ONCE BITTEN TWICE SHY
Smarting under the embarrassment of privacy violation charges during the launch of Buzz, Google was careful this time with Plus, its counter to Facebook.
to undo the damage caused by
breaching users’ privacy.
Google seems to have got it right this time, as its much-hyped counter to Facebook, Google+ in limited roll-out version, completes two weeks today, without much negative publicity.
There are two aspects to privacy: one, the fear that the networking sites themselves — be it Google, Facebook or Twitter — would use (maybe algorithmically) subscribers’ personal data to target better advertisements or pass them on to a third-party. Remember the jam Facebook got into, when word spread that photos were being passed on to thirdparty advertisers without the consent of users? It had to put up special notifications educating users about the company’s privacy regulations.
Similarly, when Gmail introduced text advertisements related to email content, there was widespread uproar, and many thought someone was actually reading emails. Google had to do a lot of explaining to convince users that the choice of ads was software-programmed and that there was no human intervention at any point.
The second aspect of privacy is sharing — who can see messages or photos or videos? Are they visible to people whom the user doesn’t want to share them with? On Twitter, there are just two options: all the tweets are visible to either the whole world or if ‘protected’, to just the followers. There is no option to further classify visibility of tweets.
But Facebook does have an option. By default, there’s a level of privacy setting (go to ‘account’, then click on ‘privacy settings’) that can be customized by users. Status messages, photos, videos, notes etc can be made visible selectively to people whom the user wants to share them with:
friends, friends of friends, everyone or selected people. But given the type of user interface, many Facebook users are not aware of this. And, even people who are aware, find cust o m i z at i o n convoluted.
CIRCLE OF PRIVACY This is where Plus has scored. Google made it clear, right at the beginning, that users can decide ‘what to share’ and ‘with whom to share’. In two crucial aspects, Google+ goes a step ahead of Facebook — one, the concept of Circle, and two, the way it’s formed. Facebook has by default just one name for everyone in your contact: ‘Friends’. But not all
p e o p l e
you communicate with are friends. So, Google+ has Circles, instead.
Vic Gundotra, senior vice-president, engineering, Google, explains: “We found that people already use real-life circles to express themselves. So we did the only thing that made sense: we brought Circles to software. Just make a circle, add your people, and share what’s new.”
The home page of Google+ is similar to that of Facebook — a surprise for many who thought it would be vastly different. But the similarity ends there. The most significant difference lies in the way users build their Circles.
In Facebook, you become another person’s friend by sending an ‘Add Friend’ request; and he/she has the choice to accept or reject your request. In Twitter, you click on the ‘Follow’ button to get their tweets. In case, the other person has enabled ‘Tweet privacy’, then your request will have to be approved by him/her.
NO FRIEND REQUESTS
In Google+, this process of building contacts works in the opposite direction, in
which the privacy element is more clearly built-in. There are no ‘friend requests’ to be sent or confirmed; instead, the user finds his or her friends and just pulls them into the circle. The logical assumption here is, you choose only people whom you trust as your friends.
The difference can be better explained using this analogy. In Facebook, you go knocking on other people’s accounts with a request to be allowed in. But in Google+, you look around for people you like, and just pull them in. In other words, in Facebook, you have to win the other person’s trust to become his or her friend and thereby get access to his or her data. But in Google+, you choose people you can trust as your friends and with whom you can share the data. Both Facebook and Google+ have the element of trust strongly built in, but the difference lies in who initiates the process.
The other difference is: in Facebook, when ‘Friend Requests’ are confirmed, both become friends of each other: meaning, both can see each other’s updates. But in Google+, you can, for example, drag Mark Zuckerberg into your Circle (which means you trust him, and he can see your updates), but that doesn’t mean you are automatically in Zuckerberg’s circle; he has to drag you into his Circle. This is a feature similar to the one in Twitter — you may, for example, follow Obama’s tweets, but that doesn’t automatically mean Obama can see your tweets; unless he follows you.
Reading updates of your contacts in Google+ is also simpler. In Twitter, you can create lists (of friends, colleagues, strangers etc) to follow only their tweets. Facebook too allows this: Go to ‘Most Recent’, and click on the group, to read the updates of people you have added to that group. But in Google+, the Circles are right there on the left pane of the home page.
Right now, Google+ is very quiet, with only a few on board. The real test will be when more people join it. The other challenge will be to take care of privacy concerns when Google puts in place apps or extensions that will link other networking sites to Google+. Early days still, Google+ now is only a work in progress.
WHO HAS WHAT
In Google+, user decides whom to add as friend; in FB 'friend requests' have to be sent and got confirmed
Mobile photos can be backed up automatically online in Google+ but they are not visible to anyone unless shared; in FB and Twitter, they have to be uploaded separately
Users can share status messages within Google+ and with people not on Google+ via email. In FB, only links posted by others can be shared within FB; with people outside FB, only album links can be shared. If you have Facebook Email, you can send and receive emails from people not on FB. Tweets are visible to everyone, unless protected; and all tweets can be retweeted.
Comments can be divided into paragraphs and edited on Google+, but not possible in FB; also tweets have word limitation and can't be edited
I have been keeping myself away from Facebook mainly because of privacy issues. Google+ is not an application, but a major tweak to the innards of Google. It forms the structure of the social world in which Google applications run. - Dr Able Lawrence, CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGIST
Google+ fell short of my expectations a little. Convenience wise, yes one less site to sign in with Google+. With my friends scattered across other sites, I am waiting or an app/Chrome widget that combines them all. Aditi Gaitonde, PG MEDIA STUDIES STUDENT
I have been getting invites for Google+, but haven't gone on to join it since Facebook is where all my friends are. Facebook has really good privacy protection features, you have to just look for and enable them. Santhosh K R, SOFTWARE ENGINEER.
