yanw

33 ms·

301.
by yanw 15y ago
I'm not sure how telling any of this is, usage and traffic are going to rise and fall after the initial launch I'm sure it was expected mainly because the market for social networks is already saturated. Keeping and eye on traffic in this i
302.
by yanw 15y ago
A profile is too static to be a service, and yes the insistence is on the name in the profile.
303.
by yanw 15y ago
To add some context: he was asked by a war reporter (Andy Carvin) about people living under totalitarian regimes and their correlation with the G+ real name policy. So basically the answer is that if you are endangered by reveling your real
304.
by yanw 15y ago
Be that as it may, do think the primary reason for insisting on real names is to target ads better? they first need a sufficient critical mass to implement that, their reasons are different, at least in this early stage.
305.
by yanw 15y ago
I'm not sure how much of that is improvisation on Eric's part or how much of his original meaning was preserved in the paraphrase, either way I doubt he is involved with the development of G+. Not that there was much wrong with what was sai
306.
by yanw 15y ago
Here is their rational: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5sRC67s9fg#t=26m25s
307.
by yanw 15y ago
I don't see how it is an "evil concept", I think what he means by identity service is a platform on which they can build social apps, it's same as social network. And I'm quite annoyed by claims that associate a real identity requirement wi
308.
by yanw 15y ago
No it isn't: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20096313-264/what-happens-...
309.
Lack of "nyms" as a differentiating feature in a saturated social market(inpassing.posterous.com)
1 points by yanw 15y ago|0 comments
310.
by yanw 15y ago
I'm all for pseudonymous actually, and I've never argued against them. I use them where allowed and don't where they are not (or not participate at all). What gets on my nerves however are those comparing their grievances with a project not
311.
On the obnoxious entitlement of the “nymwars” crowd(enpassant.posterous.com)
9 points by yanw 15y ago|12 comments
312.
On the obnoxious entitlement of the “nymwars” crowd(enpassant.posterous.com)
1 points by yanw 15y ago|0 comments
313.
by yanw 15y ago
Other services aren't affected. Period.
314.
by yanw 15y ago
That is just a vicious rumor. They explicitly said the no other service of theirs will be affected.
315.
by yanw 15y ago
The knowledge that it is still a beta product should soften your anger, it's a matter of tweaking the system it's nothing to be offended by.
316.
by yanw 15y ago
Any anger here is manufactured. It's just a way for social-media types to publicize their social web theories.
317.
by yanw 15y ago
I don't think there has to be an ulterior motive to this sort of policy, they have decided upon a set of rules to build their community and that is it. And persons with theories about how socializing on the web should be, start chiming-in a
318.
by yanw 15y ago
I'm not saying that pseudonyms are without legitimate purpose, I'm saying that Google has decided to enforce certain rules to build their community and this response is deafening and unnecessary.
319.
by yanw 15y ago
It's nowhere near the big issue that the self-described activists think it is. I'm certain the data suggests that using real names isn't a problem for the vast majority of people but merely the obsession of the very loud and self-righteous
320.
by yanw 15y ago
More Than Two-Thirds of Google+ Activity Is Private : http://allthingsd.com/20110721/more-than-two-thirds-of-googl... It's designed mainly for private sharing hence the circles.
321.
by yanw 15y ago
This is madness.
322.
by yanw 15y ago
I'm merely guessing, but seeing how the law takes a backseat when security and anti-terror are involved I suppose that EU governments and the US have reached some sort of agreement about which set of laws to enforce in certain cases.
323.
by yanw 15y ago
I'm sure that a secret agreement between EU governments and the US have been reached, as is the case when security is involved.
324.
by yanw 15y ago
The Patriot Act seems to trump EU law in many cases, as security fears oft trump privacy concerns. It's a good discussion to be had for sure, am I'm sure EU parliament members will debate it in length: They don't seem to have tried to hide
325.
by yanw 15y ago
Corporations based and operating in the US are subject to the PATRIOT Act, it's a shitty law but it's still the law. At least they are transparent about it. Edit: here is the article in question: http://www.wiwo.de/politik-weltwirtschaft/g
326.
Patent Trolls(forbes.com)
3 points by yanw 15y ago|0 comments
327.
by yanw 15y ago
The problem is that credibility is somehow bestowed upon the ramblings of 2nd rate tech pundits, they articulate baseless hypotheses on subjects they know very little about (patents in this case) yet they are taken seriously by many readers
328.
by yanw 15y ago
Yes please.
329.
by yanw 15y ago
You seem to have misunderstood the whole thing (if you have even read any of it), they haven't retracted anything nor changed their position. There is no sense in buying patents jointly with Microsoft because then they couldn't use the pate
330.
by yanw 15y ago
Perhaps, I've never instigated attacking posts on Google's competitors I merely react to what I think are unfair attacks. And yeah, he probably made valid points regarding pixel width in OSX, he's out of his depth discussing patents though.

More ›