Not sure about Google

[Lamplighter]

Google is no longer following the "do no evil" software development model.

TechCrunch
You’re Not Just The Product, You’re The Ads (And Your Friends Should Thank*You)

Today, Google announced “Shared Endorsements”,
an expansion of its program of using your Google+ ‘+1s’ in ads.

Now Google can show your activity such as following a brand,
commenting on a post, or reviewing a business in ads
that feature your name and face to people you allow to see the actions you took.

Google lets businesses pay it to share those endorsements with more of your friends
than would have seem them normally in search results, maps, Google+,
and elsewhere. And Google’s not alone.<snip>

If it's your image, you should be able to copyright it and at least get royalties from it's use.

How long will it be until some eager lawyer starts suing Google
for using your image without permission in it's new business model.

[Clodfobble]

Just a small devil's advocate here... part of the inherent, lifelong problem with advertising has been that it lies.

4 out of 5 dentists agree... when asked a loaded question that guides a clear answer
I'm Tiger Woods, and I love Bran Flakes... except actually, I hate them.
Best in its class... where class is defined so narrowly that it is the only candidate.


Everyone understands by now that all ads are complete crap. Many if not most people have TV systems that can skip them, and click-through rates are at all-time lows. The most important factor in whether I buy a product is if people I know and trust say it's good. You can't even trust strangers on the internet because fake reviews are so prevalent.

There's something nice about the idea of getting recommendations from your friends without those friends having to do any work to convey that information. Obviously there are some sensitive products that no one wants to talk about, but if you really like a certain product, why wouldn't you want to allow people to know that you like it?

[Lamplighter]

...but if you really like a certain product, why wouldn't you want to allow people to know that you like it?

My quarrel with Facebook and then Google is/was with the idea that
they are selling "you" without compensating you for the resource.
Likewise, they are selling "you" to others without you knowing where, when, and to whom.

If someone called and asked you to endorse a product, but refused to tell you
how they were going to use that endorsement, would you still give it to them ?

e.g., a silly example...just because you "liked" or "+1'ed" a bar-casino
(or a STD Clinic ) while on vacation last year, are you OK with your kids,
friends, or members of your church randomly seeing that on their iphone ... years from now ?

I'm old school... believing that bad things happen when someone has access to
and/or uses personal information about "you" to make $ for themselves,
especially if they claim to "own" that information and will not allow you to delete or restrict it's use.
... like your medical information being used by insurance companies or employers, etc.

Likewise, for kids who are vulnerable to bullying by classmates over even the smallest of details in the lives.

[limey]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

My quarrel with Facebook ... is/was with the idea that
they are selling "you" without compensating you for the resource ...

The compensation is that I get the social interactions from FB ...


Sent by thought transference

[Undertoad]

Your quarrel with Google is that they are a business and are profitable.

I don't mind my friends seeing what I think is good. I kinda like it. It keeps me in their heads. That has value to me.

I also don't mind people making money. Guess what, it's just a medium of exchange.

What I don't like is speculation about what Google MIGHT do in the future. I would rather criticize based on what they've actually done, instead of what might happen in some sort of dis-utopian future.

My medical information has never been used by insurance companies, and so I wonder what happened to all those arguments for the last 20 years where people told me that was happening or going to happen. That was all just bullshit. It turned out that a law was passed making my medical information incredibly private. And that law (HIPPA) is so widely respected, it prevents even good things from happening to my medical information.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Your problem with Google is that they are a business and have power.

No, I used to admire Google greatly. It competed successfully with MS and
made the internet a wonderful advance worldwide. The various projects
(MAPS, Scholar, ... etc.) were beyond what any company or person had done before.

FaceBook/Twitter/etc were entertainment fluff, but so be it.

What changed was when FB declared ownership of the data people had
been allowed/enticed to load into their database under the company's
implied shell of semi-privacy ( "friending" )

Google changed when Jobs died and a new CEO took the company in a whole new direction.
Google followed suit of FB and declared ownership of everything people had entered or used in their projects.
Now they are declaring they can use your G-mails, MAPS, or any
other information they have to sell "you" to any other company.

My problem with Google is not that they are a business,
but that they have abused the power they gained.

[Undertoad]

"declared ownership" fucking christ even the words you choose. "Declared" how. You mean they issued a news release? "Ownership" how. They need my permission to do anything with what I've given them, and both FB and Google have respected that boundary with extensive and careful privacy settings. How is that ownership?

Settle down, every new Google announcement is not for you to pick over to determine the end of the world or the beginning of "evil", whatever that means to you. "If you give permission, your friends will now see your picture." OHH EVIL!!! THIS MEANS THEY WILL DEFINITELY PUT MY IMAGE ON PUBLIC BILLBOARDS AND THE WORST PART IS I WILL SEE NO RECOMPENSE!!! THEY WILL BREAK INTO MY HOUSE AND LOOK THROUGH MY DRAWERS AND STEAL MY SPARE RUBBER BANDS!!!

[Lamplighter]

Wow ! Sorry UT to rile you.

All that you've expressed as your opinions is that, your opinion.
So be it. I have no problem with whatever you decide for yourself.

I would appreciate the same consideration... without the conjectures and rhetoric.

[Undertoad]

I'm sorry but I am prepared to go to all caps lock on this issue.

[Lamplighter]

I assume that's not a threat , but I don't understand the dept of emotion.

In anycase, I started this sub-thread with the recent announcements by Google.
FaceBook is also going further down the same road...


TechCrunch
10/10/13
Facebook Removing Option To Be Unsearchable By Name,
Highlighting Lack Of Universal Privacy Controls

“Who can look up your Timeline by name?” Anyone you haven’t blocked.<snip>

Facebook is removing this privacy setting, notifying those who
had hidden themselves that they’ll be searchable.
It deleted the option from those who hadn’t used it in December,
and is starting to push everyone to use privacy controls on each type of content they share.
But there’s no one-click opt out of Facebook search.

With the roll out of Graph Search, the avenues for sniffing out someone’s profile
grew exponentially. Basically every piece of personal information
(and soon the content you post about) could bring you up in a search.
If you publicly list that you live in San Francisco, a Graph Search for
“People who live in San Francisco” could lead someone to your profile.<snip>

After that, the way people can stay hidden is to manually restrict
the visibility of each piece of their profile. And that is a bit of a chore.
You’d have to go through every piece of personal information in
your About section and set its visibility to ‘Friends’ or ‘Only me’.
At least Facebook provides a quick way to restrict the visibility of all your old News Feed posts.

For people with stalkers, though, Facebook may have just gotten a bit more dangerous.
Facebook tells me the way to keep a specific person from finding your profile
or viewing any of your content is to block them.
But what if your stalker just signs up for a fake profile with a new name?
Then they could search and find you.

[BigV]

I think it would be useful to think about Google, Facebook, et al in light of this aphorism:

If you're not a paying customer, you're the product.

[Clodfobble]

Just like broadcast radio, the majority of websites, and anyone else who operates solely on ad revenue.

[Undertoad]

Reddit nails it:

Google isn't using your information to advertise random products, they're taking reviews that you've created on G+ and publishing them.

I'm sorry, but when was the last time that you put a review on the internet intending for no one to read it?

[wolf]

So, anybody know how long between seeing the Google car and the street View image going live? I waved.

[InfiniteIce]

They edit people out before they render it to the live server.