Comment by jarrett | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jarrett | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've never understood this condescension and self-righteousness towards those who complain about a service yet still use the service. It's as if complaining about a business you patronize is childish or petty.

Why does anyone think that? It's often economically rational for a customer to say "I'd like to continue using your product/service, but I have a specific complaint about it."[1] That's what all these posts about Google+ are doing.

It's not like anyone's shouting "We need to pass laws against this, right now!" Nobody is questioning Google's legal and moral right to force Google+ on us. Rather, people are saying it's a poor choice and Google's part, and it annoys customers.

[1] These issues are discussed in Exit, Voice, and Loyalty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty

The basic idea is that an aggrieved consumer can either take their business elsewhere, which is termed "exit," or try to change the company's behavior through things like the OP's blog post, which is termed "voice." Customers sometimes choose voice as their first recourse, and if things get worse or don't improve, the customers sometimes exit.

When it comes to social media, people rarely "exit" when they're very dissatisfied. A few people do, but most of the ones who are displeased with changes in the service respond by shifting some of their previous uses of it to other services while continuing to use it in different or more reduced ways.

For example, people mostly didn't leave Facebook after getting the message that Facebook is bad for privacy, but in the early days of Facebook I could find nearly every single one of my friends' phone numbers and home addresses on their profiles, and the "phone book" feature was very useful. Now, hardly anyone puts their address there, only a minority put their phone numbers there, and the "phone book" feature is mostly forgotten (I don't even know if they've removed it, I haven't looked for it in a couple of years at least). What kinds of photos people post, and how much they share, has changed a lot over the years, but most of the people who pulled back in this way didn't delete their accounts, and still post material there when they don't care much if it "leaks".

I've observed a similar thing with Google services over the past couple of years. People pull back by shifting some of their activity to other providers, while continuing to heavily use Google.

I dont like the air quality round here, but I still breathe.

Re-read the original article. When someone writes with such extreme language about a transaction they've apparently gotten value out of - then fail to even mention the idea of exit, then I suppose my response will let a little condescension and self-righteousness seep through.

Your inability to understand that is just not relevant.

The reason you are being downvoted to oblivion (as you should be) is that your entire argument is a red herring.

Whether the author continues to use Google services is utterly and completely irrelevant. The point of contention here is the sleazy way Google re-activates a service for them after they have explicitly disabled it. If your answer to this dilemma is to stop using Google services altogether, then I'm sorry but you just lost all credibility and will not be taken seriously.

Why? I try to use Google services as little as possible because I feel like they don't respect my privacy. I think it's reasonable that people who bitch and moan about Google but refuse to seek alternatives (they're out there!) are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

>>I think it's reasonable that people who bitch and moan about Google but refuse to seek alternatives (they're out there!) are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

Only if you think blaming the victim is reasonable.

Look, everyone knows that alternatives to Google exist. The problem here is that Google has pulled a massive bait and switch on its entire userbase. They started as a company that put its users first, and over time turned into one that tries to extract as much money from users as possible. And while it is possible to switch to other services, for a lot of people and companies this involves a significant time investment as well as an upheaval of processes and resources.

Heck, as a single individual, my Gmail address is listed in at least 25 different locations. Remembering what those are and then changing them alone would take me hours. And then there's static documents with my email address on them - resumes, cover letters, business letters, business cards, and more. Finally, there is the question of whether my new email provider offers integrated solutions for instant messaging, content sharing and collaboration, calendar, and more.

Basically, Google is a monopoly -- not in the sense of market-share but rather in terms of the completeness of their offering, and they are abusing the shit out of this. That's what's making people angry, and they have every right to be angry.

Blaming the victim who repeatedly returns to his or her tormentor despite knowing better?

Yes.

Got it. Disagreeing with someone is a reason to down vote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com