justhuman (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
justhuman) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
googleplus2011-07-10 09:09 am
justhuman) wrote in googleplus2011-07-10 09:09 am
Google+ or is it Google- ?
What I'm getting from the discussion is G+'s intent is to create a sitewide community standard, based on an old principle to the internet. When e-mail and bulletin boards were a new thing on the new internet, people said a lot of things -- a lot of things that moderators were sure that they wouldn't say using their own names.
I'm sure that's reaching in some cases, based on what I've heard in RL human spaces, but to an extent there was a point. Many people wouldn't have been as rude if they had known that they're employer might be reading and could link it to them. So it seems to me that G+ aim is pushing that community standard of politeness, except they are trying to extend it sitewide.
This doesn't serve fannish interests and ignores more than a decade of internet reality. The fannish community standard of communication is very different than the general public standard. I mean we put up a post and say we want to talk about graphic sex, toss up a cut tag and politeness has been observed. In that way our community is self-regulating. For good or bad we have plenty of mechanisms for regulating conversations within the community, even if it means subdividing into specialized groups. All the varied internet communities have done the same.
Journal Sites (LJ, Dreamwidth and the clones) wer really a proto-social networking site. I remember the fannish bristling years ago when LJ self-identified as a social networking platform. We as users saw a substantial difference between communication on LJ verses MySpace and Facebook. And while there is a substantial difference in the way we communicate, I don't think anyone doubts that LJ is a form of social networking nowadays.
The big difference? Ease of sharing information. Facebook automates sharing details - it tells anyone I've ever chatted with that yesterday I said I liked NCIS and wanted to read the feed from Buy.Com. It has one button ability to let people that watch me know that I've been chatting about some interest that people didn't know I had.
In contrast in LJ, I can join a comm about corgi breeding and no one on my f-list would know about it unless they chose to cruise my profile and look up my comms. Or, you know, I chose to tell everyone about it. I haven't played with it in a while, but I believe we can also hide our comm list, so on LJ I could indulge my fannish and corgi interests and neither community would have to know about the other.
And when that was not enough separation, it's no big deal on LJ to create multiple pseuds to indulge in divergent interests.
G+ is not just trying to create a community standard. They are trying to create a site-wide community, based on the idea that people are more polite when they are using their real names. How successful executing this concept will be, including verifying people are using their real names, is yet to be seen and you can place your bets.
Based on this, I find it difficult to see a way that fandom could create an independent fiefdom, like we have on LJ and Dreamwidth
I'm sure that's reaching in some cases, based on what I've heard in RL human spaces, but to an extent there was a point. Many people wouldn't have been as rude if they had known that they're employer might be reading and could link it to them. So it seems to me that G+ aim is pushing that community standard of politeness, except they are trying to extend it sitewide.
This doesn't serve fannish interests and ignores more than a decade of internet reality. The fannish community standard of communication is very different than the general public standard. I mean we put up a post and say we want to talk about graphic sex, toss up a cut tag and politeness has been observed. In that way our community is self-regulating. For good or bad we have plenty of mechanisms for regulating conversations within the community, even if it means subdividing into specialized groups. All the varied internet communities have done the same.
Journal Sites (LJ, Dreamwidth and the clones) wer really a proto-social networking site. I remember the fannish bristling years ago when LJ self-identified as a social networking platform. We as users saw a substantial difference between communication on LJ verses MySpace and Facebook. And while there is a substantial difference in the way we communicate, I don't think anyone doubts that LJ is a form of social networking nowadays.
The big difference? Ease of sharing information. Facebook automates sharing details - it tells anyone I've ever chatted with that yesterday I said I liked NCIS and wanted to read the feed from Buy.Com. It has one button ability to let people that watch me know that I've been chatting about some interest that people didn't know I had.
In contrast in LJ, I can join a comm about corgi breeding and no one on my f-list would know about it unless they chose to cruise my profile and look up my comms. Or, you know, I chose to tell everyone about it. I haven't played with it in a while, but I believe we can also hide our comm list, so on LJ I could indulge my fannish and corgi interests and neither community would have to know about the other.
And when that was not enough separation, it's no big deal on LJ to create multiple pseuds to indulge in divergent interests.
G+ is not just trying to create a community standard. They are trying to create a site-wide community, based on the idea that people are more polite when they are using their real names. How successful executing this concept will be, including verifying people are using their real names, is yet to be seen and you can place your bets.
Based on this, I find it difficult to see a way that fandom could create an independent fiefdom, like we have on LJ and Dreamwidth
no subject
This is such a fantasy.
no subject
So if people think that their company/boss might be watching, they will
*drumroll*
limit their speech
The thing I've hated about Facebook is that they insist that there is no difference between the bar and the workplace. I have a large employer that has set their own Facebook and is encouraging all of us to join in.
*headdesk*
I need a place to vent about politics, swap recipes and talk about slash that is not the office
I don't know, it seems to me that a lot of the new web paradigms are effectively limiting speech instead of enabling it.
no subject
I am pondering.
I feel it's very important that as many diverse viewpoints as possible help out with the technical feedback bits. Google has built some amazing tools, and continues to build amazing tools, and I have a dream that my community's collective voice will be heard as the company shapes this next technical milestone along humanity's path of communicative and collaborative interaction.
HOWEVER. The community-shaping that is going on there... it's important, yes, very much so, on a global internet cultural level. But...
If the main big commercial Google gmail-using community ends up with standards that aren't welcoming to people...
Is it a crushing blow to fandom and fannish folks' culture that we not feel welcome in yet another big place on the internet? I don't honestly know.
What I do know... or at least... I think my chain of logic is sound here...
Google is integrating G+ features with Google Apps for Business and Education and whatnot. It's just not ready yet... http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2011/07/08/Google-Plus-Ford-Brands-Delay.aspx
Aaaaand... Google Apps could be deployed in any domain. I mean, Google recommends it for organizing family reunions, companies use 'em and somehow keep their intellectual property rights (ew, contractual fine print).
And any Google Apps installation, administered on a domain separately from Google's public Google Apps, can set its own username guidelines.
Right?
What I don't know is if content policies about no explicit content apply to Google Apps domains.
*ponders further*
Re: I am pondering.
That being said, I'm willing to stick it out a bit longer to see if they make a place for us. I can afford to do that because my fannish identity is separated from my RL identity in terms of Google products.
I just heard from a friend that writes professionally under a pseudonym. It took only 30 minutes between her RL name and name she writes under to be linked. She can't afford to be par of the discussion because participating is exposure.
I never thought I'd say this, but Yahoo did something right. I have one account and multiple profiles.
Re: I am pondering.
Let me try again... Basically, my train of thought went: if Google isn't welcoming in their big open-to-the-internet sandbox, and if Google+ features become available bundled with Google Apps (see http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/nonprofit/index.html), then a fannish entity might simply become an Apps customer (either as a for-profit or as a non-profit enterprise) and then offer fannish accounts within their domain, setting fannish guidelines for the usernames to be used there.
I continue trying to brainstorm whether or not there are specific barriers to that possibility (I don't know if there are any kind of content restrictions within Google Apps for Business, for instance)... the one obvious barrier would be cost/funding, of course.
Re: I am pondering.
I see what you're saying. We'd be eligible for the non-profit discount through AO3, but the $30/user fee would probably be a deal breaker for a lot of fandom when there are similar (yet unwelcoming) services out there.
Re: I am pondering.
Here's Violet Blue's G+ -- https://plus.google.com/u/0/105822688186016123722/posts
She just linked to a blogpost from her G+, and in case her G+ is TOSed, here's the direct link... it is not worksafe, and definitely worth reading: http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2011/07/on-google-plus-no-country-for-nsfw-people.html