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'd just like to point out regardless of your age, gender, nationality, et cetera, that you're an asshole.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
The female equivalent of that is "uppity" or "headstrong"
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
with gist: I'm a woman and will be targeted for it. and my job doesn't require me to, and is better avoided
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.
