Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday August 03 2015, @08:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the nonplussed dept.

A sigh of relief has been heard across the Internet as behemoth Google has finally relented in it's ever intruding necessity to have a Google+ account from every service and function from signing up for Gmail to posting comments on YouTube.

From Slate to The Verge and everywhere in between there is dancing in the streets as Google finally got the message... no, not today Google, I don't want Plus. Plus will not be going away, it will become it's own property, left to stand on it's own, and unhooked from every Google service under the sun.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 03 2015, @09:02AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 03 2015, @09:02AM (#217295) Journal

    I recognized from day one that Google+ had potential. Unfortunately, it was handled wrong on many levels. Tied to every other Google service? Huh, wut? Totally freaking wrong. Email, most importantly. Piss off some half-wit on G+, he gets your account suspended, and your email is gone too?

    Worse, was the real name bullshit. Google was hounding me for weeks about using my real name. I finally fired off a convincing letter, indicating that I'm an aging man who has created a number of enemies in my past. Some of those enemies might still be looking for me. Posting my real name to the internet would most likely result in someone knocking on my door, and shooting me dead when I answered the door. They stopped hounding me.

    Truth is - I've made some enemies, but none who are likely trying to find me or kill me. My letter was bullshit, but how many OTHER PEOPLE might be in the predicament that I described? We have millions of people in this country who have been involved in the drug trade, gang warfare, and other entrepreneureal ventures. Some of them really do have deadly enemies. And, Google demands real names? WTF?!?!?!

    G+ could be so much more, and so much better than Facebook - but Google took an asinine approach to creating their social network. That sucks.

    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @09:53AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @09:53AM (#217316)

      rest easy.

      it won't be long b4 implanted chips connect us all

      mark of the beast kinda thing

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @12:31PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @12:31PM (#217370)

      Maybe its just me, but if I were hiding from people that wanted to harm me, I WOULDN'T BE USING SOCIAL MEDIA. Staying alive is FAR more important than posting what. the. fuck. ever. to social media.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 03 2015, @12:54PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 03 2015, @12:54PM (#217378) Journal

        Mmmm-hmmmmm. So, if you were in a witness protection program or some such thing, you would find absolutely no potential value to having a social media account? Like, maybe just checking on the health and welfare of a friend or family member? Having an account is not the same as blabbing everything you know on social media. Well - for some of us, there's a difference, anyway.

        • (Score: 1) by miljo on Monday August 03 2015, @01:34PM

          by miljo (5757) on Monday August 03 2015, @01:34PM (#217391) Journal

          Like, maybe just checking on the health and welfare of a friend or family member?

          Because postal mail and POTS were discontinued when Facebook went public?

          --
          One should strive to achieve, not sit in bitter regret.
          • (Score: 2, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 03 2015, @01:49PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 03 2015, @01:49PM (#217395) Journal

            Mail and POTS are more easily tapped than some anonymous person browsing around Facebook. If you're a criminal mastermind, you can easily have someone bug your target's mother's landline. Yes, OF COURSE it is illegal - but you can get it done. The mail is little more difficult, but you can have someone watch the home for incoming mail, and possibly sort through it. Or, you might even plant someone in the local post office.

            How are you going to trace someone browsing Facebook on an anonymous account? Especially if that anonymous account makes no posts to his mother's page, or to the pages of friends and relatives? He just lurks, watching.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @01:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @01:49PM (#217394)

          You might be surprised at what your metadata can reveal about you.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @02:08PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @02:08PM (#217398)

          Mmmm-hmmmmm. So, if you were in a witness protection program or some such thing, you would find absolutely no potential value to having a social media account?

          Part of the witness protection program is giving you a new identity, which especially means a new real name, complete with the papers proving that this new name is your real name. Of course you wouldn't use your original name on the social network, but the new real name.

      • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday August 03 2015, @03:13PM

        by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday August 03 2015, @03:13PM (#217419) Journal

        I can't believe I actually have to give my anecdotal story to refute this: I know a woman who was abused. She and her husband ran a business and they absolutely needed social media for the business. The business is how they earned money to live and survive. So WTF is wrong with using pseudonyms (like Common Joe or Anonymous Coward) on social media? Do people have to be careful? Absolutely. Best not to show her face. Do they have to close themselves off from all facets of today's life? Not really possible if they want any kind of quality of life. Love it or hate it, being social in today's world means using social media in some form or fashion.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 03 2015, @03:53PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday August 03 2015, @03:53PM (#217434)

          Love it or hate it, being social in today's world means using social media in some form or fashion.

          100% false. Go out and interact with people; that's called being social. Garbage media is not needed for being social, and I suggest that no one have a garbage media account, otherwise you're just being used by scumbag companies.

          • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday August 03 2015, @06:26PM

            by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday August 03 2015, @06:26PM (#217487) Journal

            What do you think about social media like meetup.com?

            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 03 2015, @06:29PM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday August 03 2015, @06:29PM (#217490)

              I think they're utter garbage and that people should value their privacy and anonymity more.

              • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday August 03 2015, @06:48PM

                by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday August 03 2015, @06:48PM (#217499) Journal

                Ok. Fair enough. Serious question since I'm not getting the results I want when trying to get out and meet people face-to-face (and I'm using social media to do it).

                In today's world, how would you recommend meeting technology people face-to-face without websites like meetup.com? Specifically, I'm looking for an internship and to finish becoming fluent in German -- which requires a lot of face-to-face time. (I've already finished German school and I have over a decade of experience in the IT field I want to work in.) I'm an American living in Germany. So far, I've been turned away from a lot of companies because of my German and because I can't get a face-to-face with managers. (The HR barrier.) I've primarily used social media to give me starting points then I go out and meet people face to face.

                I'm pretty social when chatting with one or two people, but pretty lousy at just "going out and meeting people" or when dealing with a room full of people. If you do have ways I'm not aware of to accomplish my goals, you would actually be a great help.

                Thanks in advance.

                • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 03 2015, @07:45PM

                  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday August 03 2015, @07:45PM (#217533)

                  In today's world, how would you recommend meeting technology people face-to-face without websites like meetup.com?

                  Normally if possible or not at all. I would just keep trying. I don't think the ends justify handing your information over on a silver platter to these companies, even if that is the only option, which I don't think it is.

                • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:21PM

                  by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:21PM (#217920) Journal

                  Not just any watering holes, either. Get a lead on the boss you want to work for, and find out where he goes for a cold drink. Be there. Talk to him/her. Screw HR. I have zero use for any HR representative - they've never done me any good at all.

                  Of course, the judicial use of social media may be useful in finding out where your potential boss goes for water . . .

        • (Score: 2) by Francis on Monday August 03 2015, @04:25PM

          by Francis (5544) on Monday August 03 2015, @04:25PM (#217448)

          I doubt she absolutely needed to have FB, Twitter or any of the other social media accounts for business. I know that FB and whoever else would like you to think that it's necessary, but direct to customer email-lists are much more effective. Not to mention company blogs that can be run from your own hardware or on accounts where you get to decide on the data being shared.

          And the reason why people's quality of life is suffering due to lack of social networking is because of people like you. Congratulations, you are the problem. There's no good reason why everybody has to use the same social networking sites. Or really any of them, but people are getting more and more anti-social in part because they can have "friends." Why bother with friends when FB keeps an entire list of "friends" for you? And as a bonus, you don't even have to actually interact with them ever.

          • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday August 03 2015, @06:22PM

            by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday August 03 2015, @06:22PM (#217485) Journal

            Actually, I'm about as anti-social networking as it can get. I hate almost all forms of it... but from a business perspective, why not if both parties are into that kind of stuff? And to be frank, websites like Soylent News are a kind of social media. Not the popular kind, but one of them none-the-less. Email lists and company blogs (as you mention) are actually part of social media too and a business like hers can use something like that without posting her real name. (This thread is about masking real names, if you recall.)

            And to be honest, as much as I hate social media, I've used it to my advantage to meet hundreds of people face-to-face in the past couple of years. (New city in a new country.) I sign up to certain existing groups that caught my eye then go out there to meet and greet. I've actually made a couple of really good friends that way that we've invited over for dinner more than once. Groups on Facebook, Meetup.com, and XING may be the most popular, but there are others too. I met one guy face-to-face because I introduced myself on Slashdot when I realized we lived in the same city (before Soylent News).

            And before I'm nagged about using social media while simultaneously hating it: I hate washing dishes and I hate shopping but I do both. Sometimes, to accomplish what I want, I have to buckle down and do some things I hate. As for Soylent News? It's about the only form of social media that I currently enjoy.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 03 2015, @06:43PM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday August 03 2015, @06:43PM (#217494)

              Categorizing sites like SoylentNews as "social media" sites is ridiculous. The types of comments you'll see are totally different, the purposes of the sites are totally different (Facebook, Google+, and others exist to gather as much information about people as possible so they can make money off of suckers who give it away), there is no real name policy or even an atmosphere that expects you to give away your real name, the site's goal is not to allow you to find and keep track of the mundane activities of real-life acquaintances or family members, etc.

              Just about everything would be a "social media" site using this logic. If the website has any degree of interaction with others whatsoever, then it would be "social media". Not a very useful definition to me.

              • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Monday August 03 2015, @07:04PM

                by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday August 03 2015, @07:04PM (#217509) Journal

                Hmmm... Then I suppose you and I have different definitions of social media. I based my definition off of this one: www.google.com/search?q=define+social+media [google.com]

                • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 03 2015, @07:54PM

                  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday August 03 2015, @07:54PM (#217539)

                  Right. Not a very useful definition, at least not for how you're using it. There are many words [gnu.org] that, while commonly used and accepted, only serve to cause confusion or spread propaganda. But we can fight back.

                  The one that came up for me (on a different search engine) is this: "websites and other online means of communication that are used by large groups of people to share information and to develop social and professional contacts". I block Google 100%, so I don't know what came up for you. But I would say that "to share information" is too vague, but that the purpose of this website isn't really to "develop social and professional contacts". But then, that is also rather vague, and it depends on what you take 'social contact' to mean. I don't think it's a very useful definition; it's too vague and broad.

          • (Score: 1) by Pino P on Monday August 03 2015, @07:02PM

            by Pino P (4721) on Monday August 03 2015, @07:02PM (#217506) Journal

            In order for a site to let users log in with their Twitter credentials, the site's operator has to have a Twitter account in order to register the site with Twitter. The same is true of Google and Facebook.

            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 04 2015, @12:52AM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @12:52AM (#217674)

              That's essentially creating a single point of failure, which is foolish. It's more foolish when you realize how terrible most people's passwords are, even for more important things. I wish web developers would get a clue and actually learn how to develop a website like they're supposed to know how to do rather than relying on all sorts of third party nonsense from privacy-violating companies. For most websites, I see RequestPolicy block 10+ third party sites, with the worst ones having over 20. Not just advertisers, either. It's absolutely ridiculous.

              • (Score: 1) by Pino P on Wednesday August 05 2015, @11:43PM

                by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @11:43PM (#218849) Journal

                You appear to claim that protocols such as OpenID Connect are "foolish". But in an era of registration confirmation e-mails routinely getting mistakenly eaten by spam filters, what is supposed to uniquely identify a user account and allow for resetting a forgotten password?

                • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 06 2015, @04:02AM

                  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday August 06 2015, @04:02AM (#218943)

                  But in an era of registration confirmation e-mails routinely getting mistakenly eaten by spam filters, what is supposed to uniquely identify a user account and allow for resetting a forgotten password?

                  Check what was identified as spam yourself. If that's too hard for a significant amount of your users, then you should rethink your target userbase.

                  In general, I recommend relying less on third party websites. Especially don't rely on the likes of companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, etc. All this nonsense does is allow for more cross-site tracking and gives attackers access to more of the user's accounts if they manage to break in. All for convenience.

                  • (Score: 1) by Pino P on Thursday August 13 2015, @01:39AM

                    by Pino P (4721) on Thursday August 13 2015, @01:39AM (#222056) Journal

                    Anyone who breaks into your Google account or Microsoft account can already read your Gmail or your Hotmail and request password resets.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday August 03 2015, @11:42PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday August 03 2015, @11:42PM (#217647) Journal

            I dunno, I quite identify with what Common Joe is saying. These days it is weird if you don't have a social media presence. It's as weird as if you tell people you don't do email.

            That said, I follow the principle of Minimum Correct Thing (MCT) on social media. I disclose as little as possible on social media, but what I do disclose is true. My profile picture is me, pics of my wife and kids are their pics, but I don't post my thought for the day or pics of my lunch or anything like that. I present the public face online that I wish to. I don't think that practice is all that weird, but I've had people on Soylent excoriate me for it and "unfriend" me.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 04 2015, @12:44AM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @12:44AM (#217670)

              I dunno, I quite identify with what Common Joe is saying. These days it is weird if you don't have a social media presence.

              So be "weird"; who cares? But he said that "being social" necessitates social media, which is false.

              My profile picture is me, pics of my wife and kids are their pics, but I don't post my thought for the day or pics of my lunch or anything like that.

              You've given them some nice facial recognition material. I feel sorry for the kids, because they're probably not old enough to understand the issue. When I was growing up, we didn't have things like Facebook, so my parents never had a chance to upload pictures to websites owned by giant privacy-invading anonymity-destroying corporations. One of my younger family members did grow up with social media nonsense, but they chose never to create any accounts and understand the privacy issue; if someone else uploaded pictures of them, they wouldn't even have a choice.

              Unless I misunderstood that and they uploaded pictures themselves. But I do see people kind of forcing the social media nonsense on their kids. And even when it is voluntary, once these companies have your information, good luck ensuring that it's deleted if you ever change your mind.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 03 2015, @12:37PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 03 2015, @12:37PM (#217371)

      real name bullshit

      An interesting local anecdote is a local dentist is getting a social media and protestor and threatening phone calls shit storm because some other completely unrelated yet vaguely similar named dentist shot some lion in Africa that nobody ever heard of or cared about before it got shot, and its this week's SJW rallying cry to ruin everyone connected, or in this case, unfortunately named and completely unconnected.

      I have a weird name so I'm "safe" but god help anyone named John Smith given all the politically incorrect libel slander and criminal record the collection of all the worlds John Smiths have accumulated over the last century. I dated a girl named Jennifer (insert German name here) and in a fit of nostalgia I searched facebook for her to see what happened to her after all these years and there's about forty of her and at least a dozen could visually be her based on appearing to be my age. So she's got between zero and five kids, lives in about six states, about ten different employers, about zero to five addictions, "she" as an aggregate is quite a mess. Possibly she's gone super private or died in which case none of the forty on facebook are the individual one I dated in high school.

      The reason they pushed real names is their focus is big corporate for ad sales and marketing. They know that at a corporate/gov level, real names is dead and everyone knows everything about everyone EXCEPT the general public, they're the only people still in the dark. So Ford, Nestle, and NBC already know everything about me by my real name, so what could possibly go wrong with having the powerless general public know my real name? Well apparently a lot of people get really loudly unhappy about it.

      The real death of G+ was it had HUGE uptake in certain hobby communities, photography, ham radio... but the half life of hobby web discussion forums is like one year, so its dying and I no longer go there, there just isn't a point anymore. It could have been something like a Reddit-killer, maybe not a Facebook-killer.

      And the Reddit-killer aspect points out a disadvantage of real names, looking at the SJW fanatics on Reddit, not using real names is probably an excellent idea.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday August 03 2015, @01:25PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday August 03 2015, @01:25PM (#217386)

        The reason they pushed real names is their focus is big corporate for ad sales and marketing.

        Specifically, everyone using real names rather than aliases makes it so the mined data is cleaner. The whole point of social media, from the point of view of the company running it, is to provide advertisers with detailed information about individuals so that they can be marketed to more effectively, and demanding the use of real names makes it easier for somebody to, say, tie your post about liking Dave Matthews Band to the fact that you spent $197.35 on digital music streaming services last year to the fact that your email address is mike.smith@example.com to the fact that you live at 905 W 19th Ave, Gary, Indiana to the fact that you make approximately $54,600 a year, etc, etc.

        That kind of profile on every individual on the planet is the dream of marketing types.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday August 03 2015, @04:12PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 03 2015, @04:12PM (#217442)

          They already have that, especially when looking at relationship data, geographical IP data, etc.

          The only people who don't have that data are the general public, my neighbor, random social media contacts, etc.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday August 03 2015, @04:35PM

            by Thexalon (636) on Monday August 03 2015, @04:35PM (#217458)

            They have something close to that. The reason the "real name" policy matters to the social networking folks is that pseudonyms are hard to detect and make their profiles less accurate.

            For example, let's say that our subject John Smith had established an online pseudonym of "Jack Jones", with a separate email address and photo with a distinctly different look than John Smith. An automated algorithm has a really hard time connecting the real John Smith and the mythical "Jack Jones". Unless "Jack Jones" screws up and provides his real name, email address, cell phone number, etc to the particular social network, they really have no way to put two and two together.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday August 03 2015, @11:58PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday August 03 2015, @11:58PM (#217651) Journal

          More than that, they want to know where you stand in the web of your social connections. If you fit the profile of an influencer for those you know, advertisers will target you even more.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:10AM

            by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:10AM (#217773)

            Or you will become a "person of interest" to certain 3 letter quasi-government oranizations.

            --
            When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Hyperturtle on Monday August 03 2015, @12:37PM

      by Hyperturtle (2824) on Monday August 03 2015, @12:37PM (#217372)

      They've probably opted to drop things because the tracking has become so pervasive now via other means, so much that it doesn't matter what ID you use. Windows 8 and 10 create an advertiser ID from the OS, and also from the logged in user on the OS, on top of whatever google services you access from the same PC.

      Although this link is not Google, they're welcome to participate and essentially wrote the book on the subject: http://adsinapps.microsoft.com [microsoft.com]

      It really helped directly demonstrate to me (at least with Windows 10...) why many free services are not worth the cost if you value the option to use your hardware the way you want to without someone else dictating what you see.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @11:12AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @11:12AM (#217859)

        Windows 10 is only free if your privacy is worth nothing.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by jcross on Monday August 03 2015, @02:43PM

      by jcross (4009) on Monday August 03 2015, @02:43PM (#217410)

      Well, your SN pseudonym definitely helps bolster the "old man on the lam" story.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 03 2015, @04:09PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 03 2015, @04:09PM (#217439) Journal

        LOL - I was a runaway. I left my father's house for the last time when I was fifteen years old. Child services didn't like that idea very much, and they spent the entire summer searching for me - or my body. They weren't real sure that I really DID run away. Ehhhh - they found me, labor day weekend, just in time to ensure that I was in class when school started.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Nollij on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:59AM

      by Nollij (4559) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:59AM (#217787)

      There was also the automatic overshare - my accountant has a GMail account. Last time I pulled it up, it AUTOMATICALLY showed various videos she "liked" on YouTube. Most were political, and would not be professional to link to a business. I'm certain she has no idea the two were connected.

  • (Score: 2) by pkrasimirov on Monday August 03 2015, @09:55AM

    by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 03 2015, @09:55AM (#217318)

    That's an old meme now. http://www.memes.com/img/513243 [memes.com]

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @10:00AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @10:00AM (#217322)

    I hope they'll leave the server running, like they did with http://orkut.com/ [orkut.com], so scholars will be able to see what happened there. When Yahoo turned off the PC that Geocities was running on, something was lost.

    • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Monday August 03 2015, @02:54PM

      by Lagg (105) on Monday August 03 2015, @02:54PM (#217414) Homepage Journal

      So many "under construction" gifs and midi loops. Just snuffed out in their prime like that.

      --
      http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by acid andy on Monday August 03 2015, @06:03PM

        by acid andy (1683) on Monday August 03 2015, @06:03PM (#217478) Homepage Journal

        I'd take them over tweets, blogs and social media any day. Remember then, when you know, actual websites were popular.

        --
        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
        • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:18AM

          by Lagg (105) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:18AM (#218267) Homepage Journal

          I've recently started taking both [lagg.me] at once [twitter.com]. Makes it easier to know what I hate and it's admittedly quite cathartic to just randomly be a smartass to companies and celebrities regardless of whether or not they read it.

          --
          http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by virens on Monday August 03 2015, @10:02AM

    by virens (5530) on Monday August 03 2015, @10:02AM (#217323)

    it was an over-aggressive and intrusive peddling that ultimately killed it. YouTube comments, Blogger photos, reviews on Android store - you name it, and the worst part that there was no way back. People are generally unhappy when something forcefully pushed on them, especially when they did not want it in the first place - how much brain power Google needs to understand it?!

    • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:22AM

      by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:22AM (#217778)

      Google does not understand that. How else can one explain how they've fucked up google maps, google forums, chrome browser etc. etc.

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by WizardFusion on Monday August 03 2015, @10:28AM

    by WizardFusion (498) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 03 2015, @10:28AM (#217329) Journal

    Does this mean I can now start leaving reviews for shit products on the play store.
    I refuse to use G+

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by number6 on Monday August 03 2015, @11:00AM

    by number6 (1831) on Monday August 03 2015, @11:00AM (#217337) Journal

    Having a Gmail account, I ended up with a Google+ account one day; not being into social networking and comfortable being alone, I never visited.
    Anyhow, I eventually ended up visiting a few G+ discussions by some people I know; I remember trying to leave a reply at one discussion and the reply formatting system used at G+ drove me fucking crazy!

    To cut this story short, I found the G+ interface a total piece of shit in the same sense that I find the Tumblr interface a piece of shit.

    I like Lo-Fi interfaces which mix text and simple DOM layout elements and load fast in any browser.
    If Google+ had an interface like SoylentNews, then maybe the story could have ended differently for me.
    It would have been interesting if Google+ had an optional layout which could display interactive readable webpages like the LYNX text-mode browser interface without having to actually run LYNX.
    However, I have a feeling that the development team who created and maintained Google+ were a bunch of nouveau-iconoclast hipsters who wouldn't think twice about sending you a simple TXT file encoded as a PDF.

    I tend to stick to my decisions and it only took me a few casual visits and a bit of surfing around to decide to reject Google+ forever...and when I say forever I mean forever!

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday August 03 2015, @11:52AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 03 2015, @11:52AM (#217353) Journal

      the reply formatting system used at G+ drove me fucking crazy!

      If this hasn't happened in the last 24 hours, seems that you've suffered a permanent damage

      (don't shoot, just kidding)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by miljo on Monday August 03 2015, @01:22PM

      by miljo (5757) on Monday August 03 2015, @01:22PM (#217384) Journal

      nouveau-iconoclast hipsters

      Made me think of this. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CE-rBtIXIAEw9V2.jpg [twimg.com]

      --
      One should strive to achieve, not sit in bitter regret.
    • (Score: 1) by ThePhilips on Monday August 03 2015, @09:38PM

      by ThePhilips (5677) on Monday August 03 2015, @09:38PM (#217605)

      To cut this story short, I found the G+ interface a total piece of shit in the same sense that I find the Tumblr interface a piece of shit.

      And one would have thought that the company with Google's resources and engineering talent could do better.

      To me it was the moment when I realized that Goolge finally and irrevocably turned to shit. In all interviews, including from developers, they simply could explain why they have decided to do like that. It was obviously a committee design. And they, usual to committee, failed to reach any compromise, but instead of making some bloated monstrosity, went with a usual to Google the "barebone skeleton" of a service.

      To me, the G+ joins the very long list of services which failed (or rather: were underdeveloped, undermaintained and eventually choked to death) because Google simply refuses to connect with the users.

      • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:33AM

        by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:33AM (#217781)

        Naw...naw...naw...if they'd gone with a "barebone skeleton" of a service all would be fine. Instead they've gone with the ugliest crap HTML possible.

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
        • (Score: 1) by ThePhilips on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:38AM

          by ThePhilips (5677) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @07:38AM (#217810)

          Ugly I could have oversaw - if the service offered something tad bit more functionality than "twitter on steroids".

          Plug-ins for editing the posts and non-plain-text posts would have been a good start. That, of course, before the repeal of the "real name" policy.

          The sorting of comments was the most ridiculous part: a comment with no votes often was the "top" comment, eclipsing the ones with dozen upvotes. In a way that is not funny - that's just retarded.

          That what have basically killed all my interest in the G+: neither you can't write posts with any interesting content, nor you can sort through the comments.

          The "ugly" part didn't even had a chance to play any role.

          P.S. And the "ugly" part BTW also something I have expected from Google. They could have easily made the G+ view customizable. But nope, they forced you to live with that narrow shit, utilizing barely 20% of browser's screen real estate. Considering Google's investment in HTML5, I have expected columns and all possible/impossible stuff, including Google Labs and beta plug-ins. But nope - none of that "free will", "choices" or "innovation" silliness.

          P.P.S. Which in the end means that there is still no decent social network for the professionals. Beside the venerable phpBB, of course.

  • (Score: 2) by Techwolf on Monday August 03 2015, @11:40AM

    by Techwolf (87) on Monday August 03 2015, @11:40AM (#217347)

    Of all the social networking sites out there, g+ is the most confusing of them all. G+ put everything into one page in a jumbled mess that included stuff you did not subscribe nor wanted.

  • (Score: 2) by meisterister on Monday August 03 2015, @03:50PM

    by meisterister (949) on Monday August 03 2015, @03:50PM (#217433) Journal

    Within two years, Google will be trying to force you to use a revolutionary new social media experience: Google++!

    --
    (May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
    • (Score: 5, Funny) by sudo rm -rf on Monday August 03 2015, @04:42PM

      by sudo rm -rf (2357) on Monday August 03 2015, @04:42PM (#217462) Journal

      Or even G#...

      • (Score: 1) by Hyperturtle on Monday August 03 2015, @09:04PM

        by Hyperturtle (2824) on Monday August 03 2015, @09:04PM (#217588)

        I think it'll catch on, that G# moniker, as long as it is cross-functional between applications. Most importantly, I believe that Glassholes can use a sharp g-pounding! Everyone else can go get pounded by Google, too, if they haven't already.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:37AM (#217714)
        I'm more inclined to believe that this is a G♭ moment myself.
      • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:36AM

        by captain normal (2205) on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:36AM (#217783)

        Nope. they'll go with "GeeWizz"

        --
        When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Taibhsear on Monday August 03 2015, @06:17PM

    by Taibhsear (1464) on Monday August 03 2015, @06:17PM (#217481)

    So all those Google plus accounts that were generated automatically by just having email... are those getting automatically deleted or will we have to do that manually? I still get spam mail for posts from people in my email contact list even though I have no friends or circles or whatever and have never used Google plus.

    • (Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:30PM

      by JeanCroix (573) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:30PM (#218490)
      Yeah, this. Can I now delete the G+ account without also getting rid of the associated Gmail account? Has the umbilical been snipped?
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by JeanCroix on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:50PM

        by JeanCroix (573) on Wednesday August 05 2015, @01:50PM (#218506)
        Following up on my own question, the answer is yes. I just successfully deleted it, but my Gmail is intact.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @07:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @07:21PM (#217517)

    Haha, kudos good Sir! :D