7 ms·

That's a lot of counterhate. Not wholly unwarranted, but severely one-sided. Corporate products are not for dissidents or the privacy-focused. Period. The end.

by pistle 12y ago

That's a lot of counterhate. Not wholly unwarranted, but severely one-sided. Corporate products are not for dissidents or the privacy-focused. Period. The end. You need to find alts designed to be private and/or pay to not be subsidized for the profitizing of YOU - whoever you are or want to be. Google wants to fold you into their walled garden by tilting all their products towards each other. Shocking. I can't think of any other... oh yeah right... EVERY massive tech company does this. Otherwise one of the other massive tech companies will eat their lunch within 10 years. You are the frog. They are the scorpion. Also, part of force g+ is what you are seeing grow widely. Enough people are harmed or disgusted with the level of gaming of anonymity that the trolls have achieved that the real identity movement has grown pretty quickly. I doubt large corporate interests will be able to find it profitable, over any minimally significant span of time, to preserve privacy and be a platform for social change/justice. The unintended consequence is also being a platform for the lulz. Don't be evil meets don't be bankrupt. If your platform is a cesspool, nobody will pay to swim there.

vidarh 12y ago
A lot of this hate presumably stems from Google's "Don't be evil". Google has been given a lot of trust. They then demonstrated very clearly that they can't be trusted to care at all, and are prepared to go as far as putting users lives at risk over users names. > Also, part of force g+ is what you are seeing grow widely. Enough people are harmed or disgusted with the level of gaming of anonymity that the trolls have achieved that the real identity movement has grown pretty quickly. So give people options to block people who don't use a real name (but realise that for the vast majority of G+ users you have no idea if they use their real name vs. just use a name that sounds real enough to not get flagged by Google) from being able to comment on your posts. That would address the concern of people who have a problem with anonymous or pseudonymous posts, without forcing such a policy on other subsets of users where it in many cases is a problem. Trans users and political dissidents is just a couple of the worst affected. There are many sub-cultures where handles are more common than real name - there are hundreds of people I would recognize by handle, from e.g. the demo scene, musicians/artists, but where I would not have clue who they are if going by their "real" name. > I doubt large corporate interests will be able to find it profitable, over any minimally significant span of time, to preserve privacy and be a platform for social change/justice. For this reason, I expect we'll soon enough find that companies targeting certain groups of countries, like the EU, will eventually find themselves facing legal restrictions on demanding/publicizing real names on the grounds that it is deeply discriminatory against certain classes of people. I'd expect trans groups to eventually go after that if it starts becoming too difficult to use products and services without a legally recognized name.
wpietri 12y ago
The corporate ideology you're describing here is very situational. The notion that all things (ethics, civic responsibility, sustainability, long-term growth) should be sacrificed on the altar of next quarter's profits is historically young. People aren't obliged to accept it. I expect that it will pass. During the last San Francisco Gold Rush, hydraulic mining was considered a reasonable practice: http://science.kqed.org/quest/2010/11/18/gold-rush-sediment-in-the-san-francisco-bay/ http://science.kqed.org/quest/2010/11/18/gold-rush-sediment-... People wouldn't do that anymore here no matter how profitable it is, because we recognize the long-term costs that go with the short-term gains. Capitalism is a fine way to structure certain socially beneficial economic exchanges, but it makes a poor religion.

by pistle 12y ago

vidarh 12y ago

A lot of this hate presumably stems from Google's "Don't be evil". Google has been given a lot of trust. They then demonstrated very clearly that they can't be trusted to care at all, and are prepared to go as far as putting users lives at risk over users names. > Also, part of force g+ is what you are seeing grow widely. Enough people are harmed or disgusted with the level of gaming of anonymity that the trolls have achieved that the real identity movement has grown pretty quickly. So give people options to block people who don't use a real name (but realise that for the vast majority of G+ users you have no idea if they use their real name vs. just use a name that sounds real enough to not get flagged by Google) from being able to comment on your posts. That would address the concern of people who have a problem with anonymous or pseudonymous posts, without forcing such a policy on other subsets of users where it in many cases is a problem. Trans users and political dissidents is just a couple of the worst affected. There are many sub-cultures where handles are more common than real name - there are hundreds of people I would recognize by handle, from e.g. the demo scene, musicians/artists, but where I would not have clue who they are if going by their "real" name. > I doubt large corporate interests will be able to find it profitable, over any minimally significant span of time, to preserve privacy and be a platform for social change/justice. For this reason, I expect we'll soon enough find that companies targeting certain groups of countries, like the EU, will eventually find themselves facing legal restrictions on demanding/publicizing real names on the grounds that it is deeply discriminatory against certain classes of people. I'd expect trans groups to eventually go after that if it starts becoming too difficult to use products and services without a legally recognized name.

wpietri 12y ago

The corporate ideology you're describing here is very situational. The notion that all things (ethics, civic responsibility, sustainability, long-term growth) should be sacrificed on the altar of next quarter's profits is historically young. People aren't obliged to accept it. I expect that it will pass. During the last San Francisco Gold Rush, hydraulic mining was considered a reasonable practice: http://science.kqed.org/quest/2010/11/18/gold-rush-sediment-in-the-san-francisco-bay/ http://science.kqed.org/quest/2010/11/18/gold-rush-sediment-... People wouldn't do that anymore here no matter how profitable it is, because we recognize the long-term costs that go with the short-term gains. Capitalism is a fine way to structure certain socially beneficial economic exchanges, but it makes a poor religion.