Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/Google+/critique"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(saving work)
 
(link to Sai's G+ post)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
The emphasis on "what's hot" and "trending" indicators, for example, serves only to focus everyone's attention on the output a relatively small number of users -- those who are ''already popular''. Our culture already has a surplus of "winner-take-all" mechanisms. Social networking is one of the few tools that serves to ''connect individuals with each other'' -- and Google's attempt to override that peer-to-peer topology with one that is centralized and moderated (presumably by carefully-tweaked algorithms) shows that either they do not understand this or perhaps that they are hostile to it.
 
The emphasis on "what's hot" and "trending" indicators, for example, serves only to focus everyone's attention on the output a relatively small number of users -- those who are ''already popular''. Our culture already has a surplus of "winner-take-all" mechanisms. Social networking is one of the few tools that serves to ''connect individuals with each other'' -- and Google's attempt to override that peer-to-peer topology with one that is centralized and moderated (presumably by carefully-tweaked algorithms) shows that either they do not understand this or perhaps that they are hostile to it.
 
{{editing}}
 
{{editing}}
 +
==Notes==
 +
Originally written in response to [https://plus.google.com/u/0/103112149634414554669/posts/CspRA1K1uaM this].

Revision as of 15:42, 13 October 2012

I've been a G+ user since July 2011, approximately the day it went live -- a family member was on the G+ privacy committee, and sent me an invite.

This is my assessment of what's right about G+ and what's wrong with it, after over a year of heavy usage.

Overview

I've generally felt positively about G+ from a technical perspective, but much less so conceptually. While the initial concept as deployed seemed like quite a solid foundation, since then it has gone in a direction which implies that G+ management view G+ not as a tool but as entertainment -- more precisely, a platform for aggregation and dispersal of a small selection of entertainment.

The emphasis on "what's hot" and "trending" indicators, for example, serves only to focus everyone's attention on the output a relatively small number of users -- those who are already popular. Our culture already has a surplus of "winner-take-all" mechanisms. Social networking is one of the few tools that serves to connect individuals with each other -- and Google's attempt to override that peer-to-peer topology with one that is centralized and moderated (presumably by carefully-tweaked algorithms) shows that either they do not understand this or perhaps that they are hostile to it.

Editing is currently in progress on this article, and the author or editor has saved their work to prevent loss. Please check back later by reloading the page, and do not edit while this message is still showing. Thank you.

Notes

Originally written in response to this.