Despite some attempts to enter the fray, Google hasn't done well in social networking. Its Orkut service, which looks a little like MySpace, has been around for years but is virtually unknown in the United States, though it is quite popular in Brazil.
Google in July 2008 launched a service called Lively, which was its answer to Second Life -- but Lively is no longer alive. It was shut down at the end of 2008. During its short life span it allowed users to create avatars and enter virtual rooms to interact with other avatars.
Buzz, another Google attempt at social networking, is more or less a knockoff of Twitter. But unlike Twitter, Buzz hasn't gotten much positive buzz. It did, however, get the attention of the Federal Trade Commission, which last week settled its charges against Google, alleging that Google "used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers." Under the settlement, which is subject to a 30-day public comment period, Google will be required to obtain users' consent before sharing their information with third parties and will undergo privacy audits for 20 years.
But Google isn't sitting still. On the same day the FTC announced its settlement on the Buzz case, Google announced a new experimental feature called +1 which is a lot like Facebook's "Like" button."
Google's +1 is experimental but, if you install it, you are given an opportunity to recommend any Web links that come up in search by clicking on the button next to each link in your search results. As Google says on its +1 Web page, the feature allows users to "give something your public stamp of approval, so friends, contacts, and others can find the best stuff when they search."
It can also be used to get recommendations from Google based on your likes and interests. Just as Facebook does with its Like button, Google plans to get websites to put the button on their pages.
Google goes to great lengths to emphasize that anything users share via +1 is public. This is not a feature to use if you want to surreptitiously visit sites. It's designed to allow you to share that information with friends or the public at large.
Of course, even if you sign up for the service, you don't have to click the +1 button if you don't want to share your preferences. To use +1 you have to be signed in to your Google account. Having a Google account isn't required to use its search feature, but it is required to access Gmail, Google calendar and many other personalized services. But even if you have a Google account, you can always log off or use the private or "incognito" option on your browser, which automatically logs you out during the private browsing session.
Although Google didn't talk about how it plans to monetize +1, it's pretty clear to me that there is money to be made by collecting data about what people like and displaying ads based on this information. This is also Facebook's secret sauce. By obtaining information about its users, it can better target messages, which means higher advertising rates and bigger profits. As long as companies like Google and Facebook are transparent and don't violate their own privacy policies, there's nothing surreptitious or evil about this -- it's the way social adverting works.
But while companies want us to share our likes and information about ourselves, that doesn't mean we have to. Nothing requires people to use +1, the Facebook Like button or any other "social" feature that discloses information about us. While some privacy controls require people to opt-out to protect their privacy, these require that you opt-in.
Nevertheless, I worry that some people may not bother to read Google's disclosures or, if they do, may not be fully aware of the public nature of +1 or other social features as they surf the Web.
Whether you're using Facebook, Google, Twitter or any other service, you should take the time to find out what -- if any -- privacy settings are available. Twitter, for example, is designed to share with everyone. Even though there are ways to control access to posts, most people use Twitter because they want to cast a wide net and don't bother to limit access. Google offers some controls and Facebook, despite its reputation for being an information sieve, actually does let you control who can see just about everything you post, but it's up to you to take the time to turn on those settings.
Never assume that the default settings are the ones that best protect your privacy. The people who run social media companies may be looking over your shoulder, but they're not necessarily watching your back.
This column first appeared in the San Jose Mercury News. You can read more of Larry Magid's columns at Larrysworld.com and SafeKids.com.
Disclosure: Larry Magid is co-director of ConnectSafely.org, a non-profit Internet safety organization that receives financial support from Facebook, Google and other companies.
Follow Larry Magid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/larrymagid
The most successful social network is an extension of a natural way of connecting.
It is easy, smooth and fluid like a conversation. It isn't forced.
It becomes so easy to use it is almost second nature.
In time you forget that it is a structure. You begin to believe that you are a part of its creation.
It's a vehicle rather than a destination.
Gene Evangelist
Gene Evangelist
I will not say anything about Twitter except that Charlie Sheen likes it, and my neighbor's son loves it. They're both fourteen. You are known by the company you keep.
I'm anxiously awaited FB's death. Maybe it won't happen, but I'll be happy if it does.
These sites get their money by claiming that once anyone discloses information on the internet it is theirs to exploit and sell. Just like it is my duty to take information about criminal activities of a corporation and bring it to the attention of a court, right? - Oh wait. I can not do that. Because some confidentiality agreement sends ME to jail when I do my civic duty and report a crime. Because corporations may commit any crime in the book just as long as they make averyone involved sign a contract that forbids them to talk about it. - The mafia has similar contracts only You just know about them and realize You get killed if You violate that. Other than that they are the same.
So when they use my data they collect from all over the internet, process it, and sell it to some company that will then call me or send my stacks of junk they do not commit a crime. Even though they nevers got my permission to do that with my personal information. They OWN my data.
But only because the ones who should regulate them in the interest of the people sell the people to the highest bidder. - Some call that treason.
Perhaps in the future we will see areas within social networking sites; ones that are dedicated to particular communities instead of being so generic. Who wants to be a part of a faceless, bland, and rather blah social networking site with no identification with who you really are? Why spend time posting and interacting with a site that has no respect for your identification as a person?
So far, the only thing I find these sites good for is posting updates on items. Oh well...
One more thing... I almost NEVER click on an ad on any of these pages. If I know what I want/need, I know how to find it on my own.
Actually, we do if we want to use the services of these companies. Take GMail for example, in some cases, Google and other web-based companies are requiring that you enter *real information* that is then verified by the company. This is to "for your own good" of course, to "protect you from scammers". But the real scammers are the companies, who then use this information for their benefit. Remember, like this site, they also have cookies tracking your every move on the net; especially if you don't log out of their system as you surf.
Even Craigslist now requires that you verify your real telephone no. before posting an ad.
"As Google says on its +1 Web page, the feature allows users to "give something your public stamp of approval, so friends, contacts, and others can find the best stuff when they search."
Why would something be "best" just because someone you know likes it?? They could lead you to sites you think are the krappiest out there.
what if we lived in a world where people, personally & professionally, were evaluated by the # of fans, follows & friends they have on these sites? Oh, I forgot-we already live in this world!
These are not social media companies. They are Marketing companies. They monetize through advertising (notice the sponsorships all over your Facebook profiles?) and by selling your information to 3rd parties.
Privacy is very important! Anonymity helps people to communicate without fear of reprisal. Giving ruthless companies like these all your information, is equivalent to dumping the contents of your wallet in Times Sq. or writing your social security # on the subway train wall. It's absurd. The younger generation will wake up like Rip Van Winkle in 20 years and realize they have NO privacy, and 3 companies control their lives. This stupid sharing concept is ridiculous (fans, followers & friends), insidious, and only for the interests of business.. Wake up & start to relate to the Real World..Remember that place, the one with real people?
I like to send birthday greetings on FB (its most socially satisfying tool) but frankly, FB and all the other social media are nothing more than another way to feed our consumerism.