In case nobody else has reblogged this from #Slate.
PS: I do not support the opinions or anything else in the article.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-plus-vulnerability-breach.html
PS: I do not support the opinions or anything else in the article.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-plus-vulnerability-breach.html
Next time there's a Windows exploit MS should just shut down the whole OS because "it's the right thing to do". /s
ReplyDeleteTravis Owens yes!!! :D
ReplyDeleteIf 50million FBook customers' data was compromised, why hasn't FBook shut down? I suspect there is something far more compelling to Google that has caused them to jettison G+, or something sadly mundane ... not making any money out of it (?).
ReplyDeletehis badge is funny though ... anyways shareholders will be waiting for the CEO clarifications in a **-** meeting room...
ReplyDeleteThis article is a pile of bullshit.
ReplyDeleteThey have 72 hours under GDPR. The fact they cannot know if any data has been disclosed is just another nail in their coffin.
From what I understand, you didn't have to do anything special to trigger this vulnerability - you just were returned information that you weren't supposed to receive during normal API calls.
"least impactful social media site"?
ReplyDelete"will be hardly missed"?
...probably written by a FB/Twitter hack with no clue how this site has been profoundly impactful to a great many people around the world in growing online social relationships and sharing new knowledge and differing opinions and insights, that might go any deeper that a 2-3 sentence tweet on Donny T's latest dis, or jones-ing for another hundred likes on today's FB dinner pic...
Isabella LeCour I suspect Google's reason to jettison G+ is something entirely else than the official reason. It won't, however, change the outcome. If Google wants G+ gone, it's gone.
ReplyDeleteI still don't understand why some are so quick to rush to some mega corporation's defense. Like they need cheerleaders.
ReplyDeletemost likely reason they're closing public g+ is the looming legal liability. Recently california said they would fine companies a large fine who loose control of their data. Other states and countries will do the same, so it's not worth it to google.
ReplyDeleteBill Brayman the hosting of g+ must cost peanuts to Google. However
ReplyDelete- right wind/hate speech/racism must be moderated by humans. that's an hot topic
- spam, it is basically the same. AI can help, but it's not so effective as it is for emails
- copyright and right to be forgotten
- personal data handling and potential GDPR fines ar going to introduce a massive change in the way internet operates
I think the latter is the reason - there is a point you look at how much something is going to cost you to fix ($$$), the risk associated with not doing it ($$$$$$$$), the cost of alienating people by closing it ($$$$$) and how much money you are making from it ($)
Piero FilippIN You're right about it being a way to cover-up their political bias, as well as the whole right-to-be forgotten aspect. Don't allow posting, there is no need to police it and much easier to hide your obvious bias and desire to force a party agenda.
ReplyDeleteAaron Coakley what the hell are you talking about? Political bias?
ReplyDeleteAs an example, here in UK hate speech is against the law. Google is responsible by law for allowing it. Google has to spend a lot of money to police it, which not what they really want to do.
To give it the most benefit of the doubt, here's the take on some of them from an apologist. It's missing quite a few other leaks of internal meetings and memos: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/9/13/17853192/google-leaked-video-breitbart-2016-election-politics
ReplyDeletetheverge.com - Google’s internal political battles keep spilling out into the public
Aaron Coakley Meetings to ease worries of employees about a far-right racist, sexist, nationalist knucklehead isn't exactly damning evidence of a company who actually operates with a bias...
ReplyDeleteNo evidence of bias in either of those statements either.
ReplyDelete