I definitely disagree that he's "clearly" right, and disagree that he's right at all. Tom made the good point that this is Google's social network, and if you want to use it, then you should play by the rules, which are IMO mor than reasonable (why do I want to see people flipping me off).
I don't know why everyone is making it sound like this sets a precedent for more "censoring" when this is already the standard for any currently popular social network.
Wait. Wait. Wait. I'm not wading into the "debate" about whether Google can or should mess with people's profile photos. I could care less. I'm saying:
It is clearly ridiculous for Google to be policing profile photos looking for people flipping other people the bird.
Right? Wrong? Who cares? It's ridiculous. It can't possibly work. By doing it, Google sends a message that they're fundamentally unserious about taking on Facebook. Nobody who's serious could possibly have the time to deal with stuff like this. It's like Facebook banning cartoon profile pictures --- which is the kind of thing you can sort of do when you're the social network for a bunch of colleges, but couldn't even consider doing when you're the default social network for the entire world.
Actually, one of Tom's core arguments was that Google just happens to be policing content better than its competitors.
While I can't claim to know for certain exactly what content Facebook moderates, it most certainly does moderate. Is it purely a coincidence that the entire ecosystem on FB is noticeably 'cleaner' than its predecessor MySpace?
I think Tom is right that MySpace lost out to facebook because it is underpoliced. It became the cesspool of the internet. Policing can take many forms, for instance, Facebook doesn't allow people to add a lot of "bling" to their profiles as MySpace does/did. Reddit and Slashdot crowdsource their policing, by having a rating/karma system that discourages people from posting stuff that is bothersome to others. There are all kinds of things that can be done.
But just letting anyone do anything is not a good approach. The small minority who will get up in arms about such a thing is nothing compared to the masses that will leave when they decide that the anything goes approach has allowed G+ to become a cesspool like MySpace.
In my opinion, Facebook was better not because of it's policing, but because it had a better UI and lacked the hideous looking profile themes of MySpace.
I read most of the guy's article, I think, but I might have missed this last point you're making. I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying it's too technically difficult to do it (via machine learning or whatever) or there would be too many false positives?
If there's one company that doesn't usually use humans to do any kind of spam filtering, it's probably Google. Also, I'm pretty sure they'd work out the kinks eventually.
Both of those, and also: the amount of effort it takes, for no benefit whatsoever. They're doing it because they don't know what they're doing yet. It's not a moral outrage. It's a "tell".
As far as I'm concerned, if a service you like, does something you dislike, you should complain, and you should tell people about it. Especially if the service is used by tens of millions of people and is growing at the rate that Google+ is.
It sounds like you disagree with this though. Why? Why do you think he should have kept his mouth shut?
"this is already the standard for any currently popular social network"
And it will remain so, if people don't complain loudly enough that an alternative is created which behaves differently.
He's not complaining about anything that anyone has a problem with (ok maybe SOME people do want to see people giving them the finger in their stream). He's just whining about G+ like he always does, like a baby.
Your general statements don't apply here. If you want to argue, then tell me why you want to see people flicking you off on G+ and why you think that's something that should be OK for everyone.
I dont "want to see people giving them the finger in their stream" but at the same time I want even less for Google to censor minor stuff like that. If they're going to be that restrictive I have very little reason to believe they won't also censor things I'd care a lot more about.
I already use Google+ far more than Facebook, but they keep stepping in it and making me less and less hopeful about it being long term viable as a replacement.
If you want to argue, then tell me why you want to see people flicking you off on G+ and why you think that's something that should be OK for everyone.
It has nothing to do with wanting to see people flicking someone off, but with not wanting to see Google take the role of moral censor and deciding for us what's "offensive" or not.
I see. So the reason you think he should keep his mouth shut, is because you perceive his issue to be a minority issue. How many people need to have a problem with something before it's ok for them to complain about it?
Just because you disagree with somebodys opinion, doesn't mean they were wrong to express it.
I didn't say any of these things. He can keep his mouth open if he wants and he has every right to express his opinion. It's just a matter of judgement on which opinions to express, and "clearly" he misused his judgement here.
However, the point I'm making is, all things considered, I don't think he had much of an argument for this case, and it's more of just a cheap shot at G+ (he could have instead addressed it to all social networks instead of G+ too..). He kind of has a track record for these things though..
Let me put it this way: if somebody's profile picture bugs me, and it appears in my stream more than a couple times, that's on me. It's quite simple to take somebody out of your circles, and even to block them completely.
I don't know why everyone is making it sound like this sets a precedent for more "censoring" when this is already the standard for any currently popular social network.