too PC), but I respect Google's right to run their website how they see fit.
    - lmm 15y ago
      Of course they have a right to run their website how they see fit. But we also have a right to talk about what they're doing, and make informed decisions as to whether we'll be a part of their social network.
  - 9999 15y ago
Cl4rity 15y ago
Actually, Tom gets it right. It's called discretion. Use his public example, for instance. If you were, for example, a cross-dresser who loved wearing women's underwear - and only women's underwear - would that be tolerated by the general public if you were roaming around a mall? "But this is who I really am, and it's how I want to portray myself in public!" It's Google's playground, and you either play by the rules or suffer the consequences. You wouldn't berate mall cops if they had to remove offensive people from the premises.
- vidarh 15y ago
  I find it interesting that most attempts to support Google in this instances uses far more extreme examples to justify it. I don't think anyone is insisting that there are no types of images that are so bad that it wouldn't be ok for Google to remove them. At least I haven't seen anyone claim so. As long as that is the case, using examples that the vast majority would agree are worse than the one that was actually taken down just weakens your point dramatically.
  - megablast 15y ago
    By using extreme examples, people show that obviously there is a line. Most people agree some photos should be banned, after this point is made. Now we are just arguing about where the line is.
- icebraining 15y ago
  If you were, for example, a cross-dresser who loved wearing women's underwear - and only women's underwear - would that be tolerated by the general public if you were roaming around a mall? No, but one can disagree with both Google and the general public. It's Google's playground, and you either play by the rules or suffer the consequences. That doesn't mean we can't publicly disagree with the rules. You wouldn't berate mall cops if they had to remove offensive people from the premises. Mall cops don't decide the rules, they just apply them. It's different.
- ugh 15y ago
  If I do that in public there are laws and elected officials, there are courts and ways for me to appeal. A clear and explicit notification is always given and if not I can sue. Most importantly, some things I’m definitely and always allowed to do are explicitly written down. If you are in favor of Google treating their site like a public space then Google is doing very poorly. (It’s a stupid comparison that gets us nowhere.)

by twp 15y ago

rhizome 15y ago

This is how he humanizes himself? I'm not buying it.

9999 15y ago

There are public sections of G+ and private sections. If you have a private album limited to 4chan buddies or whatever with tubgirl, goatse, the lemon party, etc. and they took that down, I would find issue with it. But if you've got goatse as your public profile picture, that is an issue that Google has to deal with. I use those examples not because they are directly comparable to what Siegler put up, but because I imagine most of the people here on hn would find those images offensive. When you're dealing with a really massive user base, you're inevitably going to have a lot of people that would find an image of a guy flipping the bird to be horribly offensive (their heads would simply explode if they ever saw goatse). Should you cater to those people? Where do you draw the line? Do you go with the U.S. Supreme Court's definition of obscenity? Siegler's picture is certainly not obscene, but it would certainly make a prude think twice about signing up for G+. I would rather not cater to the prudes of the world, but if Google wants every person with access to the internet on G+, then they'll have to offer some concessions to them.

redcap 15y ago
So what if people are horribly offended? Let them be offended. It's not like anything bad will happen. "Someone flipped me the bird, I found it offensive and the next morning I had leprosy!" (Riffing off Steve Hughes, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cycXuYzmzNg watch this, it's pretty much my whole argument) It's a finger for fuck's sake. It's not hurting anyone. If you're offended by it you really need to grow up and stop living in 19th century Victorian England. Yes, pictures of dicks and gore is disgusting, but a finger? That's just childish, and reacting to that is also childish. The adult thing is to just ignore it.
- user-id 15y ago
  It's a finger for fuck's sake, so get over it.
  - tatsuke95 15y ago
    It's a <insert whatever YOU find ofensive> for fuck's sake, so get over it. The amount of moralizing over what people are "allowed" to find offensive here is amazing. If it were my network, I wouldn't give a rat's ass what MG was doing in his picture, but it isn't my network.
- Fluxx 15y ago
  It's Google's social network that they give everyone for free, they can refuse service to anyone. I don't agree with the level of censorship personally (it's a little bit too PC), but I respect Google's right to run their website how they see fit.
  - lmm 15y ago
    Of course they have a right to run their website how they see fit. But we also have a right to talk about what they're doing, and make informed decisions as to whether we'll be a part of their social network.
- 9999 15y ago

Cl4rity 15y ago

Actually, Tom gets it right. It's called discretion. Use his public example, for instance. If you were, for example, a cross-dresser who loved wearing women's underwear - and only women's underwear - would that be tolerated by the general public if you were roaming around a mall? "But this is who I really am, and it's how I want to portray myself in public!" It's Google's playground, and you either play by the rules or suffer the consequences. You wouldn't berate mall cops if they had to remove offensive people from the premises.

vidarh 15y ago
I find it interesting that most attempts to support Google in this instances uses far more extreme examples to justify it. I don't think anyone is insisting that there are no types of images that are so bad that it wouldn't be ok for Google to remove them. At least I haven't seen anyone claim so. As long as that is the case, using examples that the vast majority would agree are worse than the one that was actually taken down just weakens your point dramatically.
- megablast 15y ago
  By using extreme examples, people show that obviously there is a line. Most people agree some photos should be banned, after this point is made. Now we are just arguing about where the line is.
icebraining 15y ago
If you were, for example, a cross-dresser who loved wearing women's underwear - and only women's underwear - would that be tolerated by the general public if you were roaming around a mall? No, but one can disagree with both Google and the general public. It's Google's playground, and you either play by the rules or suffer the consequences. That doesn't mean we can't publicly disagree with the rules. You wouldn't berate mall cops if they had to remove offensive people from the premises. Mall cops don't decide the rules, they just apply them. It's different.
ugh 15y ago
If I do that in public there are laws and elected officials, there are courts and ways for me to appeal. A clear and explicit notification is always given and if not I can sue. Most importantly, some things I’m definitely and always allowed to do are explicitly written down. If you are in favor of Google treating their site like a public space then Google is doing very poorly. (It’s a stupid comparison that gets us nowhere.)