Youtube has an “active sharing” fn, which is all or nothing. I wish that was selective, too, but right now it’s a checkbox for all or nothing. Simliar concept.

Oh, yeah, forgot, youtube is part of Google.

hi, if you have time, go to my blog take a look, thx!!!!! ^o^

The blog have many informations, hope to able to help you!!!^^

Ultimate Diligence Blog (=^ v ^=)

http://ultimatediligenceblog.blogspot.com/

There are three kinds of people who use the internet. The first kind are the ones who don’t really understand what’s going on, the ones who use facebook, google, myspace, they don’t know what “web 2.0″ means, all they know is that for the most part it’s cool.

The second kind of person are the entrepreneurs of the internet who are trying to find out what the people in the first group will think is cool. They add new features and try to “revolutionize” things constantly, whether they do so in an intuitive way or not. They roll out new features and whether the users in group 1 understand how it all works or not BE DAMNED!

Then there’s a third group. They are usually tech savy, and have very specific things they use the internet for. They understand things from a backroom perspective. I’m in that group. Those of us in that group suspect that the “web 2.0″ push is motivated by entrepreneurs who want more and more access to their customers, hence the sharing features and targeted ads that keep popping up all the time. We are the ones who desire an “opt out” from all these “features” because we suspect that it’s not about giving us what we want, but rather companies trying to wiggle their way into our lives so they can learn what we like to buy or who we want to vote for… Or whatever information is “bankable”.

I don’t “share” with anyone. I don’t like it when companies want me to “share” with anyone. I don’t like companies that create profiles for me that I have to go and clear of personal information after the fact. I want a solid opt out. Web 2.0 DOES NOT mean that I have to adopt each and every new, stupid feature that some company rolls out.

But thats almost beside the point. Having Google Reader reach out and touch random contacts from GMail without offering an opt out is just wrong. Why should my ex-girlfriend who I haven’t spoken to in months suddenly be popping up on my sidebar and me in hers? Maybe this isn’t as bad as Beacon, sure, but it demonstrates a similar dimwittedness on the part of these devs towards the unintended consequences of forcing new features onto users of a social network.

actually sounds like the features I want are already there. maybe this article isn’t pointless…

Another story is that is showed one man’s political leanings to his family, who then devolved into an email shouting match which ruined their xmas.”

Sorry #23… but in both cases those users were, pardon my french, fucking idiots… Google has never once pretended that the “Share” option google was anything but “public”, regardless of how the URL was obfuscated…

Honestly Erick, you’re better than this kind of reporting… this is a non-issue and people who consider this a “privacy issue” really don’t belong on the web… this is nothing…

In fact, I didn’t show up in my girlfriend’s account UNTIL I clicked thru the interstitial. I was notified BEFORE the feature was turned on for me. People who didn’t see the interstitial yet DIDN’T surface in their buddies’ Reader list. (Possibly still don’t, can someone confirm this?)

Like others, I’d prefer that Google would provide more powerful controls for sharing. It looks like they did notify all users however.

Adequate notice would have been something like: “Google is thinking about doing so and so. In 15 days, we’ll be switching to this model. Please email or call if this will inconvenience you. Otherwise, follow these directions.”

Then 15 days later, the change would happen. #14 points out that there was a splash screen after the change. Sorry, but that’s too late. By then, the damage has already been done.

I know Google isn’t the court system, or the government, but the best way for them to have done this was to tell everyone first about the proposed changes, give people adequate time to comment, then go ahead and do whatever they were going to do anyway. Hey, it worked for the FCC.

Telling everyone what happened after the fact is a cop out.

People were not warned this would happened when all of a sudden the privacy of the shared items link vastly changed.

I know of one gentleman who had hundreds of pages of industry research on there for a select group of invited colleagues, and when google flipped the switch, it shared all of this work with his competitors.

Another story is that is showed one man’s political leanings to his family, who then devolved into an email shouting match which ruined their xmas.

You should never, ever, lessen the security of a batch of data that your users have entrusted to you without notifying them first will ample time to opt out in some way, even if it is deleting the data.

–Michael

I understand that Google wants to catch up on the social space, but they should implement features in the right order: first the social network, then the sharing

Duh. Yes, “sharing” isn’t private. I agree that people who want true privacy should use the email function or private tags (both of which are readily available). Just pointing out that people who were using the “share” button for less public sharing are still able to do so. They just have to know how to use the application.

Google Reader has so many options for sorting, searching, organizing and sharing feeds…it’s possible to tweak these options to get the balance you want. The people bitching need to either adapt using these superior controls or migrate to a service that offers fewer options. Those are the choices.

So when you want real privacy, you shouldn’t use “share”. But nevertheless I wouldn’t expect privacy when I click on a “share”-button and get a public url.