Andy Carven caught up with Google Executive Chairman Eric Scmhidt at the Edinburgh International TV Festival and asked him about real names and Google+.
His answer was mind-blowing:
G+ was build primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they're going to build future products that leverage that information . . . G+ is completely optional. No one is forcing you to use it. It's obvious for people at risk if they use their real names, they shouldn't use G+ . . . The internet would be better if we knew you were a real person rather than a dog or a fake person. Some people are just evil and we should be able to ID them and rank them downward.
So it seems like my crazy
cooking a live frog theory was right. The underlying purpose of Google+ is basically a Trojan Horse gambit to gather more information about us and to tie it all together with a wallet name. I came up with this truth-based graphic that is probably the start of a series.
24 comments:
*ranks eric schmidt downward*
oohh... good one, Botgirl!
I'm the kind of person that gives respect to people who have earned it. At the moment, Eric isn't doing so well in that department. He gets a point for his honesty about this... or was it a slip up that he didn't mean to reveal? Time will tell. BTW, I do believe in redemption and forgiveness, but you have to repent of your transgressions against humanity and put right what has been made wrong.
Somewhere, there are two kids in a garage building a company whose motto will be "Don't be Google".
(This snark posted using Blogger, now owned by Google, as an identity service.)
Larry Page is the guy who has the power to change this policy at this point. Schmidt is not at the decision level now, fortunately. I say fortunately because this guys quotes over the years are seriously scary.
He is in my opinion one of those people with NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. They have no guilt or shame and can not be persuaded to vary from their opinions even if shows to be incorrect. IN short: they are NEVER wrong.
This whole thing is kind of depressing because nothing good comes from companies that feel the need to monopolize the entire marketplace.
What can we do as little people? Probably just don't use their products. OR subvert their transparency policy by being a virtual identity ON their products when possible. ....sigh....
And yet they won't allow Google Goggles to do direct photo identifications. "Don't do what I do, do what I say". Does anybody see the irony in that? If anybody still has blind faith in their "don't be evil" mantra, you might want to take off your rose-colored glasses now.
I understand their big corporate goal. I'm sure they think it's a solution to the problem of rampant mischief and theft and whatever, but they should have provision for allowing psudonyms. This is the part I just can't comprehend. Especially, as you and others have pointed out, if you are in the public eye.
I have been stalked on the internet and I was stunned at how easy it was using google. It took only five keywords to get to pages that would easily lead to my identity. The stalker actually called my home!
I perfer to live under the relative safety of my avatar's identify and would be very upset if it was revealed as it was for many bloggers recently.
If this is honestly true, then I have not signed up for the service I thought I was. Was all this disclosed to us in someway? As soon as I find out more about what kind of hand this man has in G+, I may be having some G+ takeout. Only problem is how much I love instant upload.
Can you give me some more info on him?
To: a lifted pixel
When you do your search for info on that guy, I suggest you use Bing. I'm guessing his google stuff has been sanitized......
Even though I use my real name anyway I think I'm going to ditch G+, there just seem to be too many hidden agendas.
I'm out.
Yeah, see, Eric? Dude, you are one of those people on the internet who meets MY definition of "evil".
So, hey, take a long running jump off a short pier. Possibly in reach of Irene, ok?
Why does Eric Schmidt NOT use Google Plus?
Though it is a very disconcerting idea that is attributed to Schmidt, Andy Carvin admits to it being a paraphrase without the opportunity for a follow up. it concerns me, but the fact that it is presented as a statement of fact here bothers me more. I can make my own decisions, thanks.
Google+ the social network that won,t let you network with people who are wearing trainers.
well when you uncover a phishing scam it is your duty to report it to the relevant authorities.
Thanks for all of the comments!
Cisop: I'm pretty sure he's a true believer in the righteousness of their endeavor.
Digwuren: I tweeted your quote (crediting you) and it's been shared many dozens of times, maybe hundreds.
Scarp: I agree. Our community is their commodity.
Joey: It's almost impossible to tell when you're self deluded.
Yordie: It's amazing how some people reverse it and claim that a real name environment delivers MORE saftety. As far as I'm concerned, if pseudonyms are outlawed, only outlaws will have pseudonyms.
a lifted pixel: If their service sucked, their policy wouldn't matter. :)
Mike: Just because I use the word "you" in a post, doesn't mean I'm talking to you personally. ;)
What I don't understand is why Google can't allow pseudonyms linked to a common name.
When I was playing WoW (recovered, thanks, three years clean) I had several different characters, all going by different names. Sure, Blizzard knew all the characters linked back to the same person and they had my CC info! Few others in WoW did though, just those that needed to know.
This isn't rocket science, it's all been done before. If, and I remain to be convinced, there's a need to tie pseudonyms to one common name, that does not mean there is a need to expose that common name to the world at large.
--
Euan
Where's the "-1" button when you need it?
If you read the post, you'll see those aren't his words. Nice misquotation.
Euan: It's obvious that there's still a lot more to this than we know. Google keeps massaging the spin on what's behind their strategy. There was no discussion of an identity platform two months ago when they launched, except in the vaguest terms. They did not disclose that a wallet name was going to be required for a half dozen of their services, nor that existing google services such as feedburner and Google reader were going to be negatively impacted for those who wouldn't or couldn't' meet their identity standards.
Toucansam: Google has carefully crafted the language they've used to explain the identity policies from the very start to make it appear as innocuous as possible while still giving them a defensible position if the truth comes out. Which is what is happening now. If you're referring to my headline, it was my interpretation of the new information he off-handedly disclosed within the contest of the last two months of official statements and actions. I admit it would have been better to add "inadvertently" before "admits". But I stand behind my interpretation of their strategy.
They are doing the same thing Facebook is doing, gathering information about us. They keep this information forever, whether you delete your account or not. They sell information to the government. The government basically uses these 'social networks' as one big convenient global rolodex.
How the mighty have fallen: I thought lex was a very useful product.
Uh....what's all the hubub, bub? Like he said, no one's forcing anyone to use G+.
And...oh no! The horror!! Google knows my name? Oh crap, better lock the deadbolt, the gestapo is probably coming. You mean they know what cat video's I'm posting? Gasp!!
You mean they know the content I am publishing on a fairly public forum already!! Zoiks. Head for the hills folks. The Google SS is coming for your babies!!!
Get a grip....
Ok honestly i cannot have been the ONLY person to get on the net WAY BACK WHEN in 96 and think "I am going to make a fake name and NEVER use my real name cause yeah that way if i ever fuck up something badly most idiots on the web cannot track me down"
and you know what I NEVER HAVE. and it took me a whole 5 seconds to make up the name i am using now.
Post a Comment