Google can use your name and photo alongside online ads | Hacker News Reader

Google can use your name and photo alongside online ads

thenextweb.com

98 pointslelf84 comments

I seriously do not understand what the issue is. Why would you +1 something if not to have Google tell your friends and followers you +1'd it? Why would you comment on something if you don't want Google telling your followers you commented on it?

Where is the issue?

And, for what it's worth, Google claims to be "clarifying" this part of the terms of service, not changing it. I haven't verified what that means though.

One might upvote or +1 something just for future reference (like the 'Saved Stories' on HN).

Yeah, that's not what it's for.

Semantics matters, believe it or not. The world is not a hack fest. If you use a chainsaw to cut some vegetables, don't be surprised when you end up cutting the entire cutting board in half.

I plus one something to show my appreciation to the content creator. I'm not doing it because I want to be a part of an advertisement.

Advertisement is a very broad term. There are some specifics here that scope the usage in a way that I can't find issue with:

* The photos will only be used for "shared endorsements", not your typical AdWords advertisement

* These endorsements will only be visible to "the people who you originally shared that activity with though" (quoting the article here)

There is an exception to that second point, but it only applies to Google Play and Google+Local, both of which I would expect people already anticipate are more "public" than something like a generic +1.

IMO, the only reason this is getting a lot of attention is because it's a change that can be easily spun in to something scary, which in turn generates page views.

As soon as I see or hear about poeople's +1's becoming ads is when I stop using +1 on anything.

Right now it's a subtle "thankyou" for the content creator and to say "I think this is meaningful". If I wanted to "shout out", I'd also take the step to post this in my Public circle.

If Google thinks a simple +1 is some wholehearted endorsement of that content, I'll simply stop using +1s. I'm sure I'm not the only one here.

In what instance would there be an ad created for a content creator that would confuse these purposes?

when your picture is used to advertise nsfw content

I don't care about Google telling friends that I +1d something. I care about Google telling the public. The things I like are my data and I want to choose what I publicly declare I like. That set may be different than what I tell my friends I like (or even certain friends may get different knowledge than others.) Apply how things work in the real world here.

As I understand it, these "shared endorsements" _are_ only shown to friends, they're privacy/visibility isn't changing in any way.

It also looks like they're not ads in themselves, but paired with a paid add much like they're already shown on the original item in the first place.

Disclaimer: Googler here

I might be willing to anonymously support a product. But that's a far cry from having my name and picture being used to promote it.

These ads will only be shown to people that were ALREADY ABLE TO SEE your +1.

I don't mind telling the public what I think of products anonymously. But I'm not comfortable broadcasting all the products I use under a single profile with my name attached.

Ever since google removed the ability to comment and rate anonymously, I've stopped doing either completely.

I don't understand why companies won't realize how creepy this is.

How is it creepy? You see an ad and also see that one of your friends voluntarily liked it. Won't this be a bit helpful if you're going to see an ad anyway?

I'm personally more creeped out by all the people defending it. I hope they work at Google at least, it would make some sense.

Corporate hell wouldn't be slowly inching along if there weren't people that didn't think parts of it were that bad.

They are defending it, because they read TFA and understood, that basically nothing changed.

If you wrote a review or +1ed something, you published it (whether for all, or for some circle). Now this review will show for exactly the same audience alongside the ads for the same product/page/whatever.

This is just a knee-jerk reaction by people who didn't bother to read what it is about, just went straight into "bad Google" mode.

This might be a minor degree of "bad Google," but it still is firmly in the realm of "bad Google."

If you're arguing that this is a tiny sliver in the greater scheme of things, I'll agree with you. If you think this sliver doesn't reflect the larger direction Google is taking (and everything that comes with it), I would disagree.

It's creepy for the person in the ad. Many people don't like their face being used without expressed permission.

I agree its creepy. Don't the employees of these companies use their own products?

As if consumers didn't have enough reasons to avoid Google Plus.

I don't get it. If I have to see an ad for a product, I might as well see that one of my friends recommended it.

The concern, I think, is from the side of the user whose photo appears next to an ad. I didn't read the new ToS but I don't want a company to decide when and to whom I endorse a product.

The "I didn't read the ToS" bit is getting a bit old.

By now it's well known that companies put things like this in their ToS. People who claim to value privacy, or want to make sure their data isn't used in a certain way should be reading the ToS.

> By now it's well known that companies put things like this in their ToS.

By now it's well known that companies do things like this. Whether it's in their TOS is irrelevant, and whether you read it is irrelevant. You just have to assume they're going to do things like this, just like you have to assume that the NSA is reading your proctology results.

You decide if you want to endorse the product. You +1'd the product. You left a review on the product page or one Google Maps. This data is already shown. If you didn't want people to see your +1 or your review, why would you +1 or review it?

> This data is already shown.

The fact that you, nominatively, +1'd something is shown?

> If you didn't want people to see your +1, why would you +1 it?

Let's not collapse +1 and reviews, reviews are expected to be nominative and public unless otherwise specified. A +1 is (was) an anonymous message to the content creator/owner, and an aggregated message to other viewers (through the +1 count). Just because you enjoy Tenga's Iroha Midori and want to tell Tenga they made a customer happy does not mean you want all your acquaintances to know.

From the article:

"These new endorsements will only be visible to the people who you originally shared that activity with though; most content will therefore be restricted to a specific circle from Google+, although ratings and reviews posted on Google Play or Google+ Local will be visible to the wider public."

Reviews are public, like they're meant to be. +1's are restricted to whomever you shared the +1 with in the first place. Does this not entirely mean that this data is shared with the relevant people already? The only difference is that this is being merged with AdSense.

Again, if you didn't want people to see your +1, why would you have shared that +1 with these people in the first place?

To me, it depends on how they got this "recommendation". If I mentioned that I liked the product on Google+ or Google Play and that recommendation was public. Sure, fair game. But, how likely is this really? Very few people (at least in my network) seem to use Google+ like that. But, if they got the recommendation based on search history or from some other method that is not explicit, then I certainly have a problem with it.

TLA and Google's terms and supplementaries [0] seem pretty explicit: "Whenever you comment on, follow or +1 a page while logged in with your Google account" "This only happens when you take an action (things like +1’ing, commenting or following) – and the only people who see it are the people you’ve chosen to share that content with".

Nothing is being made visible that wasn't previously visible, it's just that content is now appearing alongside other stuff.

[0] http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/

That is better, but still too creepy for me. I am glad they let you opt-out.

Good luck with "avoiding" it. It's getting harder and harder to use Google without using Google+ (clearly intentional), and it's nearly equally hard to use the internet without using Google.

Yes, this bugs me. You Tube comments will be G+ if they aren't already.

It's quite infuriating with Google Apps accounts that my company just transitioned to.

It also de facto makes you constantly switching between accounts, which tends to be annoying.

Just don't log in when you search.

Oh, email? There's lots of other providers.

It's not hard at all.

What do I need Google for? DDG works ok for discovery, subreddits and HN aggregate news, and SO handles all of my programming questions.

This seems no worse that than Facebook's advertisements (slightly less freaky in fact). All it shows is that you endorsed something, who cares? They already have your data all they are doing now is saying "oh hey your friend +1'd this"

Both Facebook and Google doing this is horrible. Whatever happened to: don't be evil.

FB never said that. And google stopped saying that a while ago.

http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/ "You can make money without doing evil."

My understanding is that Facebook uses random peoples name/picture to promote anything they want.

Google uses your Name/picture to show that you have reviewed/+1/etc. something.

Facebook is lying, which is Evil. Google is showing your friends things you chose +1, review, etc.

People keep throwing around the word evil as if it's anything that they disagree with.

I failed to see how my choice to endorse something publicly (which is what a +1 is) makes Google "evil". The whole idea of +1/Like is to show approval/agreement. The keyword in that sentence is "show".

I agree. The only problem is when it's done fraudolently. Just two weeks ago I was somehow added to a random Facebook event in another country; I think it might have been done with click hijacking.

It's really wrong to have these options opt-out. They should be opt-in. I know so many people who use Google services on a daily basis and are not techno-savvy. They will never know about it.

If this is the opt-in/out checkbox, mine was already set to not allow them to use my name/profile photo: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en

Mine too. I am confused as to why people are saying this is opt-out.

Hopefully they won't put "opt-in" button in gmail in exact same position where log-out used to be (as they did with G+ recently)

If it is only shared with the people who you originally shared it with, what is the problem?

If for nothing else: There might be another amendment to the terms in the future.

It wasnt an amendment, it was a clarification.

>It's really wrong to have these options opt-out. They should be opt-in.

Google isn't a public utility. It's a business and businesses perform actions to make money.

And if they want to keep customers they have to act nice.

Or be a duopoly.

there is an opt-out

https://plus.google.com/u/0/settings/endorsements

ps when I checked my settings were automatically "opted out" so unlike FaceBoob they are not opting people in by default and forcing them to proactively opt out

yay google

When I went there the "Based upon my activity, Google may show my name and profile photo in shared endorsements that appear in ads." box was checked.

Box was unchecked for me. Have you been +1ing?

If you received a cut of any revenue for an ad that you appeared in (sort of like AdSense), is this something you would opt into? I'm assuming this isn't part of the deal. But that would make it more interesting.

Edit: Oh, it's opt-out? Poor choice, Google.

I would be interested in opting in to share more data if I get a cut of revenue.

I see no problem with this at all if you make an actual review.

One problem with +1 (and Facebook's Like) is that as a user you aren't necessarily doing that to endorse; you might just want to subscribe in an RSS-like sense.

That's like buying McDonald's to test your credit card still works, then complaining your car trunk is full of uneaten happy meals.

If you're going to misuse a product to get some unique result you desire, expect the company that built it to continue with their original vision of the product's purpose.

I don't think +1 on Google+ subscribes you in the same way Like does on Facebook. You have to at least comment in order to receive notifications for new activity via Google+. If you +1 something, it is only to endorse it.

You can opt-out and it sounds like they're only using it on Content you've +1'ed.

I only +1 content I like, and if my endorsement can somehow bring revenue to the content creator, I'm personally fine with it.

Instead of continuing to attempt to make products better and appeal to more people and in a more meaningful way, they are trying to squeeze some profit out of a barely used platform. [1]Google+ didn't take off, at all. It never will if they fully monetize it before lockin.

I would be smiling so hard right now if I were at Facebook.

[1] http://mashable.com/2013/05/10/google-has-20-million-u-s-mon...

I use DuckDuckGo for most of my work. I only need Google 10% of the time. You will get used to using less, and less of Google. Google and Facebook need a wakup call.

So now they're on par with Facebook and Twitter in that regard.

Legal question: Google sent a notification instead of email for this change. Is it acceptable legally to send notifications for this kind of legal change?

What's wrong with you guys? Why do you keep complaining "in the name of privacy". There's nothing wrong with that, nothing creepy about it.

You all assume that it's bad, it's "evil", but give me a rational argument against it. Just one. You can't find one because hating on such poor basis is irrational and foolish.

Just grow up and embrace the future.

EDIT: man up -> grow up

Nice; a classic "if you've got nothing to hide" with a bonus gender role shaming.

> You can't find one because hating on such poor basis is irrational and foolish.

+1'd a gay rights group, have fundamentalist parents.

It's not about having nothing to hide. It's about fighting for what is right. Homosexuality would probably not be so tolerated today if it was easy to hide.

You have to realize that you can't please everyone. And you certainly can't expect to live your whole life anonymously. You have to make decisions, and you have to accept that someone, somewhere, is going to be unhappy about it.

What if you were/are gay? Would you hide it from your parent all your life? Probably not (I hope). Why do you expect something different with the causes you support?

Does anyone blame Facebook for making Likes public? Probably some, but they're the tinfoil hat kind. Your support has no real weight unless your identity is known.

Should we ask Google to lower their standards, to match a culture of privacy that is both unsustainable and dying?

My suggestion, don't +1 anything until you're ready to accept the benefits/consequences. Doing otherwise is unresponsible.

Somehow for many years we've lived as a society with anonymous reviews counting for something. We've lived without each individual broadcasting everything we buy and use to the world.

Your view is the minority here. Why don't you go ask a random sampling of people if they want their choices in underwear broadcast to the world?

It's time you looked beyond yourself and realized that people don't have the same preferences regarding privacy as you, nor should they.

Why are you +1ing underwear?

I've been able to see if somebody +1'd a search result for ages now, and quite frankly I don't want to know if somebody in my circles wears Bonds.

You... really are making quite a botched job of this.

1) You should be very, very careful about having a public opinion on coming out if you do not have personal (or more importantly relevant) experience.

2) We're in an era where the fears of tinfoil hats seem more and more reasonable. For you to write concerns off derisively in such a manner is completely out of touch.

3) Perhaps there is, in and of itself, nothing terribly surprising or intrusive about Google using +1s in advertisements. Focusing on that innocuousness is obtuse. It is as if you are pointedly ignoring the context of the privacy debate.

>a culture of privacy that is both unsustainable and dying?

This privacy culture is very alive. It is under great stress, but it is alive. What makes your viewpoint insufferable is that you don't seem to see the value in fighting for it.

I don't see the long term value in fighting for it. I publicly criticized privacy many times before. Everything has been said, now we just wait for the unavoidable obsolescence of privacy.

You're an idiot! Have a nice day.

Could your parents see this +1 before? Then they can see it now, besides an advert(although id think that unlikely). Could they NOT see it? Then they'll STILL not see it. Not besides an ad or anywhere else. RTFA

True story. Google mail went into my camera folder on my Ipad and put up a picture of me. I know it sounds impossible, or I made a mistake. I honestly didn't. Am I the only one?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com