3 ms·

My main question is: where is the support for the assertion made in the article title? As far as I can tell, it's just made, and then the remainder of the artic

My main question is: where is the support for the assertion made in the article title? As far as I can tell, it's just made, and then the remainder of the article treats it as a premise or a claim to be supported only with vague anecdotes. The proliferation of sites that only or primarily accept social logins seem to suggest that it's not a sound premise. However, I'd be interested to know if you guys have some data that's not shared in the article that suggests it is.

callahad 14y ago
Hopefully someone else will chime in with actual citations, but we've seen a preponderance of evidence from our own user studies, from MailChimp, TechCrunch, and Voo.st's published comments, from Gawker Media's creation of an in-house non-social mechanism shortly after they tried to go social-only, and from private conversations with companies who have daily active user counts well into the millions. > The proliferation of sites that only or primarily accept social logins seem to suggest that it's not a sound premise. I'm not sure that necessarily follows. Google's own advertising for G+ authentication touts its privacy features, which suggests that Google also believes that users are uncomfortable with social auth as it exists today. (Anecdotes aren't data, but they're what I have on hand at the moment. Sorry! Still at PyCon.)
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  All right. Thanks for this. Best of luck with your talk. I was nervous the last time I gave one and my audience was much smaller than yours will be. ;)
  - callahad 14y ago
    Thank you! I actually gave the talk a few days ago (I'm sticking around for the post-conference sprints), and I think it went well. In the future, I'd love to have hard data ready to cite in response to your question. I'll try to gather some once I get back home.
- derleth 14y ago
  > touts it's privacy features And again, autocorrect makes someone look the fool.
  - callahad 14y ago
    Doh! Fixed while still within the edit window. Thanks for reading my post closely enough to notice. :)

callahad 14y ago

Hopefully someone else will chime in with actual citations, but we've seen a preponderance of evidence from our own user studies, from MailChimp, TechCrunch, and Voo.st's published comments, from Gawker Media's creation of an in-house non-social mechanism shortly after they tried to go social-only, and from private conversations with companies who have daily active user counts well into the millions. > The proliferation of sites that only or primarily accept social logins seem to suggest that it's not a sound premise. I'm not sure that necessarily follows. Google's own advertising for G+ authentication touts its privacy features, which suggests that Google also believes that users are uncomfortable with social auth as it exists today. (Anecdotes aren't data, but they're what I have on hand at the moment. Sorry! Still at PyCon.)

jamesaguilar 14y ago
All right. Thanks for this. Best of luck with your talk. I was nervous the last time I gave one and my audience was much smaller than yours will be. ;)
- callahad 14y ago
  Thank you! I actually gave the talk a few days ago (I'm sticking around for the post-conference sprints), and I think it went well. In the future, I'd love to have hard data ready to cite in response to your question. I'll try to gather some once I get back home.
derleth 14y ago
> touts it's privacy features And again, autocorrect makes someone look the fool.
- callahad 14y ago
  Doh! Fixed while still within the edit window. Thanks for reading my post closely enough to notice. :)