Don’t Be… What Was That Again? We Seem to Have Forgotten

Cyndy Aleo-Carreira,

on December 27, 2007,

Google logo image Slashdot featured a little story over the Christmas holiday about my favorite on-again, off-again love affairs: Google. I was going to comment on it yesterday but thought maybe the stress of the holiday season might be getting to me, and since I'd just raked Wikimedia over the coals, I thought I'd bask in my Christmas cheer and give Mountain View the day off. Maybe they too would eat a cookie, have a glass of wine, and emerge refreshed, ready to greet their loyal users with a warm, fuzzy hug.

Well, the gifts are being returned, and apparently, Google has decided that their "Don't Be Evil" mantra just doesn't fit right, because loyal users be darned; they don't really care what you think. On Friday, 14 December, Google announced new "features" in Google Reader, a product that I had nearly forgotten, having moved on to a reader that allowed me to weed through my feeds offline. Now I read the Google Blog religiously, and saw no such post, and usually they rave about any new features they put out there.

Thank you, Felipe Hoffa, for pointing out that it really is a pretty big deal. For starters, Google decided that adding in a pesky little item like an opt-in or opt-out or a selection tool for WHO you wanted to share feeds with was too much trouble. So all your shared feeds are belong to Google, and they think your contacts want to see that data. Again, probably not a problem if your feeds are all work-related, but if you've ever used your Gmail account to email your boss on a sick day, and just HAPPEN to have shared the feed of a blog that showcases celebrity "wardrobe malfunctions" then the boss can check that information out. Hiding your sexuality from mom and dad? Better hope you don't have Queerty in your shared feeds.

Again, the Google faithful assumed that their messiah would free them from this nightmare. Complaints began to register almost immediately, and I'm sure most of the commenters assumed that Google would hear their cries and repent. However, Google has ignored the complaints of the users, and other folks are starting to hear the hue and cry, which included tons of pithy slams, including my personal favorite: "Was Google jealous of all that publicity Facebook got with the Beacon fiasco or something?"

The lack of response has been deafening. Even more laughable is that the Google Blog has an item that was posted right in the middle of these comments (and two days after the Facebook comment) from the "Senior Privacy Counsel" about all the WONDERFUL things Google does to ensure users' privacy, including their riveting YouTube series on how to use the privacy controls in their products. Glaringly absent, of course, is how to keep your dirty little feed secrets private without deleting a raft of contacts.

The end of 2007 might well be known for several Web 2.0 missteps, and if Google doesn't right this wrong, they may be known for the worst.

Edited 27 December 2007 to reflect article move and clarify feed issues.

Manage RSS Feeds With Feedcycle

Toluu Stats Provide Blog Readership Insights

FriendFeed, Meet Your Biggest Fan

Friendfeed Tracks Your Friends Activity On The Web

8 Comments (Subscribe to rss)

HulaHoopDreams - December 27, 2007 at 04:26 am PDT

Your post is incorrect. Wildly so. It seems based on a glaring inaccuracy, namely the assumption that a user’s subscriptions in Google Reader will be shown to their contacts or friends or their boss.

Except they’re not. They’re really, really not. Not at all. No items that the user has read have been shared without their consent. Ever. Ever, ever, ever. There’s a “share” button that exists in a tiny row beneath each item. A user has to click that to share an item they’re reading with their friends.

When looking at your own shared items, Google says they’ll be “publicly accessible” and gives out a URL that anyone can see. Anyone. But nothing exists there unless someone elected to click that share button on some item. The main controversy is about people who clicked “share” and instead used the publicly accessible shared items for private use and don’t like its new discoverability.

A nice thing to do would be to place a correction in your post. So people don’t get scared that suddenly all of their feeds can be seen by everyone. They can’t.
Cyndy Aleo-Carreira - December 27, 2007 at 06:17 am PDT

Full of lies? No. Did I delete too many instances of the word “shared” when editing? Yes.

Saying that this isn’t a privacy nightmare is ridiculous. There is a difference between sharing items with only those using Google Talk and every single person listed as a contact in Google Mail. You make it sound as if it’s a simple fix, which is patently false. For those who thought they were only sharing news items and feeds with spouses (like my husband, for whom I am his ONLY Google Talk “buddy”), suddenly every one of those posts is out there with no warning and no quick fix. There are people who have shared hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of posts, assuming that those would be a one-time or short-term share, and you find it reasonable to have to go in and click “unshare” on every single individual post, hopefully before the boss has said “Hey, let’s take a look at what so-and-so is reading?” In the interest of user goodwill and overall privacy concerns, would it have been so simple to have a cutoff date where all posts shared from X date would be shared? Or even assign contacts levels of sharing? By group? (Co-workers, friends, family… shoot, Flickr manages to do that!)

The common consensus among tech journals is that Google is taking their cues from Facebook, which isn’t necessarily the wisest move when it comes to user confidence. I haven’t used Google Reader in over six MONTHS and still had articles I’d shared with blog co-authors in the past that I had to click through individually to remove. I can’t imagine if I’d still been using it regularly.
Leslie Poston - December 27, 2007 at 11:15 am PDT

This is horrible. I do not WANT to see everyone’s feeds every time I use Gmail, Calendar or Docs. Right now that is what is happening. ANNOYING as all get out. It is like being forced to watch those awful pop up ads all the time. I already deleted Google Reader and erased my own feeds so that I wouldn’t irritate others. Google needs to put up an opt-out of other’s feeds feature in addition to their flimsy and convoluted opt out feature they hastily added to the reader on the user end. Nothing will get me to stop using Calendar, Docs and Gmail faster than this continuing as is. Google: the new Microsuck.
Grendel - December 27, 2007 at 11:46 am PDT

This is the classic problem with Google products. Google products are designed for and by nerdy developers in Silicon Valley. They don’t understand users and won’t understand the problems with what they’ve done until someone complains. I’m a nerdy developer myself, and I do this too. Screw you all, build your own reader!

Seriously, the main problem here is that they had a feature that meant one thing, then they changed what it meant without telling anyone and without giving anyone the ability to get out of it before information got shot out into the tubes… You always have to do an impact analysis and see what your new feature is going to do to your users, but again, seeing as they didn’t understand how users were using the system, it didn’t happen.
Fh on earth - December 28, 2007 at 02:46 am PDT

The new Google strategy behind their Reader debacle…

First I thought this crisis was due to an arrogant intern or middle manager mistake. But it was so Google unlike it amazed me it could happen, or how long the violation has (still!) been unsolved.

But this article unveils…
Cyndy Aleo-Carreira - December 28, 2007 at 05:00 am PDT

Of course Google wants to get into social software. If they can’t buy Facebook, they want to replace Facebook. See also Knols/Wikipedia. The problem is that they seem to have no UI engineer who actually talks to people. See Grendel’s comment above. Look at the number of people jumping on the APML and OpenID bandwagon now and you’ll see that users want to control the data that they are sharing. The Beacon debacle was an example of that. I want to be able to pick and choose with whom I share my data feeds, and dumping it out to any person who’s in my Gmail or GTalk contacts doesn’t allow me to do that. I had someone in there that I STILL can’t recognize, and it’s an actual name, not a nickname!

Especially considering the amount of data that Google collects on its users, not having the ability to pick and choose parameters within which you are willing to share that data with other users definitely puts Google outside the “Don’t be evil” box. Leslie up there is willing to give up all the convenience of using Google services to protect her data. I think she won’t be the only one who feels that way unless Brin & Co. figure out that they need to give more power back to the people.
Fh on earth - January 01, 2008 at 04:38 pm PDT

Google Reader’s poor decision making…

Google Reader’s blunder has been covered by The New York Times, The Guardian, and many other media around the world. The big backslash started when this post was featured on Slashdot’s front page. The……
polishboy - April 25, 2009 at 11:23 pm PDT

Hello I am new here. Greetings From Poland
[url=autocarauctions.hostscorpion.com/cheap-fast-cars.html][img]http://www.clicksmilies.com/auswahl/ernaehrung004.gif[/img][/url]

Leave a comment (We support avatars from Gravatar, MyBlogLog, and FriendFeed)