Gregory's Server@thomholwerda @cstross It's the same thing that led them to say Google Plus was a ghost town. There's no "engagement algorithm" suggesting randos so if you don't actually go out and look for people you don't find them.
|
5 comments
 @ncrav @thomholwerda @cstross They screwed up a few times, like with the way they accidentally exposed connections in the Buzz transition and their attempt to copy Facebook's daft "real names" policy. But they backed down and acknowledged they were wrong and fixed things as far as they could after the fact. Can you imagine Zuck doing that? But the press never acknowledged any of that in their general Google hate-on. @resuna @thomholwerda @cstross yes it wasn't at all incident free, but as you say their attitude/reaction towards many of their mistakes was way less elitist compared to the likes of Zuckerberg or Musk.  @resuna @ncrav @thomholwerda Ahem: Google also killed off the blogosphere—by trashing Google Reader as a central RSS discovery hub—to give G+ a free ride. Because of course G+ was *MUCH* better for privacy-invasive behavioural advertising than any collection of random blogs. (I'm not bitter or anything …! /s) @cstross @resuna @thomholwerda also true, I didn't use Google Reader much since I replaced it with live bookmarks on Firefox (that was unfortunately killed as well), but yes they tried to move people along from blogspot to their various attempts at social. I mostly used G+ for user content and the circles feature that allowed me to post differently to different groups of people. |
@resuna @thomholwerda @cstross G+ was probably the last time a corporation was somewhat good at building a social network, but the many of the media were basically trying to kill it from day one.