?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Resisting becoming monetized

https://plus.google.com/106097216792733939610/posts/XoFfdeHM15R

Paul Vallee offers a theory why Google+ requires "legal"/"real-life" names, or whatever it is that it requires (emphasis mine):
In my opinion, the real point and the real battleground here is that Google's broad, overarching strategy with G+ is to achieve what FB is struggling to do, which is to monetize the social network.

How they plan to do this is now becoming clear. They want to know your identity, and I mean your real life non-internet identity, with name and address and work history and phone number and everything, DURING ALL OF YOUR WEB SEARCHING AND (adwords-enabled) BROWSING. (Let's face it - do any of you really sign into your g+ to view it, and then sign back out of your g+ before googling?)
When I began playing Facebook games a lot, I sequestered Facebook in its own browser (Safari) so that whatever tracking bugs got installed could only follow me around Facebook and not everywhere else on the web. I used Firefox for all my other browsing. In Firefox I have various extensions that let me monitor javascripts and tracking devices.

I'm now sequestering my search activities. Because Google has some search services I like, such as maps, I have Google search in its own browser, where I am not logged in to any of my Google accounts. I'm using an alternative search engine in Firefox -- currently I'm using Scroogle SSL https://ssl.scroogle.org/

I don't think all this fussing is actually private or that a few people doing it really makes any difference to honking huge social networks. It's more along the lines of a hobby.

This entry was originally posted at http://firecat.dreamwidth.org/739250.html, where there are comments.

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
graymalkin13
Aug. 19th, 2011 04:23 am (UTC)
Well, that explains why G+ exists. o_0

You're very clever, doing all that fussing. It matters that you're doing that.
nellorat
Aug. 20th, 2011 12:33 am (UTC)
Yes, what graymalkin says--

I don't know about Google using the searches (I mean I'm literally totally ignorant of what can and can't be done, which probably makes me a victim), but I have to say, this makes the most sense of any reason for the names policy on G+: to make money by selling the info to companies, they don't have to have real names, just what seem to be real names to the companies buying the info. Passing it off as "an aesthetic" probably seems more palatable than saying "because we want to make money off of your private life." I know that is an issue with Facebook: as someone put it well, "We're not the consumers on Facebook; we're the product."
starcat_jewel
Aug. 30th, 2011 01:08 am (UTC)
Actually, I do sign out of both FB and G+ unless I'm actively using them. I'd rather take a few extra seconds to sign in than let their browser-bugs follow me as I link-surf.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

April 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars