Why I don’t use Google+ (as a woman)(marjarine.wordpress.com)
marjarine.wordpress.com
Why I don’t use Google+ (as a woman)
http://marjarine.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/why-i-dont-use-google-as-a-woman/
15 comments
The problem is that the privacy needs of the users of social networking sites are at odds with the commercial interests of the social networking sites.
Not necessarily. If Google is looking at stuff I share on google+ to find out more about me, I'm okay with it especially if they're targeting ads better. I know there will always be ads on websites, might as well suffer ads that I am more likely to be interested in.
The problem for Google+ is that people already have Facebook for their non-geeky friends so it has become primary for tech people who care more about these things.
Google+'s demographic is now like what Gmail's was long ago- Mostly geeky guys who got beta invites and their geeky friends who got invites passed on. It takes a while for things like email and social sites to propagate to a majority of the internet population (because most people are heavily invested in the predecessor)
Not necessarily. If Google is looking at stuff I share on google+ to find out more about me, I'm okay with it especially if they're targeting ads better. I know there will always be ads on websites, might as well suffer ads that I am more likely to be interested in.
The problem for Google+ is that people already have Facebook for their non-geeky friends so it has become primary for tech people who care more about these things.
Google+'s demographic is now like what Gmail's was long ago- Mostly geeky guys who got beta invites and their geeky friends who got invites passed on. It takes a while for things like email and social sites to propagate to a majority of the internet population (because most people are heavily invested in the predecessor)
The second paragraph nails it pretty well. I think the more powerful features of G+ will eventually even that out, e.g. Hangouts being one of the best options around for conference video chat, automatic photo uploading, etc.
That's why normal social network should not have profit goals which exploit users' privacy. It should serve the purpose of social interactions, and not the goal of profiting on users' profiles sold to third parties.
I don't think public information or real names are particularly important from a business standpoint. What information does the name on your government-issued ID supply when your account already has your posts, posts of people you interact with, your email, things you've searched for, and so on?
The only thing that needs to be public is your profile, so the network can grow virally as your friends discover you and join too. But Google doesn't even require that.
The only thing that needs to be public is your profile, so the network can grow virally as your friends discover you and join too. But Google doesn't even require that.
Also, they see from Facebook that most people don't care about privacy.
I think it is more accurate to say "most people don't think about privacy". That is, most people just don't consider the implications of what's going to happen with all the unprivate things they do online. It's not that people have thought about what privacy online would be like and don't care about not having it.
I think it is more accurate to say "most people don't think about privacy". That is, most people just don't consider the implications of what's going to happen with all the unprivate things they do online. It's not that people have thought about what privacy online would be like and don't care about not having it.
So her not using Google+ has much less to do with her being a woman and much more to do with her job requiring little to no online presence.
She implies that she doesn't want to be harassed as a woman either.
I'd argue that the two are pretty intrinsically linked. A dude can have whatever job he wants, from no-account bus-boy, to middle-management, to executive; and then publicly post whatever he feels like in the mean-time. Hell it's even encouraged to a degree. Gives you "character".
The female equivalent of that is "uppity" or "headstrong"
The female equivalent of that is "uppity" or "headstrong"
There have been plenty of men fired for saying idiotic or non-pc things on Facebook or Twitter.
Eh, IMO if that is the case, then no internet presence is best. Otherwise she needs to get off
I disagree with some of the generalities about women being judged and placed into categories - and not men. Is she saying most men can say whatever they want in public with no consequences while most women have to be very careful what they say? Is that true? Or is it just perception?
I have a twitter account and a Facebook profile, and do not hide those things from co-workers. I am fairly true to myself though, so nothing I say in FB or twitter should surprise anyone who knows me. There will be no pictures posted that can get me fired - partly because I don't act in private in a way that will get me fired if my boss knew.
What kind of job requires you to have no online presence? Examples?
I have a twitter account and a Facebook profile, and do not hide those things from co-workers. I am fairly true to myself though, so nothing I say in FB or twitter should surprise anyone who knows me. There will be no pictures posted that can get me fired - partly because I don't act in private in a way that will get me fired if my boss knew.
What kind of job requires you to have no online presence? Examples?
What is it with the gender related posts that brings out all the assholes on HN?? So many people are falling over themselves to denigrate this person's opinion.
I'm a woman. I have a Facebook account and a journal. Both accounts are under pseudonyms and at least the Facebook account is listed as male. I won't use Google+. But I'll express myself all over the Internet. I have a right to say whatever I want without worrying about being stalked by some ass who feels the need to punish me for thinking without permission. My employer doesn't have a right to know anything about what I do off hours.
I retain, and will retain, the expectation of my right to privacy, even as I take advantage of my right to speak. The fact that an entity announces their intent to steal my private information, does not deprive me of the expectation of my rights. It just means that what I put where they can steal it will be of no value.
It's not like I can't have an online presence without Google+.
This article is RIGHT ON. Google+ IS screwing itself out of a large population of potential users , for these reasons, by these methods, and can take this valid feedback and... do what they do with feedback.
Totally agree with this: ... "and not reality for most people that have jobs that expect a particular level of professionalism that excludes an online presence."
The work expects that you have to be your professional self on these social networking sites as well, which is a total BS policy. The whole idea of being one true authentic self everywhere you go, is bogus.
The work expects that you have to be your professional self on these social networking sites as well, which is a total BS policy. The whole idea of being one true authentic self everywhere you go, is bogus.
Like many people, I use google for search many times per day. The majority of my searches throw up no ads and are reasonably private. Google seems fine to recognize that and does very well monetizing the small number of searches of interest to advertisers.
Why can't a social network become very profitable and operate in a similar way?
This blog makes a compelling argument that being forced to use your real name and a tendency for the system to default to 'public' is a big deterrent to adoption. It's not about 'what do you have to hide?' but rather, 'if you don't make me feel comfortable how my information will be used, then I won't give it to you.'
At best, arguing with me that I should be comfortable, misses the point. I get to decide whether I am comfortable or not.
Users like the author of this blog need to feel comfortable with how their information is used if google+ is to succeed.
Why can't a social network become very profitable and operate in a similar way?
This blog makes a compelling argument that being forced to use your real name and a tendency for the system to default to 'public' is a big deterrent to adoption. It's not about 'what do you have to hide?' but rather, 'if you don't make me feel comfortable how my information will be used, then I won't give it to you.'
At best, arguing with me that I should be comfortable, misses the point. I get to decide whether I am comfortable or not.
Users like the author of this blog need to feel comfortable with how their information is used if google+ is to succeed.
I'm pretty sure you don't have to use your real name anymore, you only have to use something "name-shaped".
https://plus.google.com/103389452828130864950/posts/YJbzDptW...
You also need not select a gender.
The only thing that is problematic is that your friends will be confused ("who is this Name Shaped person of gender Other with no pictures?").
At some point, it does make sense not to use social networking or be online at all. But this is not unique to Google+; if you've paid Wordpress for an account, I'm sure they'll cough up your name if I send them a DMCA notice or something.
https://plus.google.com/103389452828130864950/posts/YJbzDptW...
You also need not select a gender.
The only thing that is problematic is that your friends will be confused ("who is this Name Shaped person of gender Other with no pictures?").
At some point, it does make sense not to use social networking or be online at all. But this is not unique to Google+; if you've paid Wordpress for an account, I'm sure they'll cough up your name if I send them a DMCA notice or something.
Oh great! Another "Look at me, I'm a woman" post. I'm going to call her a "stuck up bitch" in her wordpress comments and see if wordpress has some magical powers to stop me from judging her in public.
Edit: Also, the reason I (and most others) use Google+ is that we get to know a lot more people who share our interests on a global scale. The whole point of the platform is to socialise. Sharing photos with just your friends (which is primarily what FB is used for) isn't "socialising", it's "sharing photos with your friends".
Edit: Also, the reason I (and most others) use Google+ is that we get to know a lot more people who share our interests on a global scale. The whole point of the platform is to socialise. Sharing photos with just your friends (which is primarily what FB is used for) isn't "socialising", it's "sharing photos with your friends".
> I'm going to call her a "stuck up bitch" in her wordpress comments and see if wordpress has some magical powers to stop me from judging her in public.
I'd just like to point out regardless of your age, gender, nationality, et cetera, that you're an asshole.
I'd just like to point out regardless of your age, gender, nationality, et cetera, that you're an asshole.
Thank you!
The fact that this "Look I'm a woman" and "Stuck up bitch" crap has been sitting here not getting downvoted (and even getting upvoted evidently), is a glaring indictment of the HN community overall. This is the kind of malicious shit people value, I guess.
The fact that this "Look I'm a woman" and "Stuck up bitch" crap has been sitting here not getting downvoted (and even getting upvoted evidently), is a glaring indictment of the HN community overall. This is the kind of malicious shit people value, I guess.
Excellent point. This blog post basically played the gender card in the title, but never fully explained itself. False advertising.
>Women are faced with a type of black and white judgement that categorizes us in many ways as ‘nice’ or ‘bitchy’, ‘stupid’ or ‘nerdy’, ‘virgin’ or ‘whore’, with little gray area between. Each of these labels is dehumanizing in its own way. This is particularly overt online, and is a phenomenon that has been well documented. [http://feministing.com/2011/11/08/mencallmethings-reveals-wh...]
I lol'd. Well put my friend.
[deleted]
I think a more apt title would be "Why I don't need online presence"
with gist: I'm a woman and will be targeted for it. and my job doesn't require me to, and is better avoided
with gist: I'm a woman and will be targeted for it. and my job doesn't require me to, and is better avoided
Switch to social networks which respect users' privacy. For example to Diaspora. Facebook and Google+ can't be "fixed" in that regard. Just avoid using them if you care.
I honestly wish it were that simple (coming from a person who abandoned twitter in favor of identi.ca).
Unfortunately without the commercial interests to drive the product forward, it just generally doesn't work out.
That being said, I really hope Diaspora takes off.
Unfortunately without the commercial interests to drive the product forward, it just generally doesn't work out.
That being said, I really hope Diaspora takes off.
Looks like this has a a lot less to do with gender and a lot more to do with bad UI/UX coupled with a bit of ignorance on how G+ is set up.
Bad UI/UX I'll go along with, but I'm not sure where the ignorance comes in. She pretty perfectly stated the way privacy settings work in G+ and why they're a problem.
By the 'ignorance' comment I meant:
It wasn’t until I tried to clamp down my privacy settings that I had a moment of real panic. My full name, ‘scrapbook’ photos and profile were all publicly searchable.
Social networking 101 nowadays is that you don't enter data until you've figured out how to lock it down first.
It wasn’t until I tried to clamp down my privacy settings that I had a moment of real panic. My full name, ‘scrapbook’ photos and profile were all publicly searchable.
Social networking 101 nowadays is that you don't enter data until you've figured out how to lock it down first.
Don't waste your money on another UI overhaul. I want to use your product, but I will not sacrifice my privacy to do so
That sums it up, for me.
Perhaps Google could turn things around, and accommodate privacy concerns while educating users as to their advantages. And leveraging their advertising offers to promote to interests rather than to names and incessantly tracked identities.
When I'm most interested in an item, is when I'm specifically reading about it or its area. As opposed to being nagged about it for the next three months.
But then, like television ads, I suppose all that nagging works, in the aggregate.
That sums it up, for me.
Perhaps Google could turn things around, and accommodate privacy concerns while educating users as to their advantages. And leveraging their advertising offers to promote to interests rather than to names and incessantly tracked identities.
When I'm most interested in an item, is when I'm specifically reading about it or its area. As opposed to being nagged about it for the next three months.
But then, like television ads, I suppose all that nagging works, in the aggregate.
So she didn't understand that she was commenting publicly? The universal comment setting doesn't even make sense as the conversation would look completely different based on who's in whose circles.
I don't understand how this is related to Google+. You can make comments on Facebook that are more public than your wall, so I fail to understand what this is G+ specific.
edit: posting in all bold text is about one degree of separation from posting in all caps.
I don't understand how this is related to Google+. You can make comments on Facebook that are more public than your wall, so I fail to understand what this is G+ specific.
edit: posting in all bold text is about one degree of separation from posting in all caps.
She completely understood that she was commenting publicly. She stated quite clearly that she has never posted a public comment on Google+, because she knew the implications.
There are some nontrivial UI concerns in trying to merge non-public commenters with public posts, I'll grant you that. However, it still doesn't change the fact that the tool doesn't match up to the needs of a pretty broad demographic (no pun intended).
There are some nontrivial UI concerns in trying to merge non-public commenters with public posts, I'll grant you that. However, it still doesn't change the fact that the tool doesn't match up to the needs of a pretty broad demographic (no pun intended).
But that aspect of it is the same as Facebook.
If you make a post and I comment on it, my comment is at the mercy of your privacy settings. Facebook and G+ are both explicit about that.
Maybe I'm missing something? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I promise.
If you make a post and I comment on it, my comment is at the mercy of your privacy settings. Facebook and G+ are both explicit about that.
Maybe I'm missing something? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I promise.
I think it's just a difference in the way the two companies do "public".
Because Facebook hates Google, you're far less likely to see public posts turn up in Google results.
Google, on the other hand, created their network for the sole purpose of bolstering their search results. This leads to a much more adversarial relationship with the service, where you have to constantly fight to keep yourself out of the spotlight.
Because Facebook hates Google, you're far less likely to see public posts turn up in Google results.
Google, on the other hand, created their network for the sole purpose of bolstering their search results. This leads to a much more adversarial relationship with the service, where you have to constantly fight to keep yourself out of the spotlight.
Note that she didn't address Facebook, at all. She confined her comments to Google+.
So, while the FB comparisons may be appropriate to conversation here, they do not -- in my view -- imply a weakness in her argument. She left FB outside the scope of what she was saying and whom she was addressing.
P.S. Upon rereading, I do note this bit:
particularly when there are other social networking alternatives with simpler privacy settings.
which perhaps weakens my original argument in this comment somewhat.
So, while the FB comparisons may be appropriate to conversation here, they do not -- in my view -- imply a weakness in her argument. She left FB outside the scope of what she was saying and whom she was addressing.
P.S. Upon rereading, I do note this bit:
particularly when there are other social networking alternatives with simpler privacy settings.
which perhaps weakens my original argument in this comment somewhat.
The problem for Google+ is that people already have Facebook for their non-geeky friends so it has become primary for tech people who care more about these things. They could just try leverage that and stay more specialized, but that's unlikely to happen.