Facebook, Why Can’t You Be More Like Google + ? (Part II)

So, I commented on my first TechCrunch article. True, it’s kind of a  nerdy thing to, but since I spend much of time doing blog commenting as a way to publicize other people’s brands, I wanted to try it out for myself. Plus, having majored in Philosophy, when I hear a bad argument, it’s like hearing nails on a blackboard.

I had to comment on the TechCrunch article because the author had made this very not-logical argument and devised an extremely melodramatic conclusion: Digg Data Reveals What We Read But Are Too Scared or Embarrassed to Share.

To sum it up, he claims that people share different things on Facebook than they read on Digg because they are “embarrassed” to share their true selves and interests with their friends.

I disagreed:

Isn’t it possible that people don’t post things to Facebook because they don’t think their friends will care? Technically, it IS a social platform where you communicate with others, not just announce things you like. This article reveals the author’s perception of what Facebook’s purpose is, but I think to draw the conclusion asserted in the headline, you’d need to examine that further?”

Now, far be it for me to say anything bad about this guy, because he’s extremely qualified and writes good articles all the time. (Whereas I blog inconsistently, and nobody wants me to work at TechCrunch.)

However, I noticed later that the author had added this postscript:

[Postscript: Yes, maybe people don’t share niche content because they think it will bore most of their friends. But what really bores me is the softball, middle of the road content I can find anywhere. Expose me to your niche, show me why you love it, and I might just geek out with you.]

Hmm, sharing niche interests and geeking out in small groups over personal things. Wait…when you say “niche” do you mean…. circle?

Ironically, what this whole thing illustrates is that Facebook simply doesn’t inspire the kind of intimacy and niche sharing the author thinks it should. I think his postscript was very sweet and idealistic, but there are some things that just aren’t interesting to other people and don’t need to be shared with 300-1500 people. Maybe the problem isn’t that people are embarrassed about their interests, maybe the problem is that the Facebook really isn’t the right place to share certain things. (Although with the introduction of the timeline, it’s certainly trying to be.)

Sounds like another small win for Google +, to me. Now if only they could get anyone to start using it…

How Google + Stole My Honor and Won My Heart

Anyone who is close friends with me or who reads this blog compulsively and has a great memory knows that when it comes to Google vs. Facebook, I’m 180 % on Team Facebook. In general, when we’re talking about Pure Evil vs. Necessary Evil of Modern Society, I believe Google is Pure Evil.

And yes, I get that they both are tracking everything you do. My argument has always been that Facebook is just more upfront about what they’re tracking. At the end of the day, I  preferred Facebook violating my privacy to Google violating my privacy.

Then, I visited the Googleplex for the first time and my position completely changed. (I know what you’re thinking, but it wasn’t the snacks that changed my mind, although they are pretty awesome.)

It was the panel I went to see. It was a UCLA business school alumni event (my friend took me as her guest.) The panel was on the future of marketing but I didn’t know anything else about it. Apparently, Guy Kawasaki was on the panel. For whatever reason he’s a huge champion of Google +. I was totally nonplussed by most of his assertions until he told a story about a Google engineer who had a baby and took all the pictures of the baby’s first three months on his phone.

Then, his phone got stolen.

The horror in the room was literally palpable. I mean, getting your smartphone stolen is everyone’s worst nightmare to begin with. Add the baby photos and it’s unthinkable.

But…. (yes, there’s a but) Kawasaki revealed that GOOGLE backs up all the pictures that you take on your droid in a private album on Google +. So even though his phone was stolen, his pictures were automatically saved and alive and well on the interwebs.

At first, everyone in the audience seemed happy enough. But it wasn’t the kind of relief you’d expect. Why? Because everyone in the audience (like me) had an iPhone.

I’ve been frustrated personally in the past by the lack of a tool for uploading pictures from an iPhone to Picasa. I assumed this was some kind of “Get a Droid or Get Lost” policy from Google. Furthermore, while my old BlackBerry let me take a picture and immediately upload it to a private album on Facebook, my iPhone requires me to open up the Facebook app and manually select pictures I want to upload. In short, getting pictures off my phone is now a pain in the ass and not something I do often.

I was about to start to feeling sorry for myself and my iPhone when all of the sudden, I realized Kawasaki was saying something very important.

“And, they just updated the Google + app so that all the pictures you take on your iPhone will also automatically be saved.”

!!!!???!??!!?!!?!?

Without a bit of hesitation, I whipped out my phone and started to download the app, right there, during the panel. Then, the screen popped up that asked me if I wanted to enable automatic upload.

I paused. I thought, “Wait a second. You’re going to give Google every single picture you take with your iPhone, automatically? What about privacy?”

I thought about it for a second. First, I thought, “Ok, I’ve never taken an obscene picture in my life and I don’t plan to start. Who cares if Google has my pictures? The internet already knows everything about me, why stop here?”

Then I realized, I don’t really care about privacy at all. I just care about honesty. Tell me about the sort of questionable things you’re doing instead of making me find out through TechCrunch next time a scandal explodes. Do that, plus make the user experience fun and easy, and I will pick you over Facebook any day.

The reality is, social networking is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, we need to reevaluate what it means to have a “right” to privacy. If you want technology that creates the option of sharing everything, you better come to terms with the inherent risk and sacrifice. There’s some interesting ideas about how social networks can protect privacy through financially compensating people who have been violated, but at the end of the day, everybody needs to approach sharing on the Web with an understanding of what it means, and what it could mean.

So, I decided to make that sacrifice. I’m giving all my pictures to Google + because the value it offers to me is greater than the privacy it compromises. To be perfectly fair, I still find Google + completely useless on an individual, social level, but I know that the seal has been broken.

Speaking of breaking seals, this is the first picture I took that was automatically uploaded to my private Google + album. It’s taken inside one of the bathroom stalls at Google – and it’s a resolution for writing better code in 2012. I can’t wait until the Google employees hack my pictures and see this one. Now whose privacy is being violated?

Google Loves that You’re Stoopid

It seems like a lifetime ago when the Atlantic article, “Is Google Making Us Stoopid” first reminded us that the ease of search and the accessibility of pedestrian technology was causing us to lose our memories.

Neo-luddist, nostalgic doomsday articles like that are at a lull for now. Everybody loves the iPhone. And the iPad. All the people who were weeping that they were going to miss print books have pivoted and are celebrating the fact that digital actually may have saved the publishing industry.

Whew.

But now that we’ve all accepted technology as an essential 5th limb, it seems to me that we ought to take a more active role in its development, presentation and practices. If it’s going to be that omnipresent – and more importantly – omnipotent, it needs to be held to a standard of accountability.

For example…

A recent TechCrunch post reported that Google was running sponsored ads for Zagat above mobile search results for Yelp. Google recently bought out Zagat, which was once the definitive (print) guide to dining. Now it’s using professionally-done Zagat reviews to beef up on content for its Yelp competitor, Google Places.

So someone on her mobile phone searches for Yelp and sees a sponsored result for Zagat. If you’re anything like anyone else in the universe, you read this article and your response is something along the lines of,”skeeeetchy….”

But of course, after that initial gut reaction, you ask, “is this kosher?” Then, if you’re me, you scroll down to read the Facebook comments on the article, to see what people who know more than you do (aka people who sit around commenting on TechCrunch articles) think about it.

Well, fact number one is that Google has an AdWord policy saying it’s illegal to infringe on someone else’s trademark by by running ads against it, which if Yelp was trademarked, would definitely make this illegal.

Fact number two is that while the aforementioned people who comment on TechCrunch articles may know more than you do, they are still confused, and they are so busy arguing over minor details, they’ve lost sight of the real problem (in my humble, humble opinion.)

Ironically, the TechCrunch commenters seemed to spend an awful lot of time trying to figure out whether this ad counted as manipulating search results. They couldn’t decide if paid results were part of the algorithm, whether there was a monopoly issue or how Google got the ads there.

In other words, they didn’t know a lot of things you assumed they would.

Why so much confusion? Because a) most people are stoopid and b) many people, even now, can’t tell the difference between the paid ads and the real results.

(I know – it’s shocking. A few years ago I was a writer at the Website findingDulcinea, which was largely founded on the principle that people can’t search for sh*t. The site ending up pivoting and becoming a more education-based resource, but after reading all those comments I sort of want to call up my old boss and say, “I think you were right, nobody knows how to use Google.”)

So, long story short as you all know, (because I only have extremely intelligent readers), Google didn’t manipulate any search results. But as far as I’m concerned, they did something worse. They took advantage of people’s stupidity and the interface people were using – mobile.

We’re getting to a place where our understanding of right and wrong  needs to incorporate a more nuanced assessment of user experience and interface. The reality is, several years ago, there was nothing wrong with buying ad space against a competitor. If I’ve got a lemonade stand and you buy space on a billboard behind me advertising pink lemonade – more power to you.

But in today’s world, companies like Google who created our aesthetic and technological experiences also have the power to use them against us, because these arbitrary designs are the main funnel for the dissemination of knowledge in our world. They control how we digest information, and the way we digest it powerfully impacts our understanding. Google made an obvious mistake this time, but it’s a caveat that we can’t be passive about the way in which we consume things.

Which, come to think of it, is probably how restaurant reviews started in the first place. And it all comes full circle….

Growing Pains

Having worked for tech and internet start-ups for the past four years, one thing I’ve realized is that developments happen much faster than they did before the digital age. If you’re a company, this means that you’ve got to build a strategy that is flexible enough to adapt to changes, and proactive enough so that you’re ahead of the curve.

As a regular everyday person, this also means that you need to prepare yourself to get a text message from your mother that reads “omg” much sooner than you thought could be possible. My aunt, who once asked me to trade BlackBerry cases with her because she thought mine was “hipper” insists that the phrase, “omg” has been around since the 70s, which I can’t confirm or deny because I wasn’t born yet.

One thing I can confirm is that watching people adapt to technology is a fascinating experience, particularly because each channel of communication has its own language. I’ve heard countless stories of people who started IMing with their parents and would laugh because IMs always got signed, “Ok, I’m going to bed now, Good luck tomorrow, Love, Dad.”

There’s something really beautiful about these liminal communication phases; they serve to highlight the very best of each medium. They mark, too, the tremendous steps we’re taking technologically everyday. I particularly loved this moment that occurred when video-chatting with my mother for the first time.

When I was in NY, I downloaded it for her and we sat at the dining room table “practicing.” (“Mom, since I’m sitting right here, I’m going to hang up now. Don’t worry–you’ll still be able to see my face.”) Now that I’m back in SF, we tried the real thing for the first time.

Here’s how it started:

“Mom,” I said. “We’re on video chat…you don’t have to type anymore…you know, because, we’re speaking.”

“I know..but you’re volume was low, oh, well, nevermind I get it now. I just wanted to type it!”

Why exactly this makes my heart swell, I’m not sure. Maybe because as human beings, we want to record historical moments. If the historical moment is the inception of a new mode of communicaton — do we talk about in our new language, or our old one?

There are going to be a lot of hybrids between new and old as the world grows more and more digital. The burden is on us to draw meaning, rather than confusion, from the ambiguity.