Google Buzz

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by onix

Don't see any relevant. The news links you posted are old and bugs have been fixed. I am not talking about Google's current practice.
Shrug, if you don't want to talk about Google's practices, we have nothing to talk about. The difference between you and I is that I don't reward sloppy behaviour by congratulating people for fixing something that shouldn't have been broken in the first place.

 

[onix]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Shrug, if you don't want to talk about Google's practices, we have nothing to talk about. The difference between you and I is that I don't reward sloppy behaviour by congratulating people for fixing something that shouldn't have been broken in the first place.
Have I congratulated them?

 

[holymadness]

You essentially dismissed the entire issue by calling it yesterday's news. If that's not approbation, it's a far cry from condemnation. Am I wrong? If so, feel free to offer your opinions instead of sniping at mine from the wings.

 

[onix]

First, I have no interest discussing Google practices/problems in its entirety with someone I don't know on... a style forum.

You mentioned the privacy problem with Google citing some news (all of which I agreed), however you sarcastically asked him to stay up to date, which, ironically, I don't think you're up to date yourself.

 

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by onix

First, I have no interest discussing Google practices/problems in its entirety with someone I don't know on... a style forum.
Weird.

You mentioned the privacy problem with Google citing some news (all of which I agreed), however you sarcastically asked him to stay up to date, which, ironically, I don't think you're up to date yourself.

I followed the story as it unfolded live, but was too busy during Valentine's Day weekend to post about it. The real issue is once bitten, twice shy.

 

[JT82]

Originally Posted by holymadness

You miss the point. It was unannounced that Google Buzz revealed your entire contact list to those who follows you. It was impossible to prevent the service from revealing your gmail address to anyone who used the picasa workaround to grab it. These aren't 'kinks', they're critical privacy flaws that should have been addressed in alpha, or in beta at the very latest. But since Google has been rolling out a new product every week lately, they don't have time to test software anymore; it's all about competing in every market conceivable. "Do no evil"? Please.

You also conveniently ignored that, in being so sloppy, Google drags its own name through the mud and reduces consumer confidence in the brand (as well as its share value). After the beating they've already taken with the Nexus One, you'd think they'd have learned to be a little better prepared. No one benefits from this except, ironically, its competitors. What a PR nightmare.
I'm curious to know how this differs from, say, Facebook, whose site setup seems to change on a nearly monthly basis (despite the negative feedback consistently voiced by its users) and whose privacy settings are exceedingly nebulous and complicated to navigate. Isn't it just more of the same when it comes to online social networking?

 

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by JT82

I'm curious to know how this differs from, say, Facebook, whose site setup seems to change on a nearly monthly basis (despite the negative feedback consistently voiced by its users) and whose privacy settings are exceedingly nebulous and complicated to navigate.

Isn't it just more of the same when it comes to online social networking?

The difference is that Google's online suite of services (docs, maps, gmail, etc.) aren't targeted at the primary social networking demographic; the people who use them aren't there for social networking. Joe the Plumber, who signed up for free e-mail, had his entire private address book broadcast to the world without his consent or knowledge. That makes him mad.

While Mark Zuckerman is also pure evil, and Facebook is an equally large pile of dogshit, he is at least smart enough to know that his target market (attention-starved 15 to 25 year olds) doesn't really care that much about privacy, especially since they're already on facebook to advertise their personal lives to the internet. Consider also that these people have nowhere else to go (myspace? xanga? Not a chance).

That doesn't justify what Facebook did recently, but it does explain the difference in outcry.