DO NOT FEAR
first, some organization may decide to buy google+ as it is, and find a way to monetize it. we own our data, but we already consented to be used by google, so nothing new.
secondly, an api may be exposed, and various applications may join the dance of providing the interface. the applications may pay google or show her ads, as usual.
this approach is available now, and would need to be extended.
also, google+ data may be entirely migrated, subject to a programming effort, to new social platforms.
following this path, current users may even preview their current data at other platforms, and have an opportunity to decide.
and here it is:
it's all about consent and credentials, and here is an idea to cleanly migrate all the google+ data:
google would publish/sell the relations database, while initially keeping the posts and the profiles themselves, under the same credentials.the keys in the relations database are anonymous, and access to anything would be subject to providing credentials. google will be payed for the storage.
every g+ user will receive a link to allow her to migrate to another platform, that has imported the said relations database. the migration link will allow matching the user with her key in the database.
the relations database is the one to provide listings of users, entities and posts. so the migrated user will authenticate at google as today and browse the listings on the new platform.
the posts themselves will initially load from g+ storage, and new posts may load from the new platform, as that platform may decide.
the user may decide to move all her posts to one platform (thus closing the way to additional platforms), or otherwise close her g+ account. that may actually happen after a legal timeout due to account inactivity. this decision will allow the platforms that were not chosen to trim their databases.
thus, several platforms may even concure, while not disclosing sensible data.
hope my post would give you hope that it's possible, and even good.
first, some organization may decide to buy google+ as it is, and find a way to monetize it. we own our data, but we already consented to be used by google, so nothing new.
secondly, an api may be exposed, and various applications may join the dance of providing the interface. the applications may pay google or show her ads, as usual.
this approach is available now, and would need to be extended.
also, google+ data may be entirely migrated, subject to a programming effort, to new social platforms.
following this path, current users may even preview their current data at other platforms, and have an opportunity to decide.
and here it is:
it's all about consent and credentials, and here is an idea to cleanly migrate all the google+ data:
google would publish/sell the relations database, while initially keeping the posts and the profiles themselves, under the same credentials.the keys in the relations database are anonymous, and access to anything would be subject to providing credentials. google will be payed for the storage.
every g+ user will receive a link to allow her to migrate to another platform, that has imported the said relations database. the migration link will allow matching the user with her key in the database.
the relations database is the one to provide listings of users, entities and posts. so the migrated user will authenticate at google as today and browse the listings on the new platform.
the posts themselves will initially load from g+ storage, and new posts may load from the new platform, as that platform may decide.
the user may decide to move all her posts to one platform (thus closing the way to additional platforms), or otherwise close her g+ account. that may actually happen after a legal timeout due to account inactivity. this decision will allow the platforms that were not chosen to trim their databases.
thus, several platforms may even concure, while not disclosing sensible data.
hope my post would give you hope that it's possible, and even good.
If Google was "nice" they would turn G+ to an open platform and release the code to public and let the communities fund it.
ReplyDeleteFarhad Abdolian except they plan to keep it running for paying businesses.
ReplyDeleteEven if they didn't it is built on the Google infrastructure so I doubt the code would be of any use. Open needs different designs - hence stuff like the fediverse (pluspora etc)
Farhad Abdolian maybe a few billions mean less to google than to me and you, but they want to try their options too.
ReplyDeletewhat you say may even happen, but it's still costly, and heavy, and dangerous to their other services.
maybe they can wrap everything in a google app? why not?
btw everything began like that: orkut.
I really want to understand why they are closing it, is it because it cost them money? Or it is the fact they want to make money out of it?
ReplyDeleteIt has been the best Social network I have ever used, despite the over flow of porn and spam in the past few months, but it is far better than FB, Minds, Reddit, Instagram and any other social network I have ever used.
It is really sad it is coming to an end.
money keeps the world go round.
ReplyDeleteit costs, of course, and they are making money of it, be sure.
could be not enough?
not enough in face of the risks of breach of privacy? we'll know in the close future.
The platform has a higher potential data liability cost than it's benefiting them through use of our data. They probably thought the usage data was more useful to training their AIs than it actually is.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I don't think Google has any interest in selling G+ or keeping it open in any way. I think the real problem to them is that the bad PR has become a liability. They want to see if they can sell it to businesses, but then it helps if the media would shut up about it.
ReplyDeleteGoogle are doing this sort of middle ground, giving up on G+ but at the same time not letting anyone handle it for them :/
ReplyDeleteYounes Layachi I started using G+ because it got started by Google (back when they weren't as much associated with services that got terminated after just a few years). If wouldn't want another company taking over the platform tbh, as they'll likely only do it for the users and data, rather than to run and maintain it.
ReplyDeleteEspecially with how G+ doesn't have a clear monetisation model, the new owner would have to make significant changes which will likely ruin what made G+ so different.
I'm sorry to see your pessimism.
ReplyDeletea solution is being seeked. everything has it's price and value, and serious professionals are considering everything.
I don't think Google has ever sold a product like this before, once they had announced its closure. Also they would never sell the database.
ReplyDeleteCalling it right now: Google sells G+ to the highest bidder, then the winner will drive it into the ground like Sears.
ReplyDeleteGoogle Reader was far more popular than G+ and still got shut down without release of any code.
ReplyDeleteThe Google+ code itself would be useless without the underlying code for the infrastructure upon which all Google products are built. I cannot conceive that Google would sell the code for the infrastructure because that is critical to the success of all Google products. Exposing it would seriously compromise Google's competitive advantage in all areas.
ReplyDeleteAnother problem is that the Google+ code even with the infrastructure code would not be functional because Google+ interacts directly with and relies on many other Google products. For example, Google+ profiles rely on About Me, which is not part of Google+. Google would therefore have to provide a buyer of Google+ with with the code for those other Google products in addition to the Google+ and infrastructure code. Doing so would further compromise Google's core business.
Even if Google were to sell all of the necessary code, the buyer would really need all of the data, which would involve selling an extraordinary amount of Google+ users' private personal information, which would completely destroy users' trust in Google's protection of their privacy. That would violate key principles that Google operates on and is something that Google has publicly vowed never to do.
It's just not going to happen.
ReplyDeletenobody needs the code, there would be enough to extend the api a little, or export the relations database which is anonymous, and provide data on the basis of user's credentials. no confidential data will be provided without the proper credentials.
ReplyDeleteJust a reminder, Google+ is well and alive, just for enterprise use. So the best bet is really for another social network to be able to somehow pickup all the Google Takeout data and recreate some bits of what we have going here.
ReplyDeleteEither way, it'll be a new experience. G+ as we know it will no longer be accessible to us, but it will still be active.
there could be a solution that we all join a company.
ReplyDeletemay i dare considering telegram?
ReplyDeleteTelegram at most is a replacement for Hangouts. Though it's not even a suitable replacement for that for people who don't like their identity tied to a phone number, as it requires one to sign up.
ReplyDeletethe number is required to first time connect, but not public.
ReplyDeletegroups will hold groups and collections. group managers may moderate. messages may be answered, hence the comments.
clients are opensource to allow changing the aspect to almost what we have here.
for such a large scale, telegram may accept email authentication
ReplyDeletewara zashi may we all enroll in a not for profit organization for the purpose of gsuite?
ReplyDeleteWhen you find yourself posting three comments in a row, realize you are no longer having a dialogue, you are lecturing.
ReplyDeletei was asking
ReplyDeleteAlex Bodnaru If you can afford it :). But the posts still probably wont be public and you'll have to grab quite a number of people to make it feel like it's working like it does currently.
ReplyDeletewara zashi they call it *soft*ware because it can be modified.
ReplyDeletegoogle is being threated for "non compliant handling" of private data.
i personally like the way it is, but something may need to change. there are some solutions, telegram for instance has a legal model that is harder to threat.
we should talk to them. their ware is soft as well.