Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Google+

<< < (44/48) > >>

JavaJones:
Facebook's is similar Google's now it seems, though used to be worse (seeming):

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
--- End quote ---

Basically my understanding is these services need the license just to provide the functionality they offer. By definition they are "distributing" and "re-using" your content when they show it to others on the service, for example.

- Oshyan

mahesh2k:
In case of google, data is available in search engine results and ads are likely to be presented on that data. They're also forcing webmasters to have real profile on G+ in order to have their website results linked to their profile(referring to author=rel). In case of facebook, data remains inside the network and if set can remain private (friends only). So personal information is tracked for ads and similar interests from both networks but only one network makes it public and lets other find and manipulate it the way they want (which is the point of concern).

Jibz:
Most sites where you upload stuff to have it shown to other people have something along those lines in their legalese, Ryan Estrada made this nice TOS to English picture (yes, that's a link to a G+ post, *twilight zone theme* etc. :P):

mahesh2k:
Most sites where you upload stuff to have it shown to other people have something along those lines in their legalese
--- End quote ---
Point is google is not just another site with such TOS. Google is search engine with bot that can crawl almost any site on web unless asked not to. Google has search dominance because it can crawl plenty of stuff from the web without notifying the original authors. They make money from this by showing ads and redirecting users to sites while tracking their search pattern. Most of other sites are restricted within their own domain name for business. There is no such limitation for google because they have bot to crawl web and use that data to attract users to their search engine.

Basically google is crawling web to make index, show ads based on available data, track user activity on search results, IP and respective behavioral tracking and use it for commercial purpose. The reason scroogle, duckduckgo and other privacy based search engines exist is because google is yet to officially offer such service. SSL version of google still has tracker code that tracks the source in first query.

Explanation given by ryan doesn't address these issues at all. Nowhere google is offering any official view of "do not track" and "privacy filter". Besides if we connect this piece of puzzle with ryan's defense of google, it doesn't make sense at all. That type of writeup works on people who have no clue about SEO, "DNT" and "Privacy Filter".

mouser:
A while ago i wrote:
I think the dirty little secret of google+ and twitter, etc. is that a huge number (the majority?) of accounts are actually created by bots for a variety of reasons.  Of course no site wants to admit this because they love the headlines that make it look like huge numbers of people are joining.  Maybe google is just deleting some of them.
--- End quote ---

Here's a peak at the shady underbelly:
http://gawker.com/5826645/most-of-newt-gingrichs-twitter-followers-are-fake
It discusses how a politician has paid for over 800,000 fake twitter accounts to make it look like he is popular.

When you read how some web service has millions of "people" signing up per day.. There's a good chance that almost all of those accounts are fake accounts creating by bots for various purposes, all bad.  The incentives are completely one sided for this kind of thing -- the companies make money from the fake accounts, and the services get the benefit of looking popular and trendy.  There is no incentive to not inflate the account numbers wildly and look the other way while it happens.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page