OSNews

I was saying to people last year that Google should try leveraging the existing Android user base to revive Orkut. In case people have forgotten, Google already has a social network. It just fell into unpopularity in the English speaking world because Americans are afraid of things written in Foreign, and it had large uptake in India and Brazil.

Orkut had a kind of MySpacey forum discussion system, and a Facebooky wall.

Same was with Gmail for me back then, but later I had to reconsider.

Got my invite today. Seems to be heading the right direction, kind of fb+twitter with syndicated web content and all Google services integrated on top of a smarter privacy model.

Don't know about Wave, but Buzz seemed rather like just another separate Google app, while this one fully integrates with the whole user profile and adds social features to everything.

As soon as every Gmail user gets a free invite, it will grow rapidly. I wouldn't expect many problems filling friend circles, as Google has plenty of data collected to suggest more than just random people (like Facebook does).

Gmail was wanted bacause it gave you something no one else had, 1 gb of space. There is nothing in Google+ Im eager to try.

I'm not sure if it is even possible to offer anything revolutionary enough to compare to 1G mailbox in the social networking world. If there was, Facebook probably would have done it already.

Since Social Web(tm) is the current trend, Google is just trying to leverage whichever resources/personal data it already owns. They are going fully social this time, no separate crap blogging or collaboration apps.

There's a special checkbox (enabled by default) when signing up for Google+ that offers to alter your search results and online experience with Google based on your social network. Seems like this is going to be just another step to tailor advertisements and further Internet marketing domination of Google.

The 1 GB of space wasn't the only thing Gmail offered. It has a good UI (a first for web mail), great search, and now also IMAP. I still have my Hotmail address to sign up for various bullshit and log into it now and then, and even though it has improved in various ways since back then, it's still utter shit compared to Gmail. Same goes for the other web mail services I've tried.

I imagine Google could still utilise some of their strengths in this new thing as well. Android integration comes to mind.

I actually checked the other day.
They're making daily commits on github, but I still haven't got an invite.
Kinda sad.... I'd like to use something a little decentralized, open source, and where I could run my own server.

From what I remember diaspora was supposed to solve this. There would be sites that would pop up for free hosting or you could host your own (sorta like Wordpress).

They took a buttload of startup money. I hope they deliver something.

Are you perhaps Richard Stallman??

Seriously though, as much as Facebook does have privacy concerns, you can pretty much negate them all using well known and documented techniques.

gmx.com... are they the same guys behind gmx.net? Man, I used @gmx.net for years before they went all "Vee are Zee Germans!" (around 2002 they dropped support for languages other than German).

I assume they are the same. But gmx.com, and gmx.us both definitely support English.

Good for you. Now tell me - have you ever suffered any damages by using any of the google services you are so adamant of staying away from? Did gmail kill your puppy or sth? What's wrong with targeted, non intrusive text only advertising?

Email is private. End of story. Full stop. Google has no business at all scanning my private email to build an advertising profile about me. Unfortunately, there are no laws to protect consumers against this kind of thing when it comes to email, as there are with snail mail.

Why?

That's a serious question, incidentally. System administrators have always been able to read your mail, absent some use of cryptography. My workplace has a policy that I agreed to as a condition of employment that I have no expectation of privacy in (amongst other things) my work email. Why is it some sort of moral(?) imperative that email be private in all cases?



Since Google does in fact have a business doing exactly that, I'm guessing that you're arguing that they should not scan email. Again: why? It's not like the people using GMail (myself among them) don't know what's going on. If they're willing to provide me with an email service in exchange for scanning my email and showing me ads, and I'm okay with that, why shouldn't Google be in that business?

Why?



Your place of work is a little different, because you should only be using your work account for work related issues anyway.



Well, again if you are OK with it, then I guess that's your business. If you don't mind Google's policy of indefinite data retention meaning that Google's profile is basically a "This is your life" document. Medical problems you have had, legal problems, divorces, marriages, breakups, what kind of food you eat, what what kind of cars you like to drive, what stores you visit, what times you often visit them, the fact that you have herpes, etc. If it has ever been mentioned in any email you have ever received or sent that was not encrypted, Google's scanners have read it and possibly added it your demographic profile.

Maybe you are OK with Google having that much information about you, but I'm not. It's called privacy. And if Microsoft were doing it to you, I bet you'd be screaming about privacy invasion. But for some reason, people seem to think Google can do no wrong. Like I said, Google fanboys are as bad as Apple fanboys.

Edited 2011-06-29 22:19 UTC

That's why I use a "paid" service, it's inexpensive (rather cheap actually), they don't data mine and respect your privacy.

Nothing is "free", so if you use a so called "free" service like google, aol, hotmail, etc. they make their money from advertising thus data mine your email.

If you are (like me) value privacy just spend a few bucks and get a paid service. I've been using LuxSci and Fastmail as a backup for years, love them. I only use hotmail and gmail as safe lists.

Huh? gmx.com is where a LOT of the crap in my spam folder comes from. I don't think I'd be trusting them any time soon.

I've actually enjoyed the webmail interface from Tiger Technologies. It's not worth the monthly fee if all you want is webmail, but if you already host a site with them (I host two) it makes for a nice stripped-down alternative to gmail. It's fast and mostly text-based, very similar to SquirrelMail (in fact it feels like a derivative), and gives you a nice amount of control over your account. It doesn't have all of Google's advanced features of course, but those shiny baubles come at the price of your privacy.

Then there's the whole brand recognition thing. Some would argue that having a "gmail.com" address shouldn't matter either way these days, but tell that to anyone who still uses xxxx@aol.com. When gmail first started, those who had the coveted domain name were revered as alpha geeks with early invites. These days it's as common a sight as my Toyota Corolla (I always seem to have a few others around me in downtown Atlanta traffic). The day may indeed come when gmail.com is the new aol.com and the Next Big Thing in electronic messaging is in force.

Perhaps the best solution is to pay the small monthly fee for a simple shared hosting plan with email accounts included, install SquirrelMail or another adequate webmail interface to your webspace, and become you@whateveryouwant.com.

Well, most of the spam I get actually comes from GMail addresses and Yahoo addresses. I don't think I have ever gotten any from gmx.com



I trust them more than I trust Google because their privacy policy explicitly states that they will never scan my email, other than scanning attachments for viruses. And their Webmail interface is pretty nice as well.

Except... the groups are defined by you and controlled by you rather than a shared group that you have to actually visit to post on the wall.

Pretty much sounds like 'Friends Lists' in Facebook, though the Google system is probably easier to use, but its still nothing new

If it is built like it seems it is, it should be easy to integrate it into a normal Google experience, so rather than going to a separate service, it simply socializes the entire google experience for the user.

If they get that +1 button out there in a hard way, it will make the service very relevant. if I can share with people that are not necessarily members of the service (like, an article is e-mailed to them if they do not have a g+ account, and replies post to my wall) then I can see it slip streaming into use with little problem.

Google doeen't like walled gardens unless they are the one creating the wall.

Google+ is not a walled garden.

Google in general is a walled garden. It's the largest walled garden on the Internet. Google wants to collect every possible tidbit of information about you that they can for their own commercial interests. But they aren't going to share it with others. That makes it a walled garden. One that you involuntarily participate in anytime you use Google.

The company who's slogan is "don't be evil" is one of the most evil companies in the world in reality. They are the Microsoft of the Internet.

And the DOJ has finally taken note of that fact. As they have launched an investigation into Google on suspicion that they are violating antitrust laws.... Something OSNews was too chicken to report on. Despite the fact that I submitted a story about it. It was removed from the queue and never posted. Thom assured me it would be posted when I questioned it in another thread. But was it ever posted? Nope.

Why? Because that's how much power Google has. OSNews is scared to death that if they report bad things about Google, Google will bury them in the search rankings. And I don't blame OSNews for being worried about that. Google has done it in the past. And it's one of the issues being considered in the antitrust investigation.

Edited 2011-06-29 06:57 UTC

LOL. I'm guessing this guy is a paid Facebook shill - I obviously have no proof of any such thing, but if he can randomly assert conspiracy theories with no proof then so can I.

For starters, this is just an Anit-Google rant and doesn't necessarily come from Facebook. Two, what he says is kinda true, google have the power to lower rankings of a site if they so choose, though i am not quite sure they would do it just cause OSNews published something that puts google into a bad light. It's probably just the mods refusing the article, which they're entitled to do

Haha. You didn't read my other comments then. I can't stand Facebook either. I have never had, and never will have a Facebook account. My privacy concerns with Facebook are just as bad as they are with Google.

And it's not a conspiracy theory. Google, has, in the past buried sites that they thought were harmful to Google. There was also the time they imposed a one year total press blackout on CNet after CNet reported something about Google that Google didn't like... Something CNet found on Google btw.

Manipulation of search rankings to further Google's own services at the expense of competitors is one of the issues of the antitrust lawsuit actually.

Exactly what a paid Facebook shill would say, isn't it? That's the beauty of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories - they're practically impossible to disprove.


Thom already said he was going to post it. Furthermore, he just finished posting some other news about a search engine competitor and he's been vocal about how he dislikes Google's privacy policies. Yet somehow national public news that anyone can easily find out about on a tiny website like OSNews is enough to get Google to specifically blacklist the site? That just doesn't make any sense. Give Thom a day or two to actually publish the story before you start claiming that Google hacked into their servers and is blackmailing them.


Let's say this is actually true (and furthering one's own services is not the same as deliberately blacklisting websites they don't like). Continuing this behavior after getting sued by the government for doing it would be just about the stupidest thing Google could possibly do right now. Google is a lot of things - stupid isn't one of them.

Edited 2011-06-29 18:16 UTC

Who said anything about hacking?

Also though, I submitted the story on Friday. OSNews obviously isn't going to publish it. There's no point anymore. It's 5 day old news now.



They haven't been sued yet. They are just being investigated by the DOJ. A determination of whether any antitrust regulatory action will be taken against Google remains to be seen.

What utter drivel. Are you seriously complaining that Google don't share their information about you with others? That doesn't make something a "walled garden"; if anything it shows that they have some respect for your privacy.

You're simply insane.

No. I'm complaining about how much information they collect about me without my consent. As I said, they even scan your private email to build an advertising profile about you.

I quote:

Stop pretending you said something you did not say, and stop pretending you didn't say something which you did say.

I never claimed I didn't say that. But you have English reading comprehension problems if you think that what I meant was that I want Google to share my info with others.

Seriously, what is it with Google fans? They are almost as bad as Apple fans. No matter what Google does, there are Google fans that will defend it.

I hear that Google is so powerful, they even stopped you from linking to the article that you submitted.

True story.

It was an article I wrote. Not one I just linked to.

Like I said, Google fanboys are as bad as Apple fanboys. You honestly don't anything wrong with their atrocious privacy practices? And their strong arm tactics to intimidate the IT press into not saying unfavorable things about Google, by imposing media blackouts on them when they do? Like what happened to CNet?

Well, since Thom is the arbiter of everything accessible on the internet, I see why you can't share your article with us.

...Are as bad as Sun Microsystem fanboys are as bad as yogurt fanboys are as bad as astronomy fanboys. I can keep doing that because it's just filler text that doesn't actually carry meaning.

I'd love to review the privacy policies of every one of their services, but I only have 60 years at best to continue living. You mind revealing which pet concern you have with them?

I do IT in Academia, and the only issue we've had doing business with Google is that their privacy policy conflicts with ours for faculty email. I'd hardly qualify it as 'atrocious'.

Six years ago, the company declared they wouldn't speak to CNet reporters for about a year because they posted as much of Eric Schmidt's personal info as they could find through the search engine. Yeah, for attempting to astroturf a Streisand effect against Google's Chairman, they earned that. Oh, and just not talking to CNet's reporters hardly qualifies as a media blackout. It's not like they were barred from doing research on the company.

I'm afraid I can't narrow it down to one. So I will list several of them.

* Indefinite data retention policy. The fact that Google never destroys the information they gather about you. It will exist until the end of time, or the end of Google. Which ever comes first.

* The Google Buzz fiasco. You remember that one right? When Google automatically publically shared the data about what other Google users people contacted most frequently? Without asking user's permission first? They got hit with a class action lawsuit over that one. And the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center both widely condemned Google's actions and filed complaints with the Federal Trade Comission

* Wifigate. - Maybe some people are gullible enough to believe Google's story that it was an all an accident and unintentional. But not me. We are supposed to believe that they accidentally added packet sniffing code to the software in their Google street view cars that mined and stored gigabytes of data from unencrypted wifi connections? Sorry, but I find it really hard to believe you could do that by accident.

* The Google Super Cookie - For lack of a better name for it. You know, the cookie that tracks you and sends your browsing data back to Google anytime you visit a site that is part of Google's ad network.

* Email scanning - I think when it comes to your personal email, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, just as you do with mail you send through the U.S. post office. So the fact that Google scans your personal email to build an advertising profile about you is not only unethical. But it should be illegal. Again, unfortunately it is not illegal. Although there are laws in place to protect the privacy of your personal snail mail, there are currently no laws in place to protect the privacy of your email.

And one that is just brewing now that I haven't had time to look into much. A class action lawsuit against Google about Android location tracking, which they then sell to commercial companies.

So there's the list of things I have concerns about.



Ah. I see how it works now. Google indexes every single public tidbit of information about someone. But then they punish you if you actually use their search engine to find it and use it in a report. Seems a bit hypocritical of them if you ask me.

And besides, Eric Schmidt was CEO of one of the largest companies in the world. That makes him a person of public interest and he should expect that people are going to publish any information they can find out about him.

That must be why you can't access GMail accounts through IMAP, or Google Talk accounts through Jabber, or Google Calendar through CalDAV... oh wait.



Wait, WHAT? You'd prefer if they DID share that information freely?

What the f are you talking about. Google+ is the antithesis of Facebook in this regard. Just posted on ./

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/29/1315243/Google-Takeout-Lets...

walled gardens are bad for users. Users just don't know it yet....just like people don't know a lot of things are actually bad for them.

Ok. You go ahead and continue to think that way. Go ahead and continue to naively believe that privacy isn't important, and it doesn't matter who gets access to your information, your random thoughts, etc. But don't come crying to me when it gets you in trouble some day.

As I said before, you're crazy. Certified insane. The walled garden of Facebook doesn't protect your privacy.

How, exactly, are walled gardens bad for users?

Because you end up relying on a single vendor for services. Because standards are ignored. because a single data breach means you are screwed.

If Google ever had a data breach and someone made off with all the information Google has about you in the profile they build about you, you are probably worse than screwed.

Edited 2011-07-01 02:31 UTC

It's all anonymized.

No, it's not. If it were, they would not be able to link your profile to you and targeted advertising would not work.

profile linking is one thing... I do not keep much personal data on Google or Facebook, but Facebook has the ability to hold a lot more personal data than Google... and Facebook leaks your data to third party vendors for cash where as Google does not leak it.

http://m.xkcd.com/