|Google To Make Users Into Unpaid Endorsers|
|Google to Use Your Data in Ads Via 'Shared Endorsements' |
".....For those with a Google Account, a +1 you give or review you write might be used alongside an advertisement for the business you endorsed. "The +1 you gave your favorite local bakery could be included in an ad that the bakery runs through Google," the company said.
The ads have been dubbed shared endorsements, and will only be displayed to people in your social circle, or those with whom you've opted to share information like +1s and reviews. If you don't want Google using your information, you can opt out by navigating to the shared endorsement setting, unchecking the box at the bottom, and clicking "Save."
I beleive any web property that respects its users, if it has a feature that mines, shares or otherwise uses user data in any way would make that feature opt-in, not opt out.
Google, Facebook and other sites with large "free" user bases rely on the majority of people not bothering to read long winded policy change notices, and not wanting to waste the time to hunt don't the settings to opt-out.
...but, at least there is an opt-out setting.
A notice about a new tos/policy popped up at the top of my screen when I did a search.
I followed the links, but came away uncertain if this is just for users with a Google+ setup, or for everyone?
I don't do G+ (or whatever it is) so I wonder if I need to opt-out, or even iof I can opt-out without a G+ account.
|"We want to give you – and your friends and connections – the most useful information," the company wrote in a post announcing the change. "So your friends, family and others may see your Profile name and photo, and content like the reviews you share or the ads you +1'd." |
Google will give people ways to opt-out of the service through a "Shared Endorsements" setting on Google+, and those under the age of 18 are automatically excluded, the company said.
Here's the N.Y. Times story on the privacy / data use policy changes:
|Google to Sell Users’ Endorsements |
"......Still, the biggest Internet companies are pushing in the other direction, toward an expectation that more information is shown publicly. Google’s announcement came in an update to its terms of service that allows the company to include in ads adult users’ profile information and preferences, ratings and posts they have made on Google Plus and other Google services like search and YouTube....."
...time to delete any playlists, comments or other ancillary data left on YouTube.
|brotherhood of LAN|
Apparently people are protesting by replacing their G+ profile photos with Eric Schmidt's photo.
Indeed, there is usually a link to a person's YouTube account on their G+ profile, the correlation between accounts is not known just by Google. For all intents and purposes YouTube is not anonymous anymore.
This is very similar to what Twitter and Facebook are already doing all over the place so why vilify Google for following suit in an obvious social media trend?
Can't have it both ways as Google either needs to become a true social media site with all the trappings or they shouldn't, but lots of people have jumped on the Google+ bandwagon surprisingly so we're in for a wild ride.
|For all intents and purposes YouTube is not anonymous anymore. |
Mostly, I think the people that complain the most are either embarrassed or ashamed of other people seeing what they like. That's what a fake account in the second browser is all about.
Nothing online is truly anonymous, never was, and if you want anonymity you simply create a second fake account using proxy IPs or a TOR proxy that can't easily be traced back to you and then do whatever you like.
Reminds me of my mom whining because my daughter puts all her family pics on facebook and my mom complains she doesn't get to see any pics of the kids yet refuses to sign onto facebook. Her reason is "because I don't want to give them all my information" to which I simply replied "LIE, make a fake facebook account".The look on her face was quite amusing, I should've taken a pic and posted it on facebook :) Of course all mom's friends are on facebook and she's missing out, she'd love it, she's a total social butterfly but for some reason she has a bug about it but I digress.
So I've seen people (over)react to similar social media issues so it's not surprising but wholly unwarranted when there are other simple options to solve the problem at your disposal.
The only real problem with fake accounts is that the social media sites are all trying to force confirmation with your cell phone for security purposes so people will need a "burner" phone purchased at 7/11 where you put paid minutes on the phone just to manage fake accounts.
Mobile, except for burner phones, will kill anonymity as we know it, but I'm thinking due to security issues and identity theft problems that it might be a good thing in the end.
|brotherhood of LAN|
The problem with fake accounts is a lot of consistency is needed. All social networks require an email address to sign up with, and a lot of email networks have social network plugins that are going to get your browser to fetch stuff from their servers.
'hiding' can still be done but it's not as simple as it once was, filling in sign up forms with fake details.
All a bit OT anyway, I see Google just trying to catalyse its social network.
|get your browser to fetch stuff from their servers. |
That's why I use separate browsers - one for my real accounts, one for the phony ones.
I've seen them tie accounts based on cookies and such early on, so you have to use a scrubbed clean separate browser.
Google using unpaid users as product or service endorsers, just like facebook has done, is child's play compared to what's in the development pipe as is being brought to light in this TED Talks video by Alessandro Acquisti [ted.com...] -- just skip ahead to the 8:00-8:50 time slot of the video.
Advertisers are working on creating composite images of ourselves merged with our friends to create a "trustworthy" sales rep. We're going to be selling to ourselves!