Google+ for consumers will shut down on April 2nd

This is where I find this 'you must have passion for your job & company' to be problematic. You get this worker cult environments where how dare someone use a competitor typer scenarios. Or managers surrounding themselves with yes men.

A bit of neutrality in job attitude is good. You still take pride in doing a good job but the pride should be in your actions, not the company/product.

At the bottom of the PR discussion, there is a link to a fork that somebody created here: https://github.com/passport-next/passport-google-oauth2 As far as I can tell, the only way to continue using node + google oauth right now is to switch to using that hard-to-find fork. That's what I've done with https://cocalc.com.

Dropping functionality the day before the notice is sent is ... troubling.

As I've noted about several similar such instances previously: this is the company that wants us to trust it to build driverless cars and other such systems? Vastly better process and respect is required.

Eventually they realised this was stupid and stopped enforcing this. It was probably their earliest misstep, but hardly their greatest. The forced integration was far worse.

Everything but events integration with calendar, which would have been a potentially killer feature. 90% of what I use Facebook for is messenger and coordinating group get-togethers. Google Calendar already had options for public/shared events; I find it baffling that Plus didn't try to take advantage of that.

when they decided to shut it down it was because they wanted to channel Readers users to Google+

This would be like if Mark Zuckerberg had shut down Facebook b/c he didn't want to build a yearbook product and started Socialbook to replace it.

I hear Hubzilla might do something like that.

Nobody (except a small minority even among techies/geeks/nerds) really want to go through the hassle of joining yet another platform.

Does not matter if it is free, has better quality, finer controls, is federated or not, moderated or not.

I managed, years ago, to convince a decent number of people to follow me on Google+, but the sad reality that now it's either Facebook (which I never created a profile for) or "don't call us, we'll call you...".

- Lack of a mobile app as nice as the G+ one. Is commonly stated reason why e.g. Diaspora is a no-go and MeWe got traction.

- The niche hobby evolved and the interests central to the forums which spawned it are now considered retrograde or orthodox. OK for some.

To be honest, I have not encountered any of that, but then I have only joined (or created) a very small number of groups and they were all for specific hobbies/interests.

Another (possible) problem is mature content and sex bots. The former is easy to solve, you just block or leave users/groups that post mature stuff if this is not your cup of tea. Bots are a bit more annoying but every group has at least a moderator so they are quickly disposed of.

I remember someone submitted a bunch of DMCA requests, and at the time the refutal process was very slow, I couldn’t prove the ownership of my videos and the channel was suspended. Since then, every time I click the “Sign in” button on YouTube, I get redirected to this page [1].

Recently I found a channel with videos downloaded from my channel, so I assumed they were the ones who submitted the DMCA requests years ago. I went ahead and pulled the same charade, I asked some of my friends to report those videos as “offensive” and a few days later they were removed.

[1] https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/40039?p=youtube

One of the biggest problems with Facebook is that most of the site is inward-facing. That is, unless you are on and registered with Facebook, you cannot view content.

(That's a fault shared with numerous other sites, FWIW.)

Facebook may be able to pull this off, for now. Almost no site not called "Facebook" (or its equivalent category leader) can do so -- you simply need an overwhelming network effect OR an exceptionally compelling founding cohort.

Blogs are to a near totality universally accessible, at least to read, if not comment. That's not quite definitional, but true enough in practice to be a category marker.

See: https://old.reddit.com/r/plexodus/comments/acg9zf/alternativ...

This isn't an absolute showstopper, but it's quite disappointing. One of the weird things about G+ was -- as small and disliked and annoying as it was, some really, really, really good conversations got going there.

That's some lightning I'd like to rebottle elsewhere.

I agree. I was really referring to G+ being even a remote competitor to FB, which it never was. It is definitely a loss to see it go, but not unexpected.

For now, especially if you've not yet decided or explored: Go with something basic, tried, true, known, that works, and is stable. For groups, mailing lists, a blog (an excellent beacon site), wiki, groups tools (Google Groups, Yahoo Groups, Groups.io), or group-oriented discussions such as Reddit, are all excellent choices.

Non-public destinations will hugely reduce your online visibility, and if your group depends on being findable, is probably not a good idea. This is only one of many criticisms which could be leveled against sites such as MeWe -- along with its closed, proprietary, financially questionable, and morally deplorable organisation, as well as a community that can only be classified as sick and dysfunctional.

Bad communities tend to get worse.

Actually, most communities tend to get worse. Really good ones will be watered down as they regress toward the mean. Facebook was once literally Harvard, something it no longer is. Bad ones will tend to drive off both exceptional, and eventually, typical/normal users. Only the die-hard misfits and sociopaths, or those with no other options, remain. This is much as is the case with physical-world communities as well.

And if you want to dedicate yourself to being and remaining Harvard, you're going to have to accept the fact that you're not a node but a pipe -- a channel through which a large number of highly-selected members are recruited on a constant basis, and eventually graduate to other activities or sites (though with a retention of some as elders/teachers, and some ongoing alumni relations). This is effectively the university model, and can prove quite stable over time. There are other similar organisations -- militaries also operate on a constant-recruitment basis, as do some commercial firms. The pre-industrial city survived largely on in-migration, with greater financial opportunities, but also an often staggeringly short life-expectency on immigration. The difference between the university and pre-industrial city model is that the first improves and expands the options and opportunities of its recruits, the latter grins them up and spits them out.

(See for example, Gregory Clark, A Farewell to Alms, or Ed Glaeser's works, on preindustrial urban experiences, demographics, life expectency, opportunity, etc.)

Back to your question: "How should we choose?" is a FAQ:

∙ Discuss or research your contacts', friends' and associates' plans. Where your social group goes will be the most significant determinant, generally.

∙ Pick a site or platform that exists and is viable NOW. If at all possible, that has some years of proven history.

∙ Distinguish between "skin" and "bone" factors. It's the deep and integral features of a site, its bones, that have the biggest impact on its long-term trends. Topical skin elements, such as site layout, mobile app, etc., can be improved (if poor) or hide many deeper issues (if flashy).

∙ Consider the business, business model, trust, reliability, and community. These are all bone factors that can have tremendous impacts on a site or platform. They tend not to change radically, and rarely improve, if not currently good or viable.

∙ Preserve your future options. Decisions now that don't lock you into a single choice are likely best.

∙ Think of your own goals. What do you want or need to get out of your social media / online experience? Do you simply need private chat? Public visibility? Microblogging? Social networking? A full blog? Something more complex? Simple tools like SMS chat, instant messenger apps, email, RSS, and blogs remain surprisingly effective.

∙ Does the option give you control over your own data? Having to move your content, contacts, photos, and other online data is painful, slow, and possibly expensive. Insuring against having to do this again may be valuable.

∙ Privacy, cost, complexity, accessibility, and usefulness all deserve consideration. Think of what you care for and what you don't want. Add other concerns you may have.

As you look at your goals, your circle's plans (or lack), the options, and what you do and don't want from them, you should find your options narrowing to a few possibilities. It's all but certain these won't address all your wants. But they should address basic needs and not present showstoppers.

https://social.antefriguserat.de/index.php/FAQ#Q:_How_should...