Dear Google: People Like You Because You're Not A Walled Garden; Please Don't Put Up Garden Walls
from the thanks dept
Wil Wheaton is getting some attention for highlighting what appears to be a pretty ridiculous trial balloon on the user interface design of YouTube: requiring users to be signed in to a Google+ account to up or down vote a YouTube video.
Now, it appears that this is just a test, but just the fact that Google is thinking about it seems like a bad idea. Wheaton makes the point pretty clearly: even though he's a regular Google Plus user, he knows that this will decrease overall engagement:
Oh, go fuck yourself, Google. This is just as bad as companies forcing me to “like” something on Facebook before I can view whatever it is they want me to “like.”At this point, it's well known that Google is betting heavily on Google+, but it may be overplaying its hand. A key reason why people like Google is that it didn't seem heavy-handed on such things in the past, and focused on having as open and permissive a solution as it could. Yet, in this case, it appears to be doing the opposite just to drive more (unwanted) usage toward Google Plus. Of course, the reality is that people who don't want to sign up for it won't sign up for it... and that will just lead to less engagement. And that's probably exactly the opposite of what Google really wants.
Just let me thumbs up something, without forcing me to “upgrade” to G+, you dickheads.
The worst part of this? For a producer like me, I’m going to lose a crapton of potential upvotes for Tabletop, because the core of my audience is tech-savvy and may not want to “upgrade” to yet another fucking social network they don’t want or need.
If you feel the need to force your users into using your own social network, perhaps you're doing it wrong.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: google+, walled garden, wil wheaton
Companies: google, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Reddit does this too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reddit does this too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reddit does this too
I make sure I am not logged into the regular nor plus google as I only do searches on google
I got firefox up and log into youtube.
I close the browser
Later that day I happen to go on google to search.
I am now logged in even though I had hours before made sure I was not logged in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reddit does this too
http://www.dogpile.com/
or, for the more security-minded:
https://startpage.com/
A lot of people are probably only using Google search out of habit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reddit does this too
Actually, all of us should be careful. If you close a browser and use the "restore previous session" feature and the last user had authenticated pages running (say, logged to twitter) then their account will be there and logged. It's a pretty bad security flaw if you ask me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reddit does this too
This is nothing exciting or new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reddit does this too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reddit does this too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reddit does this too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reddit does this too
Wait until you have to log in to post here.
As far as up/down-voting anything is concerned - I never have and I never will and I couldn't give a shit.
Let the sites change to suppress AC posts and add dimwitted 'likes' (as the re-sold and newly dumbed-down Slashdot did). Who cares - its all just fads anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reddit does this too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reddit does this too
We should just make it where you have to be logged into Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Reddit, Digg, Discus, Blip, and Viddler in order to be able to make a comment anywhere on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reddit does this too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wut...
seriously. so you cant vote on something on googles website without being logged into googles website?
and whiney wil wheaton is bitchign about it?
3 words: Shut up, Wesley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wut...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wut...
so you make no sense.
oh they slightly altered the requirement to be "logged in"? quit your insane bitching. that is well within googles right and not an onus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wut...
As someone who's trying to get noticed on Youtube, this does not make me happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: wut...
really, this is completely irrelevant and not worth anyones time bitching about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: wut...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wut...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wut...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wut...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wut...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wut...
Oh, you appear to forgotten that everyone else has to have a Reddit account in order to see memes on the internet. Might want to fix that.
To do that, you have to log into your 4chan gold account, and then link your 4chan account to your reddit account, which has to be verified on facebook, and then log onto your internet meme database account and uncheck 'Make my memes exclusive to gold account members'. Otherwise everyone else just gets that message to log in.
If only someone spoke out about this problem of interlacing, pointless internet services before the walled garden apocalypse. Feels Log into your Reddit account to make the most of your memes! man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wut...
youtube
account
that would let me vote on youtube without having to create an account on an obviously dying social networking service.
too bad those things don't exist, now if you excuse me, I have to tell all of the internet that they are wrong and stupid for not wanting to sign up for my tiny, insignificant website in order to post comments on disqus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The next step in google's decline
This push to turn Google into a social network has made Google actively unappealing to me. The last straw for me was the privacy policy change to allow them to share my data between their various services whether I like it or not. I am now almost completely Google-free. I use an Android phone, which means I share some data with them that way, but even that can be minimized pretty well.
This next step, of requiring you to join their social network in order to do the most mundane things, was completely expected. I think it represents the completion of the transformation of Google into Facebook.
If I wanted to use Facebook, I'd have a Facebook account. Even if Google successfully becomes a social media company, it still represents the end of Google, or at least the end of the parts of Google that were genuinely good and useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iDev
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: iDev
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not an Apple fanboy here.
And I own a dumb phone that only does phone calls and nothing else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
iMp3 is WAAY too many syllables, and Apple probably would have a hard time trademarking it, so its iPod
iTunes just is a sacrifice they were forced to make because its hard to come up with a 3 letter word that has one syllable and is still quasi relevant to the idea
iPhone, same as itunes. iCell just wasn't LCD enough.
iMac - again because Macintosh is too many syllables and the word "macintosh" doesn't sound hip, and is a LOT harder to remember than 3 letter words following a lowercase 'i', also, iCpu wouldn't work.
iTV - not out yet but thats the obvious as fuck name because it required no thought whatsoever to meet the LCD requirement and is STILL trademark-able!!!! Bonus points!
iCloud again the LCD, unoriginal naming
iPad - wow genius... its, its like this shape, like a PAD of paper... like a... notePAD!
My brain is fried from trying so hard to reverse engineer the thought processes Apple's obvious geniuses went through to overcome all obstacles and the sheer unimaginable odds that stood in their courageous paths to name their products so "elegantly". I'm really excited to see what general descriptive words can have an 'i' slapped in front of it and sold to me in the future!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the dislike button?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a non story and just seems like an excuse to moan about a large company (and a flimsy one at that).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is only a test...
1) They are testing how users respond to this change. Not in a "man I'm angry" sense, but in a "does it generate more clicks" sense. If it doesn't, or it generates sufficiently fewer, it'll fail. But they'll have the data to prove it, not the hunch of a product manager
2) This was an early roll-out feature that involves eventually merging G+ and YouTube accounts, which thanks to Google's updated TOS they can now do. Once complete, you wouldn't have to log into YouTube and Google services (gmail, for example) separately. They'd be the same account. The +1 makes sense over the like/dislike feature (which isn't really relevant to any other current services).
Or you know, you can wave your arms and cry that the sky is falling because you don't bother to understand. Whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is only a test...
Wrong, they are testing to see how loudly users yell before they force this change on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is only a test...
With only +1s, if I look at some creationist or end-of-the-world-in-2012 nonsense I would not be able to indicate my disfavour, or see how many others had disliked it compared to the fewer 'likes' :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is only a test...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is only a test...
Just because Facebook doesn't encourage people to downrate people's posts... Doen't mean a thumbs up/down button system is irrelevant. Personally I hate only being able to like things because Id like to tell face book I dislike things.. So that things I don't like wont be shoved in my face anymore.
I would imagine that's probably where a large portion of the disdain for this idea comes from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
adblock goes some ways but not nearly far enough.
Whoever builds it or points me to it will get a like ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.fanboy.co.nz/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But it does!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
AdBlock + NoScript = winning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me a troglodyte, don't much care. But Google, Facebook, Reddit, the rest of them can kiss it as far as I am concerned cause I won't be one of them there.
I come here frequently to read and once in a while to comment. I do that because I don't have to sign up to make that comment.
Those that don't mind doing all this sign up, I am sure won't have any troubles with all the crap that is being tried to be pushed on to the internet to spy in your email, your social apps, and what you do on line. Can't say as I see much difference in the government doing it or one of the apps datamining for them and then turning it over.
One of these days with the way things are going, we will be where China is today. The Great Firewall of China started out being a way to control pirates. Surely if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear eh? Will you feel that same way if we wind up with the near same type of government concern over your well being like China displays? The net isn't like you wrote it down on a notepad in your apartment. What ever it is will be around a lot longer on the net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And crapple HAS to outsource jobs to obtain competitive slave labor in China too. Cry me a river over the poor oppressed corporations in America.
Come on... Cry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: False!
That's like claiming people like TV because they haven't realized it's ad funded...
As soon as a person hits the age of reason (around 28yo, give or take a few years) the obviousness of "if you are not paying for the service you are not the customer" becomes glaringly apparent.
In short, people know. They're just generally too lazy to care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook v Google koolaid
Who's Will whatsit anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Facebook v Google koolaid
now hes a celebrity blogger. and mike masnick follows his blog and reposts it more often than he should cause every time he does, its just crybaby whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facebook v Google koolaid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Facebook v Google koolaid
Great, you really should stop listening to that lobbyist who used to be a washed up senator...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for Mr Wheaton, I'd say he should do what he told Google should do. Promptly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, I already have a youtube acc, why my functionalities are limited because I opted out of G+ (despite all their efforts to sneakly try to make me sign up for that)?
Your service will get users if it's good and if people feel it's convenient. Forcing G+ down people's throat has higher chances of backfiring than anything - if the power of the google brand is not enough to drive legions of users to it, forcibly tying services into it won't be the answer.
If people didn't left facebook for it by now, I doubt they will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have several Google accounts and refuse to enable G+ on any of them. What I really want to know is not whether Youtube accounts are being rolled over to general Google accounts (because that ship will sail, like it or not); the bigger question is, are we going to get Buzz 2.0, with Google happily posting my "likes" to a G+ page I never consented to have created for me?
So much for refusing to get a Facebook account to preserve a few remaining shreds of privacy....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google apparently doesn't realize how many of the accounts on Gmail/YouTube/etc. are pseudonyms and, by their OWN RULES, not qualified for a Google+ account. But they still try damn hard to force you to sign up for one... I'm not very impressed by how they're dealing with it. At least the hideous Google Buzz you could opt out and it left you alone afterward. Google+ keeps trying to get me to sign up for it constantly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now I'm an adult and have become a teacher, sure I'm still a young one but I have a image of respect to keep in front of from my students, and that's why I don't keep a social network profile - I'm all for being close to students, but I still want to keep my privacy and the image that comes with it.
I don't want to be forced to sign up to Google+ and have my students to search for my name and see that I have +1'd "Super Pony Time" or other random youtube poop which will lead me to abandon the thumbs up/+1 system entirely - and I don't doubt a lot of people will do the same.
IMHO, I really don't like this whole deal of slowly removing the separation between public and private that social networks are doing, and Google Plus is the worse offender.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How else can you explain recent trends such as google url's like numbnuts.blogspot.com getting redirected to the same url with the country's tld replacing the .com part?
Localization my ass. Like all big corps, Google is out for profit, no matter what shit they have to eat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh well, the web used to be fun until Big Business©®™ ruined it. I guess it's time to move to the darknets for the next few years, and wait for them to find out about those as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Next, I'm sure you'll say I don't need to vote on youtube videos anymore, and that is indeed what's going to happen. Personal safety vs. supporting my friends - sadly, no contest there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How is this bad? I don't think it is at all.
What people seem to be getting confused about is Google re-branding and integrate the social features that already exist in their products into one service that exists across all products and the new account is called Google+.
Example:
Youtube has likes/dislikes, comments, subscribing, and messaging.
Reader has subscribing and recommending.
Picasa has friending, subscribing, and messaging.
Docs has sharing and collaborative editing.
Latitude has check ins and friending.
Google Profiles had a bit of everything.
The new G+ account replaces the old Google account even if you don't make a profile, and you don't have to, so that all it is is a name change.
To sum up:
Youtube accounts are becoming full Google accounts that are now called G+ accounts.
Really tiny mostly insignificant change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't really see what they are doing as damaging, as much as it is "different" as in that all things change and at some point people adapt or die. If google moves on and becomes the next of what the company is, maybe someone else will key in on the things that made google in the first place and bring that to the fore as a new business. Some of the things google has done I've seen in different lights (I used to think their blogging platform wouldn't be able to compete because there were new and cooler bloggin platforms or even networking platforms out like wp,lj,tumblr, etc...but still that blogspot thing exists and in some cases people are actually going back to the gblog platform...shocking i know) but I'm not overly critical of the company.
I actually understand WW's concerns.
I'm an avid googler. I've been a google user for 14 yrs (most of my entire life) and I've used many of their products/services. I understand all the implications of being a google user especially with their adwords based model. I've kept up with and ditched products and ideas of theirs I like or don't like or think would be impossible to create (which they then make happen), or things they do sometimes it seems like in an instant or a long forcast hail mary type pass which then doesn't pan out for them. As a company and as they get bigger/older, I don't really expect much from google, but I do atleast expect them to have and keep to their core tenets, but I don't expect them to forever be unchanging. Like I said before some things they do I like, some I don't, some I think is unnecessary, some things I don't expect to succeed actually surpass expectations. As a google user, most of the time I'm really happy with the company. I don't mind their evolving, but I wish that they would listen to their users and allow all options for everyone instead of the best options for the company as it moves forward (which is countrer intuitive). I use google in a particular way and I'm one of many users but I understand that everyone uses google differently as well, but maybe in a particular repetitive habitual way since google has become so streamlined into our lives. I almost can't remember a time when the company didn't exists and when there were other search companies available. Now and like back then, even though there are different options, most people still use google through the good and the bad. I'm not a youtuber. I don't use google commercially. Google isn't really vital for me, but I do use it all the time and it's just a part of my everyday life. I don't want to only have one google account with all their products available/streamlined or curated to me. I understand why they're moving this way, to make our lives online more efficient, but I also don't have to like the changes they're making. I wish there were more ways that google could be more individualized to a person, but I also understand the pitfalls of that.
They're trying to compact everyone into one big online-socialized id. They already know as much about a person/individual, but they would like to know more and how to maximize that information. They would like to improve our use of their company and products. I don't begrudge them. I actually don't think google is at all a bad company, but I think that as it grows and progresses and maybe as it's users also grow that their views google's views of the future might not be aligned and I think that would provide plenty of room for mistakes to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This change implies that a feature that used to be associated specifically with Youtube is now associated with another service that I actively do not want. I don't know how deeply connected that feature is to Google+, or how that connection might change in the future. Does clicking a G+ button on Youtube activate Google+? Does it force a user to say they don't want to activate the service? Does it silently add information to my account somewhere that may be accessed in the future by other Google products? (That last one - almost certainly)
I don't believe this is merely a cosmetic change associated with rebranding. I also don't believe I have to be on board with Google integrating all of its products into a single, deeply-entangled bundle if I'm not merely disinterested in some of those products but actively want to avoid them for safety reasons. YMMV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The key word being "appears". Make no mistake, Google WILL make this change, the only question is when. Just like they forced everyone to change their YouTube account email addresses to gmail ones.
Google has gotten to the point where they really don't care what the users want anymore. Users are just the annoyance that they have to tolerate in order to keep making money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then aaain I don't mind change. I used to run a forum, and before had to deal with cries of "what did you do to my facebook?" I heard the cries of "what did you do to my message board?" And ignored them, because it was usually the same interface with a different theme. In two weeks most people didn't even notice.
You may still notice the change in email. But how different is it, really? Most buttons/displays are in the same place, they just changed the packaging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's just an extension of existing stupidity
So I do neither now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In any case, techdirt has a nice way of doing things, you can rate comments and post without ever logging and it works fine. Youtube can add some captcha to avoid abuse but why the heck can't they allow anonymous comments/rates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see anything wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]