Plenty has been written about Google+ lately and one of the most common remarks seems to be “it is just like Facebook”. And I can’t blame anyone for saying that, in some regards it’s uncanny. But there’s a very important difference, which may have a crucial impact. Circles are not friendships.
When you friend somebody on Facebook, friendships are symmetrical relationships: you get to see what they share and vice-versa. The circles model of Google+ is more like Twitter: you can follow someone (and share content to them), but there’s no obligation for them to follow your activity. Not interested? Don’t listen! Like Twitter, Google+ has an asymmetrical relationship model.
This could be a good thing or unmanageably complex. I for one have always preferred the way Twitter organizes things. In that regard I can only welcome Google+: let’s get some healthy competition going!
Ivan
I have always preferred the way twitter manages “relationships” too.
It feels more natural to me, helps me focus only on stuff I want to see from other people, and does not force me to see what some people are doing and saying just because they added me as a friend.
By the way, Ruben, do you have any invitations left for Google+? I’d like to give it a try too. If you do, I’d appreciate if you sent me one to ivanglima /at/ gmail :)
Benedikt
This sure sounds like an interesting concept.
It also saves you from those people who want to “friend” everyone they ever met.
I’d also really appreciate it if you could give one of those invitations, because sadly it seems like no one I know got one.
benedikt.morbach ♯ạṭ♯ googlemail dotcom
Thanks,
Benedikt
bochecha
> “It also saves you from those people who want to “friend” everyone they ever met.”
I’ve never used Facebook, so I don’t know how it is there, but on LinkedIn I just refuse invitations from those people. Can’t you just do the same?
Kaylin
Action requires kowlndege, and now I can act!
Philip Paeps
I prefer going out for a beer with my friends (“relationships”) to giving away my personal life on the internet for advertisers to sell.
This is yet another sick idea from the “web” generation.
Ruben
We all do Philip. Not all off my friends live close enough to meet up in the café every week. And for those cases it’s often nice to have an easy way to share things.
The web is definitely not a replacement for a real social contact, it adds to it.
Quite a sick idea, isn’t it?
Simon
While most of us prefer face-to-face contact with friends and family, that’s a bit of a challenge when they’re distributed around the planet.
Philip Paeps
The only thing the “social web” does, is feed advertisers. Staying in touch with friends is what email, postcards and holidays are for.
(Ignoring for the sake of argument the (many) people who also let advertisers read their email…).
I don’t like having conversations with friends monitored (or be part of the public domain) and used for advertising purposes. The (“social”) web doesn’t add to social contact at all. It only adds to the dilution of privacy and weakens rather than strengthens relationships with friends.
Sick, indeed.