Google Reader shared backlash Dec26 '07
Feedback
# (2 of 2): Matthom
5 hours, 32 minutes after the fact. (Wed 26 Dec 2007, 4:02 PM CST)
Good thoughts Kevin.
Other than the misinterpretation, it's just a matter of understanding how to use Reader! I don't think people understand the fact that you can use any tag as your Shared stream, and get the same HTTP and RSS URL's.
To these people I say - learn how to use the app before you bitch about it.
"Shared" is just another tag. However, it's permanent - an application fixture, of which Google can manipulate how they wish.
Like you implied, nowhere does it say that items you "share" (using the official Shared feature) will remain private (private?? Shared means public! duh!). Nor has Google ever stated, "we'll ask you before we create new features involving Shared." No, they made it clear that Shared means Public!
It's simple people - create a new tag for your old "shared" items (you know, the ones you clearly permitted to be made public, and that you now claim you thought were private), and move the items to the new tag. Google even has a wizard to assist with this process! Done!
Your Shared items are now emtpy. Case closed. Your new tag has HTTP and RSS URL's, just like the Shared feature does, but without the obvious, built-in view for your GTalk contacts.
RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave feedback
I can't understand the backlash, especially since the "workaround" is quite simple.
You are at the feedback permalink page for: Google Reader shared backlash
# (1 of 2): Kevin » blog.frivolousmotion.com
31 minutes after the fact. (Wed 26 Dec 2007, 11:01 AM CST)
Absolutely, Matt.
When did "share" ever mean "don't let other people see it"?
People tech-savvy enough to be talking about "implicit privacy" in an obfuscated URL, are the last people who should be crying about privacy on behalf of "users."
I think this whole mini-uproar is absurd and misguided, and seeing all sorts of misconceptions about it (like "everyone I've ever emailed can now see what I'm sharing", which is blatantly untrue) is frustrating.
For every person asking how hard would it be for Google to implement granular privacy controls, I ask "how hard is it to not share - that is, make public - something you don't actually want to share?" Google has made it quite clear what public means, and we can't keep expecting companies to provide safeguards for users who will pay absolutely no attention to what a feature very explicitly states it will do.
Here's a scenario: "You just clicked Share. This means that other people will see this item. This means that what you share is not private. This means that you have no claims to privacy being invaded because by clicking ok, you are explicitly granting Google permission to Share this item. If you want to keep this item private, please click Do Not Share and consider adding a star to the item, which will allow you to save this item in an easily accessible place. Additionally, if you wish to share this with only one or two people, why not try the Email feature?" Clicks ok. "You just clicked ok. Please enter your email address, password, and answer to this security question in order to share this item, and click ok to confirm. Alert! Clicking ok will put this item in a publicly accessible feed and allow your GTalk contacts to view it. By clicking ok you agree not to hold Google responsible for any so-called privacy violations or personal damages that may occur as a result of your explicit consent to share this item." Repeat, repeat, for each item shared, every time...
I imagine a moment in the future when, in the interest of privacy and security, computers become useless, as every action is greeted with countless confirmation dialog boxes that must be dealt with and cannot be disabled.
Oh wait, that's Windows Vista. Hmm.