Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Social Networks Facebook Google Twitter News Technology

4chan Founder Chris Poole Will Try To Fix Social At Google (techcrunch.com) 185

An anonymous reader writes: Google never "got" social. For all the resources thrown at it, Google+ just never quite felt human. But luckily Google just hired the guy behind 4chan -- a site that epitomized the good, the bad and the ugly of humanity on the internet. Chris Poole started 4chan in his bedroom at age 15. In the 12 years since, he built it into a 20 million active user image-sharing community around topics ranging from cosplay and cute animals to anime porn and the notoriously uncensored anonymous channel /b/. While Google probably won't force him into a suit and tie, Poole now has a much more corporate job: He'll be working under Google's Bradley Horowitz, VP of streams, photos and sharing. Poole writes: "When meeting with current and former Googlers, I continually find myself drawn to their intelligence, passion, and enthusiasm -- as well as a universal desire to share it with others. I'm also impressed by Google's commitment to enabling these same talented people to tackle some of the world's most interesting and important problems."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

4chan Founder Chris Poole Will Try To Fix Social At Google

Comments Filter:
  • Oh, yeah (Score:5, Funny)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @09:34PM (#51656531)

    This'll work.

    • Re:Oh, yeah (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kelarius ( 947816 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @09:39PM (#51656555)
      The creator of the biggest hive of scum and villany on the internet has gone to work for google, and will "fix" social. What could go wrong?
      • by Anonymous Coward

        > What could possibly go wrong?

        4goo.gle

      • Re:Oh, yeah (Score:4, Funny)

        by KGIII ( 973947 ) <uninvolved@outlook.com> on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:00AM (#51657167) Journal

        Well, Moot is moot now. I guess he has been since he sold the place. Ah well, it's a Moot point.

        *is not proud of this post*

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Darinbob ( 1142669 )

        Google+ is working just fine for me. I don't know how it compares to Facebook or other social media because I don't use them or care. But 4chan mentality applied to Google+... This is one of those times when "if it ain't broke don't come within ten miles of it" might apply.

        This guy would be a junior programmer anywhere else given his age and amount of experience. I've seen what happens when twenty-somethings who think they know everything get put in charge. That's how we got infected with social media

        • by GNious ( 953874 )

          Google+ was working just fine for me, then they made a new UI that actively removed community features (e.g., good luck creating or seeing community events), and specifically wastes screen space (1600px wide, ca 800ppx is white borders on the sides of the 2 columns, not seen any way to get 3 columns like the old one), and now I'm wondering they are just trying to make things worse.

      • Well google is also one of the biggest hives of scum and villany on the internet, so they might get along just fine.

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        The creator of the biggest hive of scum and villany on the internet has gone to work for google, and will "fix" social. What could go wrong?

        Lowtax? Man, I dunno how that's gonna work out. I mean even to this day he still has "helldump" a forum dedicated to doxing people.

      • by GNious ( 953874 )

        Considering the target is Facebook, and from what little I've used Facebook it seems to be a repository of shitty, crummy, hateful shitstains, he may in fact be just what Google "needs".

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by GolfBoy ( 455562 )

      I look forward to dickbutt on the search page.

    • Once again, truth is stranger that fiction.

    • by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @10:14PM (#51656673)
      Why say it is lucky that Google hired a social media guy? Who wants Google to be in the social media business? I sure don't, and the evidence is that a lot of other people don't want it either.
      • Re:But luckily ???? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:13AM (#51657217)

        I think this announcement qualifies as the sound of the other shoe dropping.

        Remember a few months ago, when Google said they were starting to extricate the Google+ login requirement from all their services? Well, now we know why - because they're about to introduce a different social network we'll be forced to join in order to log into stuff like Gmail and YouTube.

        • by Xest ( 935314 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @04:20AM (#51657667)

          If that new social network is one that respect anonymity and freedom from censorship like 4chan then is that a bad thing? Those things alone would already make it a better social network than just about every other one out there.

          Part the reason Google+ failed so early on was because Google insisted hard on a real name policy and that got them a bad reputation for their social network from day 1. If they now have someone looking at social who actually understands the real internet than the pretend internet then it may well work out.

        • Re:But luckily ???? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by houghi ( 78078 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @06:42AM (#51657913)

          I do not have a need to log in to YouTube as their comenting is terrible. I do not read the comments. In fact I have a bookmark that will point to my website when I am on YouTube (code http://houghi.org/yt.php?code [houghi.org]) so I can see only the thing I want to see.

          I also have dropped Gmail for gmx.com. For image search I use Bing, as they do not think they must protect me from female nipples.

          I obviously block their ad domains and I do not use their DNS servers.

          That does not mean they are not getting any data from me, but I try to keep it as little as possible, because I have seen what happens when companies get to big to fail.

          • I also have dropped Gmail for gmx.com.

            Who is gmx.com and how do they make money?

            • by houghi ( 78078 )

              Who is gmx.com and how do they make money?

              They have an 'about' on their webpage.

              • They have an 'about' on their webpage.

                Yes, and their about page doesn't say anything about how this multi-billion dollar company makes money from free email. Are they giving it out of the goodness of their hearts?

  • MooT!

    This should be interesting.

    I gave up on Google+ a couple of years ago, but still frequent 4chan...

    • I gave up on Google+ the moment they started trying to force it into everything connected to Google. It even seemed to carry over into crap not connected to Google.

      I'm betting a lot of people are permanently put of by that too. Of course it could just be me and my disdain for Facebook and ilk. But I know I'm not alone in that. I doubt this move will change anything.

      • Re:Moot! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @11:05PM (#51656895)

        I liked Google+'s features in theory but disliked the real name policy. It meant that I couldn't use it for my blogging activities (on which I use a pseudonym) without risking getting all my Google services shut off (including things like e-mail which I used as well) just because my pseudonym isn't my actual name.

        • Re:Moot! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:57AM (#51657331)

          They no longer have a real name policy. But I think Facebook added a real name policy in the meantime. But people looove facebook and haaate google, so it's hard to treat any comments on the matter objectively. Basically people who are herd animals are on facebook not because they love it but because other members of their herd are on facebook, and people who are on google+ are there because they like the communities or to keep track of a small group of friends.

          • Basically people who are herd animals are on facebook not because they love it but because other members of their herd are on facebook

            And people use MS cause that's where all the software is, and write software for MS because that's where all the customers are*.

            Google "Network Effects"

            *This is no longer true due to smartphones, but it certainly was in the 90's

          • by Raenex ( 947668 )

            But I think Facebook added a real name policy in the meantime.

            Facebook has always had a real name policy. That's what Google+ was trying to emulate, like a bunch of idiots, instead of providing an alternative. Google backed away from it, but the damage was done.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I was very offended that they tried to take my pseudonym away and force me to use my name on everything. They have great service and awesome free capacity, but that one move made me decide to never use anything social they made. I suppose I should make a pseudonym on Facebook just for balance, but with FB, I used my real name going in.

  • by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @09:39PM (#51656551) Homepage Journal
    Poole continued, saying: "But what I mostly appreciate are the millions of dollars that Google is giving me."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2016 @09:39PM (#51656559)

    The summary seems to imply there was something fundamentally wrong with Google+, and that's why it didn't take off as Google had hoped. But is that really the case, or was Google+'s main obstacle just that Facebook already existed and was spectacularly successful?

    • by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @10:04PM (#51656653) Homepage Journal

      The summary seems to imply there was something fundamentally wrong with Google+,

      The thing that most pissed me off was the aggressive way they pushed it and damn the consequences. For example, deleting functionality from Google search to make way for their Google+ crap. The idiots.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The thing that most pissed me off was the aggressive way they pushed it and damn the consequences. For example, deleting functionality from Google search to make way for their Google+ crap. The idiots.

        I think this needs said a few (million) more times.

        The thing that most pissed me off was the aggressive way they pushed it and damn the consequences. For example, deleting functionality from Google search to make way for their Google+ crap. The idiots.

        Google's fucking nuking of functionality, the underhanded w

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Actually, given how often Moot alienated (/new/) the user base, this seems like a perfect storm of suck that may rival super gigantic black holes.

          The things that made 4chan popular won't fly at Google, and other social sites already have their niche markets carved out.

          So what does + have to offer besides the ill-will they already enjoined?

          Twitter is already hemorrhaging users with their shenanigans, and Google already burnt that bridge ages ago..

      • This was Google's fault. Do not blame Google+. If you were on Youtube and got shoved onto Google+ then it makes no sense to curse at Google+ while praising Youtube, as the mother ship was the one trying to make them one and the same.

        For me, I was on Google+ and liked it, and did not like suddenly having a Youtube account against my will. But did anyone bitch about the new Youtube policy? No, they bitched about Google+ as if it were the only thing wrong with the whole Google family.

        So please bitch at Goo

        • Everytime another Youtuber makes yet another comment about "Google+ forced me to join them" it just makes that community to look even dumber than it already is.
          Probably you are dumber than you think?
          Ofc the main problem of google+ is that youtube accounts got converted into google+ accounts and google tried to force real name policy on it. What else should it be?

          I don't use google+ for tow reasons:
          1) they forced me to convert my youtube account (they still want me to "add several accounts" to a "single log

          • No, to me my google+ account got merged with a youtube account. Youtube did not force this, Google+ did not force this, *Google* did this. Put the blame on Google and not G+ please.

            • G+ and youtube are google.
              Your argument makes no sense.

              • I hear the argument that G+ spoiled Youtube, but if G+ and Youtube are the same company then that makes no sense. I'm just trying to point out that they're the same company so stop blaming one small division and keeping a massive grudge against it instead of focusing on the real problem.

                • No, you claimed youtubers were idiots, and such a thing as forced unification of youtube accounts and google+ accounts would not exist.
                  I actually never created a google plus account, for some stupid reason my gmail account is now a google plus account, too.
                  When no one is logged on on 'google' for search or what ever.
                  The log in scree displayes various peoples name and log in options, as if they whee the same person. Why? What is wrong with having a user and password field? Why do they pretent that all the 'u

                  • I never created a youtube account and yet somehow I ended up with one forced on me.

                    The issue of logins is expanding. Too many sites now have common logins, and "log in with your Facebook account", and things like that. They're trying to remove the inconvenience of logging in, without realizing the disadvantages that come with it.

                    • I bottom line don't care much if I can use google/FB to log on somewhere. Bt I would care if I had to. And I would care even more if I could not chose my nick there.

                      I'm on stackoverflow, logging in with my google account, but my nick there is Angel O'Sphere and not my google mail real name. (Which is not a point of interest in this case)

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yeah, Google+'s UI is fucking horrible compared to Facebook's.

      I never got into social networking before a couple of years ago, when I created accounts on both. FB I got the hang of within a few days. G+ is still a horrid tangled space-inefficient that-doesn't-quite-work-as-you-expect-it-to mess.

      FB is totally driven by what keeps the product around: the FB user. G+ appears to be driven by what G+ authors think SHOULD appeal to its userbase, which means it's popular among the tiny minority of geeks who think

      • by hey! ( 33014 )

        I didn't find Google Plus hard to use at all, and I find Facebook to be really inflexible and bad on privacy. But obviously a lot of people couldn't figure out Google Plus and don't care enough about privacy to try.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 )

      here was something fundamentally wrong with Google+, and that's why it didn't take off as Google had hoped. But is that really the case

      Yeah. Google+ was created with a different goal. It was at a time when Facebook was getting a lot of advertising based on "knowing the user," all their likes, etc; and Google only had search terms.

      In practical terms, advertisers mainly want age and gender (because that's what they're used to working with on TV). So Google introduced G+ and grabbed everyone's real name and birthday, which gives a 'good enough' gender approximation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jafiwam ( 310805 )

      The summary seems to imply there was something fundamentally wrong with Google+, and that's why it didn't take off as Google had hoped. But is that really the case, or was Google+'s main obstacle just that Facebook already existed and was spectacularly successful?

      The part that is fundamentally wrong, is the whole real name thing.

      There must have been a whole crowd of people who told them it was a stupid, moronic, and retarded idea and they did it anyway.

      I don't really care if Google knows my real name or not, but I'll be fucking goddamned if they are going to re-broadcast it without my permission or a way to opt out. FUCK THAT. And FUCK THEM.

      • by Shawn Willden ( 2914343 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @11:09PM (#51656921)

        The part that is fundamentally wrong, is the whole real name thing.

        That makes no sense. If that were the issue, why is Facebook successful? Google+ rolled back the real name policy after a year or so, while Facebook has kept it, and yet Facebook is huge.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Your facebook name isn't associated with your searches using Google as a search engine.
          Your facebook name isn't known by Google to belong to any specific gmail accounts.
          Your facebook name isn't also used for your GDrive account.
          And so on.

        • by Xest ( 935314 )

          Facebook doesn't enforce it's real name policy particularly well though, it's mostly only used to beat spam accounts and so forth over the head. A number of my friends on Facebook have never used anything other than blatantly false aliases (blatant because they couldn't possibly be people's real names, or are obviously the names of well fictional characters).

          In contrast, Google was trying to get people to prove their names by sending in real ID from day one no matter how harmless you were and if there's one

          • Facebook doesn't enforce it's real name policy particularly well though, it's mostly only used to beat spam accounts and so forth over the head. A number of my friends on Facebook have never used anything other than blatantly false aliases (blatant because they couldn't possibly be people's real names, or are obviously the names of well fictional characters).

            In contrast, Google was trying to get people to prove their names by sending in real ID from day one no matter how harmless you were and if there's one thing people aren't going to do, it's send Google even more sensitive personal data like passport and driving license details.

            IME, you have things exactly reversed. Facebook has all sorts of hate for pseudonyms on their establishment. Canceling accounts and making them email in pictures of real ID to get them reactivated. Friends of mine that had fake names, nicknames, or professional names would all get canceled and eventually gave up or showed real ID to associate. There was a particular hatred of drag queens, following protest [cnn.com], FB backdown, but then not really. Part of that was wanting people with stage names to not have perso

          • by GNious ( 953874 )

            Facebook doesn't enforce it's real name policy particularly well though, it's mostly only used to beat spam accounts and so forth over the head. A number of my friends on Facebook have never used anything other than blatantly false aliases (blatant because they couldn't possibly be people's real names, or are obviously the names of well fictional characters).

            Meanwhile, dragqueens and other groups have systematically been forced to use their birthnames instead of adopted (Everyday) name on Facebook - They ARE enforcing it, quite aggresively, the moment someone flags an account as not following the real-name policy.

      • Mod Parent Up (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @11:59PM (#51657159)
        This, 100 times.

        I almost never heard anyone say good things about the real name policy (except Google themselves of course, when forced to), and can't imagine anyone who would, except marketing drones. If you want me to participate in an online community in a lasting and meaningful way, there's no way in hell I'm using my real name.

        Even worse, Google tried to confuse the issue (i.e. talk out of both sides of its mouth) by drawing a practically meaningless distinction [slashdot.org] between your "real" name and your "common" name. See, your common name is "the name that you commonly go by in daily life," as opposed to your real name which is . . . fuck if I know. IMO, it was intentional double speak so they could claim "it's not actually a real name policy" whenever convenient.

        Add to that at least one false start [slashdot.org] of rescinding the policy (is this one [slashdot.org] for real? Who knows?), and it's no wonder most of the internet judged them no more trustworthy (and of course potentially more dangerous) than Facebook.

        It's also telling that in numerous Google+ post mortem pieces, you never hear the execs and PR people address the real name policy as a root cause, despite the widespread criticism and rejection of it. They wouldn't feign rescinsion of the real name policy if they didn't know everyone hated it, and they wouldn't fail to acknowledge it as a problem if they really intended to fix it.
        • I loved the real name policy, and that was the primary reason I choose to use Google+ over other social sites.
          I know I'm in the minority in this, but I thought I should let you know that we DO exist.

          • Wow your username definitely backs you up!

          • I'm one of those few people that having my real name on the internet is far less useful than having my screen name as my real name is so damn common and has multiple famous people/characters associated with it.
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The real name policy worked extremely well. Google+ could easily have descended to YouTube comments level, but like Facebook the lack of anonymity made people behave. Of course many of us subverted it, for example I never used my real name on there, but most people did and it worked.

          G+ is actually a great platform. It's a shame they tried so hard to ram it down people's throats, because it might have been looked on more favourably otherwise. What separates it from Facebook is the much better signal to noise

      • Facebook did the same thing though, so why is there ten times more hate over a *discontinued* practice at Google than there is at Facebook which apparently still has the real name policy in effect last I checked?

        I think there's some bias here with people forming up into teams. People hate Google so they automatically hate Google+'s real name policy. People love Facebook so they'll put up with a real name policy there and any other shenanigans that Facebook adds. Cheer for your team, curse the other team.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Google+ was ok UNTIL... ... Google said "Use your real name" ... Google said "Your Google+ name is now used GMail" ... Google said "Your Google+ name is now used with Picasa" ... Google said the privacy and anonymity you had prior to Google+ is gone once you start using it.

      Google+'s decline is a result of Google's monetary incentives (i.e. increased value and profits) from joining all of its services to a single person and identifying them.

    • by Tehrasha ( 624164 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @11:17PM (#51656967) Homepage
      FB already existed, but there are many people like myself who -loath- FB and want an alternative. G+ looked like it might be what we were looking for, but then a the stipulations started cropping up making people dump it like a hot rock. First you had to use your real name. Then they force bundled all of the google products to your G+ account, whether you wanted them separate and unique or not. Then there was the periodic addition of some 'feature' that got activated by default, and most recently, forcing changes to the UI, similar to the way youtube does.

      IMHO, it really all comes down to user choice (or lack thereof) as to how the social structure was regulated. They need to pick a layout and refine it instead of radically changing it every few months, or better yet, allow user customize-able themes.

      After all this, I still prefer G+ over FB, entirely due to the signal to noise ratio. I dont want G+ to be another FB, where everyone and their dog (literally) has an account.

      • by antdude ( 79039 )

        I hated Facebook for requiring real names too. :( Does G+ still require that?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The UI of Google+ was and still is a disaster, although that should come as no surprise to anyone who has ever used any Google service. The company's devs simply have no concept of what makes a good UI at all.

      Google services with clear, functional UIs are almost non-existent, beyond the single input box of Google search. Gmail is a total joke compared even to primitive email clients of the 1980's, and it gets worse with each "improvement" made to it. (People use Gmail simply because it's free and has goo

    • But is that really the case, or was Google+'s main obstacle just that Facebook already existed and was spectacularly successful?

      I think this. Everyone's already on fb, why they they all move over to g+ when it the same thing except no one is on it. Few people want to double up on all their posts etc so everyone just stays put. If they want to succeed they have to offer something different to compel people to switch. And that apparently isn't unification of all the google services, people didn't seem to like that for one reason or another.

    • Aside from many of the privacy issues (already mentioned here by other) was that fact that you needed an invite [cnn.com] in order to initially register for an account. When there was some buzz about google + I thought I'd check it out, but couldn't. This was there for at least 3 months [huffingtonpost.com] and if you somehow got one, you were limited to sending out 15 invites! I don't think I know a single person on Facebook with less than 15 "friends".

      That was the real suicide for G+ in my opinion. Most people generally don't giv
  • in b4... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ...this thread blows up with memes and fail

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2016 @09:44PM (#51656581)

    4chan is social in the way a mosh pit is technically people interacting in a social environment.

  • Can you get any more fucked up designs and user experience. Every time I go to my accounts I'm scratching my head as wtf happened since I was here last time. I only used it for my shop and gave up after one day there was a new page for my business which replaced my other one that was linked to when my shop shows on the side search. After a 30 min of wanting to smash someones face I said fuck it its not worth the headache besides social media is useless for selling promoting a business unless you a multi na

    • Another viewpoint: I really like Google+. It's by far my favorite "social" network. I put social in quotes because I think the key thing to understand about Google+ is that it isn't a social network so much as it's an interest network. It is for me now what USENET was 20 years ago, the place I go to talk to like-minded people about the things I'm interested in. It's better than USENET, though, because most of the newsgroups didn't have the moderation features needed to keep the signal to noise ratio high. I

      • by Anonymous Coward

        So it didn't matter to you that Google attempted to force it's users to do things they didn't want, because it's your employer. I get it. Do they still have that stupid real name rule?

        • No they don't. However Facebook has that stupid rule.

          The only social media I have is Google+. Why should I try anything else? Google+ works and does what I want. No poking or liking.

    • by Greyfox ( 87712 )
      I view it as more of an "anti-social" network. If you want some information to die a quick death, post it to Google+. I started skydiving in July 2012 and posted all my skydiving shit on Google+. Never heard a peep from relatives, assumed they were OK with it. Took my sister and her daughter on tandem jumps a year later and kept them company on the ride up. Second they post that shit on facebook, I get a call from Mom, "WHAT DID YOU DO?!" Aah... priceless.
  • by Freshly Exhumed ( 105597 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @09:50PM (#51656601) Homepage

    1. Do not talk about /b/
    2. Do NOT talk about /b/!!!
    3. we are anonymous
    4. anonymous is legion
    5. anonymous never forgives
    6. anonymous can be a horrible, uncaring senseless monster
    7. anonymous is still able to deliver
    8. there are no real rules about posting
    9. there are no real rules about moderation either-enjoy your ban
    10. if you enjoy any rival sites, DON'T
    11. all of your carefully picked arguments can be ignored
    12. anything you say can and will be used against you
    13. anything you say can be turned into something else-fix'd
    14. do not argue with trolls - it means they win
    15. the harder you try the harder you will fail
    16. if you fail in epic proportions, it may just turn into a winning failure
    17. every win fails eventually
    18. everything that can be labeled can be hated
    19. the more you hate it the stronger it gets
    20. nothing is to be taken seriously
    21. original content is only original for a few seconds before getting old
    22. copypasta is made to ruin every last bit of originality
    23. copypasta is made to ruin every last bit of originality
    24. every repost is a repost of a repost
    25. relation to the original topic decreases with each post
    26. any topic can easily be turned into something totally unrelated
    27. always question a persons sexual preference without any real reason.
    28. always question a persons gender-just in case its really a man
    29. in the internet all girls are men and all kids are undercover FBI agents
    30. there are no girls on the internet
    31. TITS or GTFO-the choice is yours
    32. you must have pictures to prove your statements
    33. lurk moar. Its never enough
    34. there is pron of it. No exceptions.
    35. if no pron of it is found at the moment it will be made.
    36. there will always be more fugged up crap than what you just saw
    37. you cannot divide by zero (just because the calculator says so)
    38. no real limits of any kind apply here-not even the sky
    39. CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
    40. EVEN WITH CRUISE CONTROL YOU STILL HAVE TO STEER
    41. desu isn't funny. Seriously guys, its worse than Chuck Norris jokes
    42. nothing is sacred
    43. the more beautiful and pure something is the more satisfying it is to corrupt it.
    44. even one positive comment about something Japanese can make you a weeabo
    45. when one sees a lion one must get into the car
    46. there is always furry pron of it
    47. the pool is always closed.

  • by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @10:01PM (#51656645)
    It started as a 2chan clone
    For Mootles friends a little home
    A place to chat and call their own
    and let ideas free to roam.

    When you let ideas free
    There is no way to certainly
    contain their strength and make them be
    again your own, So Moot did see:

    A visitor, or two or ten
    and hundreds more who came to lend
    a thought, a hand, a new-found friend
    But bigger! moar! it would not end.

    By word of mouth there rose a roar
    No longer dozens, came by score
    of thousands, millions! many more
    their thoughts and dreams to there outpour.

    And what had once been just a board
    and just a place to strike a chord
    or crack a joke, well now they warred
    against some random other horde.

    The memes! the battles! lulz and games!
    Boisterous with varied aims
    to close a pool or mock a dame's
    unworthy vapid haughty claims.

    And so our 4chan grew and grew
    it gave us wings to fly, and glue
    and with our posts turned us into
    the family that we never knew

    But all good things will find an end
    The highest fall.. our souls did rend
    Right in the back, a knife did send
    our once beloved leader, friend.

    Cuck! Cuck! the evil fuck
    who sold his family for a buck!
    Who sold his soul and freedom's cry
    for some ugly bitch he saw pass by
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like? Moot do.

  • ... mentioning Candlejack will be summarily ex .....

  • I'm waiting for the punchline here.

    Seriously. I'm waiting!

  • by throx ( 42621 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @10:19PM (#51656699) Homepage

    ~ > dig plus.google.com

    ;; ANSWER SECTION
    plus.google.com 600 IN CNAME 4chan.org.

  • I actually like google+, especially its new look, better than FB. And the people generally seem a bit more civil and into exchanging information and opinions with less flaming.

    • Did Google+ ever fully do away with the real name policy? Last I heard, they allowed pseudonyms, but they were displayed as "Joe Smith (Pseudonym)". If you wanted to keep your real name private, there was no way to do this.

      • Yes, you can do either way. The Pseudonyms are used more for sharing a common game alias. For example if you play ingress, the G+ community is very active and having your in game alias as your pseudonym helps keep track of who the other players are in game and out of game without requiring a separate G+ account just for your gamer alias. But we see many non-real name user accounts these days.
  • by Dracos ( 107777 ) on Monday March 07, 2016 @10:41PM (#51656801)

    Google's problem with social isn't social, it's Google. Google knows too much about us already, and people are starting to realize that. And because Google already provides a huge portion of our digital footprint, they thought they could get away with being heavy-handed about tying all their services together into a single, "use your real name or else" profile, and everyone balked. I almost posted a YouTube comment the other day (which I can't remember ever doing before) until I got the dreaded "use your real name" popup.

    • by solios ( 53048 )

      The biggest problems I've had with G+ are the fact that it loads on marginal connections whereas facebook just appears, and the fact that it already has access to my gmail contacts without asking. There's a thick wall with razor wire and armed guards on top between work and the rest of my life and I react badly to anything that doesn't perceive or respect that boundary.

      Though G+ is less annoying than LinkedIn...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Eric Schmidt works for the Pentagon, Christopher Poole works for Google - the revolution will be commercialized.

  • his name was never Christopher Poole. And you don't want to know why he uses that name in news papers.

  • by TiggertheMad ( 556308 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @12:31AM (#51657265) Homepage Journal
    He is a solid choice, I mean, who else on the entire Internet knows better about all the ways that social media can go wrong? Lets face it, he has probably seen every fucked think on the net, and probably has a few good ideas on how to steer clear of them.

    The real question isn't 'why moot', the real question is what does Google hope to do that other providers aren't doing better/faster/more already? If their only goal is 'hey facebook, me too!' then they have already failed, and they only have to burn through a few hundred million in budget before they can make with the 'we quit social media' press release.
  • Given that there are still some hideous problems with YouTube in the wake of the forced integration with G+ and then the unwinding of that mess -- could Google please focus on fixing these bugs before embarking on another round of "new functionality that nobody wants but everyone will be forced to adopt"???

    People trying to comment on my popular (YouTube channel partnered) channel still get an "Unknown Error" result -- more than a week after the problem surfaced.

    The response has been pretty much "take an asp

    • by Ash-Fox ( 726320 )

      Given that there are still some hideous problems with YouTube in the wake of the forced integration with G+ and then the unwinding of that mess -- could Google please focus on fixing these bugs

      Agreed, deeper integration is necessary this time. No more bugs.

  • If you're looking for some real estate expertise, I hear the leadership of Daesh is looking to branch out. Something about a cash flow problem. At any rate, their track record on acquisitions really can't be beat. You should talk to them.
  • by sethstorm ( 512897 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @05:11AM (#51657757) Homepage

    Given that he was behind the purge of traditional 4chan [google.com], this is just another placement of a SJW.

  • by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 08, 2016 @06:06AM (#51657849) Homepage Journal

    You think that fucking failure at the basics of life is going to fix G+?

    LMFAO.

  • So does that mean Google+ users can now be . . .

    Wait for it...

    Anonymous?

  • ...If you consider the fact that the employees of Google knows pretty much anything there is to know about humanity by now - the 4Chan guy is probably an angel in comparison.

    Think about it - you KNOW just PARTS of the stuff that can be found on the internet, Google knows there's MASSES and MASSES of this stuff, and they also know that a LOT more people have a dark side than most could even comprehend.

    The thing is - eventually humanity will learn and understand that what people think of - isn't necessar

"Intelligence without character is a dangerous thing." -- G. Steinem

Working...