5 ms·

> Thanks Google! What a fun way to say, “I hope we can squeeze every dime possible out of your tiny little life. “ Google should be ashamed for trying to pay f

> Thanks Google! What a fun way to say, “I hope we can squeeze every dime possible out of your tiny little life. “ Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure?

sbarre 13y ago
They should figure out how to do it without tricking people into joining things they don't want to join.
grandalf 13y ago
Google is not alone in using dark patterns -- Facebook got tons of growth by using dark patterns around privacy. Google is copying that strategy a few years too late. The age-groups that are leaving Facebook are doing so b/c they understand the dark pattern maze for what it is and don't want to deal with it.
- Estragon 13y ago
  It'd be interesting to read survey statistics on who's leaving FB and why. Is there anything like that out there?
  - 27182818284 13y ago
    Nobody leaves Facebook, it is just used differently. That's a big detail that only a few articles seem to get correct. Kids are still on Facebook, with grandma and mom and dad, but they also have a Tumblr account.
    - grandalf 13y ago
      >Kids are still on Facebook, with grandma and mom and dad As such the value of the young peoples' engagement puts FB on par with an email service.
ebertx 13y ago
It's less about covering infrastructure and more about maximizing return for shareholders.
lazyjones 13y ago
> Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure? "Google's 2013 third quarter profits were nearly $15 billion; that profit is the difference between how much our privacy is worth and the cost of the services we receive in exchange for it. " (Bruce Schneier => https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/surveillance_as_1.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/surveillance_...)
- GeorgeOrr 13y ago
  Did you find that by googling it? Just wondering.
  - lazyjones 13y ago
    No, I read Bruce Schneier's blog post only minutes before the above comment.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  That's a little much. Google could still make a hell of a lot of money with completely untargeted contextual ads, which don't require me to trade any "privacy" at all.
  - jerf 13y ago
    I would be intrigued to know the delta between person-targeted advertising and mere search-term targeted advertising.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      Just a wild-ass-guess, but I bet the order of importance for factors driving Google's search ad revenue goes something like: - Search terms (AdWords) - IP geolocation - Demographics (age, gender, income: derived or otherwise acquired) - Search/browsing history The line between the last two blurs a bit, since surely Google will try to fill in your demographic blanks based on your search and browsing patterns. But regardless, the first two they can do completely anonymously, and anyone who wants can likely escape the last two with the right browser settings or privacy extensions. Personally it doesn't bother me that much, since the results relevance I "trade" my privacy for has value for me as well as advertisers.
27182818284 13y ago
>Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure? They paid for that before without being annoying, Facebook pays for theirs by being less annoying than Google. (Wow, thinking about this just now who would've thought the day would come so soon that Facebook is less annoying than Google.)
- xauronx 13y ago
  They silently activated his account in the background. That doesn't really seem annoying to me. If he wasn't looking for it, or didn't want to become enraged by it, he probably could have just ignored/dismissed the alert and never known better. Right now complaining about G+ is like complaining about Facebook privacy a few months ago. It's low hanging fruit that anyone with a blog can complain about to seem enlightened.
  - sbuk 13y ago
    >They silently activated his account in the background. That doesn't really seem annoying to me. So essentially signing you up for things without consent is OK? It's never OK, irrespective of motive.
    - xauronx 13y ago
      So, if you're running a... time management tool, let's say it's just a todo list. Then you create another tool, a time tracker so you can log your hours on your todo items. You should force them to sign up for it in order to use it? Personally, even if the tools were made to be able to operate separately of each other, I would give the users of my first tool access to the second one and link the accounts. G+ is just an extension of their offerings. Just because the tides of the internets have flowed against it doesn't mean that anything involving Google plus is practically rape.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - 13y ago

sbarre 13y ago

They should figure out how to do it without tricking people into joining things they don't want to join.

grandalf 13y ago

Google is not alone in using dark patterns -- Facebook got tons of growth by using dark patterns around privacy. Google is copying that strategy a few years too late. The age-groups that are leaving Facebook are doing so b/c they understand the dark pattern maze for what it is and don't want to deal with it.

Estragon 13y ago
It'd be interesting to read survey statistics on who's leaving FB and why. Is there anything like that out there?
- 27182818284 13y ago
  Nobody leaves Facebook, it is just used differently. That's a big detail that only a few articles seem to get correct. Kids are still on Facebook, with grandma and mom and dad, but they also have a Tumblr account.
  - grandalf 13y ago
    >Kids are still on Facebook, with grandma and mom and dad As such the value of the young peoples' engagement puts FB on par with an email service.

ebertx 13y ago

It's less about covering infrastructure and more about maximizing return for shareholders.

lazyjones 13y ago

> Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure? "Google's 2013 third quarter profits were nearly $15 billion; that profit is the difference between how much our privacy is worth and the cost of the services we receive in exchange for it. " (Bruce Schneier => https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/surveillance_as_1.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/surveillance_...)

GeorgeOrr 13y ago
Did you find that by googling it? Just wondering.
- lazyjones 13y ago
  No, I read Bruce Schneier's blog post only minutes before the above comment.
twoodfin 13y ago
That's a little much. Google could still make a hell of a lot of money with completely untargeted contextual ads, which don't require me to trade any "privacy" at all.
- jerf 13y ago
  I would be intrigued to know the delta between person-targeted advertising and mere search-term targeted advertising.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    Just a wild-ass-guess, but I bet the order of importance for factors driving Google's search ad revenue goes something like: - Search terms (AdWords) - IP geolocation - Demographics (age, gender, income: derived or otherwise acquired) - Search/browsing history The line between the last two blurs a bit, since surely Google will try to fill in your demographic blanks based on your search and browsing patterns. But regardless, the first two they can do completely anonymously, and anyone who wants can likely escape the last two with the right browser settings or privacy extensions. Personally it doesn't bother me that much, since the results relevance I "trade" my privacy for has value for me as well as advertisers.

27182818284 13y ago

>Google should be ashamed for trying to pay for their millions of dollars of infrastructure? They paid for that before without being annoying, Facebook pays for theirs by being less annoying than Google. (Wow, thinking about this just now who would've thought the day would come so soon that Facebook is less annoying than Google.)

xauronx 13y ago
They silently activated his account in the background. That doesn't really seem annoying to me. If he wasn't looking for it, or didn't want to become enraged by it, he probably could have just ignored/dismissed the alert and never known better. Right now complaining about G+ is like complaining about Facebook privacy a few months ago. It's low hanging fruit that anyone with a blog can complain about to seem enlightened.
- sbuk 13y ago
  >They silently activated his account in the background. That doesn't really seem annoying to me. So essentially signing you up for things without consent is OK? It's never OK, irrespective of motive.
  - xauronx 13y ago
    So, if you're running a... time management tool, let's say it's just a todo list. Then you create another tool, a time tracker so you can log your hours on your todo items. You should force them to sign up for it in order to use it? Personally, even if the tools were made to be able to operate separately of each other, I would give the users of my first tool access to the second one and link the accounts. G+ is just an extension of their offerings. Just because the tides of the internets have flowed against it doesn't mean that anything involving Google plus is practically rape.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - 13y ago