What’s the Buzz about? Studying user reactions

February 12th, 2010 at 01:07 UTC by Joseph Bonneau

Google Buzz has been rolled out to 150M Gmail users around the world. In their own words, it’s a service to start conversations and share things with friends. Cynics have said it’s a megalomaniacal attempt to leverage the existing user base to compete with Facebook/Twitter as a social hub. Privacy advocates have rallied sharply around a particular flaw: the path of least-resistance to signing up for Buzz includes automatically following people based on Buzz’s recommendations from email and chat frequency, and this “follower” list is completely public unless you find the well-hidden privacy setting. As a business decision, this makes sense, the only chance for Buzz to make it is if users can get started very quickly. But this is a privacy misstep that a mandatory internal review would have certainly objected to. Email is still a private, personal medium. People email their mistresses, workers email about job opportunities, reporters email anonymous sources all with the same emails they use for everything else. Besides the few embarrassing incidents this will surely cause, it’s fundamentally playing with people’s perceptions of public and private online spaces and actively changing social norms, as my colleague Arvind Narayanan spelled out nicely.

Perhaps more interesting than the pundit’s responses though is the ability to view thousands of user’s reactions to Buzz as they happen. Google’s design philosophy of “give minimal instructions and just let users type things into text boxes and see what happens” preserved a virtual Pompeii of confused users trying to figure out what the new thing was and accidentally broadcasting their thoughts to the entire Internet. If you search Buzz for words like “stupid,” “sucks,” and “hate” the majority of the conversation so far is about Buzz itself. Thoughts are all over the board: confusion, stress, excitement, malaise, anger, pleading. Thousands of users are badly confused by Google’s “follow” and “profile” metaphors. Others are wondering how this service compares to the competition. Many just want the whole thing to go away (leading a few how-to guides) or are blasting Google or blasting others for complaining.

It’s a major data mining and natural language processing challenge to analyze the entire body of reactions to the new service, but the general reaction is widespread disorientation and confusion. In the emerging field of security psychology, the first 48 hours of Buzz posts could provide be a wealth of data about about how people react when their privacy expectations are suddenly shifted by the machinations of Silicon Valley.

Entry filed under: Privacy technology, Social networks

4 comments Add your own

  • 1. Clive Robinson  |  February 12th, 2010 at 06:27 UTC

    @ Joseph Bonneau,

    Your comment,

    “… it’s fundamentally playing with people’s perceptions of public and private online spaces and actively changing social norms …”

    A similar cause has been seen with mobile phones “Short Message Service” (SMS) and “Multimedia Messaging Service” (MMS).

    Basicaly if you send a SMS to multiple recipients it works like sending out an EMail to a “Blind Carbon Copy” or “BCC list”, that is each recipient only gets to see the originator and just their details in the headers (or should do if the original MTA is working correctly ;) .

    However when sending an MMS to a list it is like sending an EMail to a “To list”, that is each recipient only gets to see the originator and ALL recipient details in the headers.

    With MMS (on T-Mobile) you get a list of all the phone numbers the MMS has been sent to…

    I reported this issue to T-Mobile when they did their recipient side software and indicated to them it was a privacy issue…

    The result no change so far….

    The upshot is that unless a large number of people complain the organisation concerned will not do anything…

    Thus some people change habits or in many cases don’t use the part of a service or in some cases stop using the service compleatly.

    The service provider either does not see the level of service uptake initial figures suggest or it gets flamed or both. In which case the service provider might well drop the service rather than fix it. It depends on their business incentives.

    And as you note.

    “As a business decision, this makes sense, …”

    And

    “… people [do] react when their privacy expectations are suddenly shifted by the machinations of Silicon Valley.”

    Though you refrain from saying,

    Often not in the businesses best interests.

    ;)

  • 2. Peter Hickman  |  February 12th, 2010 at 09:35 UTC

    “privacy expectations are suddenly shifted”

    Interesting choice of words, here’s a link which puts it in plainer language.

    http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/fuck-you-google/

  • 3. Mike Bond  |  February 12th, 2010 at 10:27 UTC

    Well I admit to having been confused by Buzz, and I thought I was smart, nice to know I’m not alone.

  • 4. roger wilco  |  February 12th, 2010 at 13:42 UTC

    some people lick up their vomit like dogs, i wunner what it tastes like

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Calendar

February 2010
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728