Ok, it’s early and I’m writing this in response to a detailed TechCrunch blog entry, Walking Around in Circles. Several points are made:
The old “I don’t want my boss or my mom seeing my drunken pictures” thing is the oft-cited rationale for why we need groups. But Twitter and now Facebook have slowly been changing that mentality in the public psyche. Increasingly, everything we do online is becoming public. You can say you hate it all you want, but it’s becoming more accepted each day. And this will only continue.
- This is the company that wants to organize all of the world’s data. In order to do that, don’t they need all of that data to be public? Doesn’t it seem like they should be pushing the fully public Twitter mentality more than private group sharing? It sure does.
The author of that blog entry makes some good points but just because people haven’t had easy access–which Circles provides–to a feature that protects their privacy, doesn’t mean they won’t embrace it when they see it. Also, one of the neat features is that Google+ enables you to email people NOT in your Circles…I spammed 111 people yesterday with a link to Chris Lehmann‘s ISTE Keynote in one Stream or Spark or whatever this is and it was WAY easier than doing so via Gmail. Could this mean vendors/spammers will find it a convenient tool to use?
As to the specific bullets I quote earlier in this blog entry, I like the idea of more finely grained controls to disseminate information and share stuff with others. It’s all about “nuance” that Google+ is trying for rather than the blunt bludgeon that is Facebook and Twitter and other networks.
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner