3 ms·

> And let's call a spade a spade - "sharing" has very little to do with friends and everything to do with advertisers. It's very disingenuous and insulting of G

> And let's call a spade a spade - "sharing" has very little to do with friends and everything to do with advertisers. It's very disingenuous and insulting of Google to pretend that the primary purpose of +1 buttons is to "share with friends". This is calling a spade a turkey. How did you possibly come to that conclusion? > I don't want to know what my friends are searching for or what recipes they like. It's just unwanted noise. On the right-hand side of your search page, there's a button for turning off personalisation.

cageface 13y ago
On the right-hand side of your search page, there's a button for turning off personalisation. For now. Maybe not tomorrow. Google has already demonstrated its willing to run roughshod over some of its users in order to advance its agenda for Google+, which clearly is much more in Google's interest than the interest of Google's users. The information I store with Google is actually quite a bit more valuable than anything I might post on Facebook so their recent willingness to stuff all their other services into a shitty social network with a creepy "real name" policy has me eying alternatives.
- sangnoir 13y ago
  So you are blaming Google not for what it has done, but what it could do?
  - cageface 13y ago
    If they want me to trust them with that much information then what they seem likely to do with it is extremely relevant to my decisions about how much I rely on them today. Even a few years ago I had no second thoughts about depending on Google for critical web services but their tactics with G+ have me seriously second guessing them.
reidrac 13y ago
I think that the problem is not the personalisation but all the stuff they had to build to make it happen, the side effects of prioritising Google+. I don't mind a functionality that I can disable, the real issue is all the stuff I need to go through to have that functionality that turns out... I don't need or want! So Hangouts will provide some advantages over XMPP, at a cost. It doesn't matter I don't really need/want the improvement if I can't keep using the stuff that was already useful to me.

cageface 13y ago

On the right-hand side of your search page, there's a button for turning off personalisation. For now. Maybe not tomorrow. Google has already demonstrated its willing to run roughshod over some of its users in order to advance its agenda for Google+, which clearly is much more in Google's interest than the interest of Google's users. The information I store with Google is actually quite a bit more valuable than anything I might post on Facebook so their recent willingness to stuff all their other services into a shitty social network with a creepy "real name" policy has me eying alternatives.

sangnoir 13y ago
So you are blaming Google not for what it has done, but what it could do?
- cageface 13y ago
  If they want me to trust them with that much information then what they seem likely to do with it is extremely relevant to my decisions about how much I rely on them today. Even a few years ago I had no second thoughts about depending on Google for critical web services but their tactics with G+ have me seriously second guessing them.

reidrac 13y ago

I think that the problem is not the personalisation but all the stuff they had to build to make it happen, the side effects of prioritising Google+. I don't mind a functionality that I can disable, the real issue is all the stuff I need to go through to have that functionality that turns out... I don't need or want! So Hangouts will provide some advantages over XMPP, at a cost. It doesn't matter I don't really need/want the improvement if I can't keep using the stuff that was already useful to me.