Re: Maybe this says more about journalists?

Maybe this says more about journalists? (Score: 2, Interesting)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-05-05 09:08 (#1CH)

Who's to say? I concur that G+ isn't all that it was cracked up to be, and some of their decisions - like making any potential Youtube commenter a G+ member and then lauding the 'huge growth in users' - have been circumspect. As the Forbes article points out, the G+ thing was run by an ex-Microsofter who probably came pre-installed with that kind of crappy business tactic in his genetic code.

That said, all the pissing on current platforms might just reflect falling page-views in major media and the need to post/publish inflammatory articles that drive page views.

Anyway, given there doesn't seem to be - in my opinion - any alternative platforms out there, I don't see anyplace for people to 'go to.' Unless we've just grown tired of talking with strangers over the Internet. Not impossible.

Re: Maybe this says more about journalists? (Score: 1, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-05-05 14:16 (#1CX)

I'm sure it's just the inevitable saturation and loss of novelty, but I'd also like to think that a big part of it is that Facebook and Google+ both demand real user names, and people have slowly realized that they don't quite LIKE doing all their private communication in public, under their own name.

It's really distressing just how LITTLE complaining one sees about the "real name" policies, which strip the Internet of many of its key values, including "talking with strangers".