Anyone who follows anything to do with the news has heard about Google+. You might even be -- like me -- someone who has friends jumping ship and trying to get you to come along. Like me, you might be balking. Not because there is anything wrong with Google+ necessarily, but just because there isn't really that much wrong with Facebook either, and the idea of setting up a whole new social network sounds about as much fun as working in a shoe factory.
But that's not the part that's getting weird. The weird part is that somehow in the scuffle and shuffle that will someday be referred to as The Great Social Media Wars of the '10s, Google has come out of the pack -- in the perception of many users that is -- as the indie-alternative. The antidote for "The Man," otherwise known as Facebook. Honestly, I could care less where people lay their circles, but to listen to the condescending cries of early adapters and their judgement on my data-feeding ways back on the old farm is enough to make me pull my hair out.
So let's just get a few things straight: Google isn't your friend just like Facebook isn't your friend. They haven't made four stabs at the social media market because they want to "hangout" with you. They want the same thing Facebook wants, your information. The +1 on everything, even porn (watch those clicks!) should tip you off to that fact. Honestly, I have no problem with this "lack of privacy" like everyone else seems to be up in arms about. This is America, land of nothing-is-free. We use these services daily, do you really expect not to give something in return? I personally think it's a fair trade, you get to flirt with half the country, and they get to recognize that at least one 28-year-old in Southern California like bikes, bars, babes and Angry Birds.
Secondly, If you are so protective of your personal stats and connections, get off the Internet. "The Man" doesn't need Facebook to see who you are, what you're doing or how you're doing it. You never hear people in an uproar when a criminal is placed at a crime scene because of their cell phone. Then there is your IP address, which is also giving you up, as we saw in the Mp3 file sharing lawsuits. I'm not saying the information will always be -- or even allowed to be -- used, but in a country that seems to be giving corporations carte blanche on their behavior, who knows how it'll be used tomorrow.
And before you say, "Maybe you should be more paranoid" let me tell you that I am pretty paranoid. I don't understand people who buy weed at dispensaries. Sure, it's safe now, but if a rights-abusing right wing government ever took hold in this country -- much like it seems people are hoping for -- the weed-smoking list of a California dispensaries seems as good a place as any to squash dissension. But I also know that to live in this digital world means we give up a piece of our privacy, a regrettable fact of modern living.
If you don't want to be catalogued, don't catalog yourself. When your phone wants to sync with Facebook -- or Google -- assume they are getting something out of it, because they are. Just like when you like, +1, share, say, Tweet. In every instance you are giving up your location, so to speak. We all complain about having our data farmed while simultaneously giving them all the data. If you still want your circles and likes, you can be comforted to know that at least with social media, it appears they really don't care who you are. They just want your stats. But it's your choice to give them or not. Nothing is free and your information is the currency.
So if you really want to get paranoid, switching to Google+ isn't your answer. That's like quitting Camels for Marlboros. Get off social media altogether and buy yourself stamps, paper and envelopes. Anything less and there are possible eyes that are curious what you're up to for one reason or another.
Or just be realistic about what you are trading. I know I'll catch hell for this, but in my opinion, sometimes it's worth it. If 'the man" wants you, your social media practices are not going to be the difference maker.
Erasing David is an interesting English movie on the subject. The amount of files he recovers on himself by applying through public information is staggering.
Follow Steven Nereo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/single_ape
You want "indie" social networking? Set up a LAMP server on an old PC lying around the garage and register your domain name with dyndns or something similar. You don't even have to buy any books, everything you need to know is published online.
Then you can start preachin' to the world about how Google is building landing strips for Bolshevik Martians. (I read all about it in a pamphlet from Cupertino California, it was titled "Do You Know What Google Is Doing To Our Soil?")
And also to not use the internet.
The reason so many are jumping on Google + is the same reason they jump on any new technology. Because it is NEW TECHNOLOGY. And the reason most who take the time to figure it out like it isn't because of +1 buttons all over the internet (often right beside the "like" buttons) but because they see it takes some of the better aspects of Facebook and even Twitter, combines them, and then gets rid of their biggest downside - the amount of noise you get each day.
The sad thing is, there are alternatives if you really want to sell your friends on more privacy and a radical indie vibe. Like, remember these people? https://joindiaspora.com/ Yea, I barely do too, but I knew they were out there.
I won't argue that G+ isn't a more functional platform because I've never used it. It might be the most totally awesome thing since Spotify, I don't know. All I'm saying is if privacy and corporate policies are the concern, Google is not the answer. From what I am hearing, people are staying because of the functionality, but switching because of that concern.
I do admit that selling my own friends has been tough and only a few have singed on...and maybe one is on there semi-regularly. But right now most of what I do is follow more "celeb" like people, and take part in chats. Also, the cool thing with the mobile ap is I can see if people near my location are posting. I kind of wish the online version had that as well. I don't have to be friends with them or anything, but can still comment about something they say (or vice versa) if I want.
But when I try selling people on G+ I just say it looks like Facebook, but it takes some of the best things about Facebook and Twitter and combines them and leaves out a lot of the noise/garbage. Or at least gives you more control over what you see/read.
Cooler than Spotify, though? No way.
"Hopefully, by now, all of you know about secure ('https') web sites." Well, there is ALSO a thing known as secure (technically, 'S/MIME') e-mail. If you have any sort of e-mail program on your computer at all (and you do...), then it supports S/MIME, and you ought to be using it now.
If you are sending or receiving information that you really don't have any reason to care about ... just go ahead and do what you're doing.
But ... if it's the sort of information that you wouldn't feel comfortable typing into a non-secure website, don't use non-secure email. Or, to put it another way: "if you wouldn't feel comfortable putting it on a postcard, knowing that someday you might see it printed on a billboard beside the highway, put it in an envelope."
Yeah, you have to learn a few things and to set a few things up, sure. But then, "it just works."
The Internet is designed to be "open," and that's one of its greatest strengths, but there are always going to be things that you want to say that are "perfectly legitimate, altogether legal, but ... nobody else's business but yours." Secure e-mail is just the ticket for that.
"Nothing's Free. Okay, we get that. And that's not an altogether bad thing, because we get to use a lot of cool stuff without paying for it."
But ... you _can_ protect your none-of-your-biz communications from prying eyes (albeit, "not the guv'mint... not for long, anyway..."). You can do that using tools that, whether you knew about them or not, are at your beck and call. Good to know.
That being said, I agree with the author: No one should think that any social network is better than another in terms of privacy. Younger generations might not "care" about privacy, but they're also quite aware of how the Internet works.