Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google+ Chief Grounded From Twitter By Larry Page

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the you've-been-very-bad dept.

Google 135

theodp writes "Vic Gundotra, formerly Sr. VP of Social (and now, of Engineering) at Google, and head of the company's social networking service Google+, hasn't posted anything on his Twitter account since July 2011. Why? Responding to a question about his own social networking behavior at SMX 2012, Gundotra explained that he was asked by Google CEO Larry Page not to tweet anymore. 'I was asked not to tweet again.' Gundotra said (video). 'I was asked not to do that by my boss [Page]. I tweeted a tweet about two companies [Microsoft, Nokia] that went viral, went very very viral and made a lot of headline news.' So, what does it say when the Google CEO who reportedly tied all Googlers' bonuses to social networking apparently finds it too dangerous to permit the head of Google+ to participate in social networking?"

cancel ×

135 comments

i had been wondering (1)

nopainogain (1091795) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307117)

i had been wondering where the line was between non-disclosure and seemingly accidental tweets that leak info they allege they didnt want out there. Everywhere I've ever worked had made it abundantly clear upon interview that you dont social network about the company. People in the marketing/pr type departments probably have more leeway because they stir popularity for the products. As it stands, Salesforce.com, one of the world's largest CRM makers, incorporates a tool to analyze tweets and facebook posts of known employees of your customer companies so the leads are warmer to sell.

Re:i had been wondering (2, Informative)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307253)

It means that "Social Networking" is for the little people. Its' for the rubes you are taking. It means, like everything else in this society - it is hierarchical and tiered. They only participate to manage you. Not as your social peer.

Re:i had been wondering (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307327)

If you like communism so much, why don't you move there?

Re:i had been wondering (2, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307349)

If you like corporate-fudalism so much, why don't you... Oh, yeah. Too late.

Serf Music (3, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307355)

"Everybody's Serf-ing now, Come on a safari with me.."
"Serf-ing USA!"

Re:Serf Music (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307687)

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

(If this was a tweet, it would likely not be true [slashdot.org] .

Re:i had been wondering (1)

metlin (258108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307837)

I'd always wondered about your username, until I saw your signature and realized you were a fan of Michael Moorcock. So, in that context, JC makes perfect sense. Well played, sir.

Re:i had been wondering (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308007)

:-) My signature is by Bill Murray...

Re:i had been wondering (1)

metlin (258108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308495)

Sorry, I meant home page... /brainfart

Re:i had been wondering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42308489)

it's called facism, btw. No really, that's the definition.

Re:i had been wondering (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308571)

Per Benito. ;-)

Re:i had been wondering (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307473)

In Soviet Amerika, Communism moves to YOU!

Re:i had been wondering (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307477)

Re:i had been wondering (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307621)

If Gorbachev were not so dumb USSR would not disintegrate, I would not value his opinion.

Re:i had been wondering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42308401)

The disintegration was a planned event.

Re:i had been wondering (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308483)

Hence one of the "winch operators" for the previous dismantlement, is publicly, prepping ground for the next...

Re:i had been wondering (1)

jools33 (252092) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307681)

Socail Networking = Antisocial networking

Re:i had been wondering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42308811)

Socail Networking = Antisocial networking

what?

Re:i had been wondering (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308389)

Sadly this is true, but there IS a reason for that: for some reason people seem to turn off their fucking brains when it comes to things like Twitter, email, FB, and say shit that frankly they really wouldn't have ever said face to face with other people.

I mean how many times have we seen a company investigated and they trot out the emails and you're like "WTF dude? you are just talking about what could very easily be illegal or at the least several damaging shit, and you are just throwing it in an email and hoping somebody don't hit reply all?". And that effect seems to be amplified when it comes to anything social, if they stay on it more than a couple of hours their guards get let down like they've been doing shooters and the next thing you know they are just blabbing away about shit that should never leave the inside of the company.

So there is a VERY good reason to not want your employees within a hundred miles of anything social because once that shit goes viral the cat is out of the bag and its like something in that damned social crap just turns people's brains off.

Re:i had been wondering (2)

Crosshair84 (2598247) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308663)

I have a story I doubt people will be able to beat.

An inmate escaped from one of the small jails we serve and the jailers needed me to give them instructions over the phone on how to listen to the inmate phone calls. (Which is kind of insulting because the interface is web based and simple enough that a 12 year old can figure it out.) Anyway, here is an inmate who was planning to break out of jail COMPLETELY and OPENLY talking about the escape plans over the phone with their accomplice. A phone which has an instruction card above it with "ALL CALLS ARE RECORDED" printed in bold letters. No code, no effort to disguise what they were planning, the whole bit from A-to-Z in plain English.

I never did hear if they caught them again, but I bet they probably did.

Our system offers free inmate voicemail, the public can call and leave 15 second messages for the inmates. People ask why do the inmates get voicemail? The answer is that it is a great source of intel for the investigators, people leave all sorts of stuff on the voicemail that they shouldn't, which includes calling in and playing music for the inmate 15 seconds at a time. Some people will spend two straight hours calling in over and over playing music. Good thing disk space is cheap.

SEC (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307119)

Didn't somebody just get investigated by the SEC for sharing something on FaceBook? It sounds like a smart decision. Sad and depressing that it needs to happen, but smart.

Re:SEC (5, Informative)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307181)

I don't find it sad, other than it's sad that some public companies are run by people who don't understand their responsibilities to the public.

We have financial disclosure laws and public-release laws because of situations like this: http://www.businessinsider.com/worst-insider-trading-scandals-2011-11?op=1 [businessinsider.com]

Re:SEC (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307325)

We have financial disclosure laws and public-release laws because of situations like this...

The problem is that, as usual, the law hasn't kept up with changes in technology and how people communicate. It's possible to view anything posted on Twitter (to the best of my knowledge) without logging in to view it. That would make it, by definition, "public". Anyone can access it. This differs from Facebook where an account is required to view it.

Thus, Twitter at least would seemingly meet the requirements for public disclosure; The information is available equally to everyone, and at the same time. And yet, here we are. The fact is, social media websites are where people are, and if you want to talk to them, you have to go there. The SEC however hasn't caught up with that, and still believes in pomp and circumstance like quarterly meetings and reports -- information exchange at the speed of molasses in an age where milliseconds matter.

Re:SEC (4, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307359)

information exchange at the speed of molasses in an age where milliseconds matter.

If milliseconds matter, then something has gone seriously wrong. It is part of the SEC's job to keep markets reasonably stable and on the rails. Hair-triggered reflexes are usually a sign that you are about to shoot the wrong man.

Re:SEC (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307401)

We have financial disclosure laws and public-release laws because of situations like this...

The problem is that, as usual, the law hasn't kept up with changes in technology and how people communicate. It's possible to view anything posted on Twitter (to the best of my knowledge) without logging in to view it. That would make it, by definition, "public". Anyone can access it. This differs from Facebook where an account is required to view it.

Thus, Twitter at least would seemingly meet the requirements for public disclosure; The information is available equally to everyone, and at the same time. And yet, here we are. The fact is, social media websites are where people are, and if you want to talk to them, you have to go there. The SEC however hasn't caught up with that, and still believes in pomp and circumstance like quarterly meetings and reports -- information exchange at the speed of molasses in an age where milliseconds matter.

It is not the law's job to "keep up with technology" which will always be a moving target. It is the responsibility of people to be cognizant of the law and obey it.

The SEC exists to look out for the general interests of investors. It is not in that interest to have to monitor all of potentially thousands of publicly-available news sources for unannounced releases of information so they don't lose a millisecond-long race to buy or sell on the basis of such information.

Re:SEC (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307619)

It is not the law's job to "keep up with technology" which will always be a moving target. It is the responsibility of people to be cognizant of the law and obey it.

What a silly idea!

Of course the law needs to keep up with technology, because the law needs to keep up with society.

"The law" doesn't exist as some immutable monolithic construct laid down by our ancient forefathers for all eternity. We have mechanisms in place to change the law precisely because it needs to deal with the realities of today, not 4000BCE, not 1776CE, and not 1976CE.

That said, we also have "tiers" of laws that take more effort to change, because we consider them fundamental rules of human behavior rather than situationally dependent - But even those can still change, and in fact, that makes one of the best counterarguments to your premise: In 1800, the US didn't recognize slaves as complete humans, largely because the technology of the day required the use of human labor to keep the economy moving. By the civil war, technology had almost made (agricultural) slavery barely a breakeven (and more popular in the South largely because they had slow-moving swamps rather than the North's swiftly flowing rivers). By 1900, using human labor instead of technology would cost more than it would save.


The law doesn't always get it right. And when the law disagrees with reality, reality will always win - eventually.

Re:SEC (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307727)

It is not the law's job to "keep up with technology" which will always be a moving target. It is the responsibility of people to be cognizant of the law and obey it.

keep licking those boots, citizen.

also, pick up that can.

Re:SEC (3, Informative)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307437)

This differs from Facebook where an account is required to view it.

You do not need a Facebook account to view public pages.

Re:SEC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307615)

You're confusing official announcements by management with public statements.

Re:SEC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42308505)

The law is fine. It requires public disclosure.

Both Twitter and Facebook can be made arbitrarily private or public.

Posting something where people can access it doesn't make it a public disclosure. I can put something on an FTP server in Belize and it will be accessible to the public, but if no one knows where to look, I can't be said to have disclosed anything.

We already have EDGAR, thanks to the SEC that "hasn't caught up." If milliseconds matter to you, go ahead and go there.

The fact is social media is for social activities (and advertising). Some business may occur there, but "the people" aren't even all on social media, and most of them that are aren't looking for 10-K's.

Re:SEC (2)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307431)

I don't find it sad, other than it's sad that some public companies are run by people who don't understand their responsibilities to the public.

The comment in question was made by the Netflix CEO on his public Facebook page, which has 200,000 followers. The SEC is investigating because it may be unfair disclosure of material information.

.
What I do not understand is how can disclosure on a public Facebook page with 200,000 followers be considered "unfair disclosure," while disclosing similar information to a dozen or so financial analysts in a private analyst meeting is considered to be "fair disclosure."

Re:SEC (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307643)

Because the company files a form called a 10K that explains how and where they will make public disclosures, so that anyone can go to the SEC's website and find out. They did not list the CEO's facebook page as one of those places.

Re:SEC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42308171)

In this case I don't think public means what you think it means

It says... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307129)

Larry Page is a dictator. A tyrant... but that's what we've conditioned our society to look for in a 'good' CEO.

Was Steve Jobs any different? Most of these CEOs sound like complete assholes (especially when you listen to them talk to or about other humans).

I really wish more CEOs would be like Carnegie or Gates. True models of men that more people really should emulate.

Re:It says... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307241)

Apparently Larry Page is a moron too. Look at all of the Google services he's ruining.

At this rate, I predict by the end of the decade Google will be a faded memory.

Re:It says... (4, Interesting)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307259)

Larry Page is a dictator. A tyrant... but that's what we've conditioned our society to look for in a 'good' CEO.

Was Steve Jobs any different? Most of these CEOs sound like complete assholes (especially when you listen to them talk to or about other humans).

I really wish more CEOs would be like Carnegie or Gates. True models of men that more people really should emulate.

You forgot the sarcastic smiley at the end. Bill Gates? The man that oversaw stealing or otherwise abusing monopoly power in an effort to force his sub-par crap on the world? I don't have any specific history on Carnegie's CEO exploits that are positive or negative, only noting that he rose to prominence during a time where such as he were termed "Robber Barons". I will note one positive - he actually did something good with some of his wealth - he created libraries. He also, unlike Gates, did not believe that philanthropy was merely the giving away of large amounts of wealth, but targeted his giving to help people help themselves. I would argue that Gates is primarily dropping bandaids, and has yet to make a single meaningful "gift", but I could be wrong.

Re:It says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307265)

You mean how Bill Gates used his company's dominance to threaten distributors into not BeOS or OS/2? Or how he avoided paying royalties to SpyGlass? Or how he infringed on Stac Software? Or how he basically stole the Internet Explorer Trademark and used his superior financial resources to crush Synet, the originators of the product name?

Listen, I know that Bill Gates has become a kindly philanthropist and all that, but it's as if people have forgotten the trail of Bodies his company left in its wake. The above weren't even amongst the worst things MS did with Gates at the helm. He may be nice post-MS, but when he was a CEO he still pulled a ton of AWFUL shit, and I don't see how people(especially people here) manage to continue to forget that.

Re:It says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42308837)

but it's as if people have forgotten the trail of Bodies his company left in its wake.

what bodies? nice attempt at sensationalism but it just demonstrates your lack of experience with global corporations.

Re:It says... (1)

backslashdot (95548) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307337)

Carnegie didn't run a company that depends on innovation (yes, he needed and adopted the Bessemer process, but he licensed that -- as many were doing). If a company itself depends on producing R&D .. it needs capital -- lots of it, and the only way to raise that capital is with profitable companies. And the only way to have profitable R&D companies -- it seems .. at least today .. is by having prick CEOs. It's very easy to waste money in R&D. Sun Microsystems used to have non-prick CEOs for a short period .. when they open sourced Solaris and a lot of their products .. the reward was loss of profits followed by collapse in company share prices.

Anyway, I actually think Larry and Sergey are not really pricks. I think they could be worse, and are fundamentally are trying to do the right thing.

Re:It says... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307367)

Gates? You mean the billionaire who had the infantile meltdown at Connie Chung, screaming, calling her names because she mispronounced “DOS”.... That guy? Right..Great model.

Re:It says... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307747)

Except you just fabricated that right now. That never happened.

Re:It says... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307945)

Connie Chung? You mean the drunk bitch that asked for a year of paid time off so she could get some more dick?

Re:It says... (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307403)

[It says] Larry Page is a dictator. A tyrant...

It also says he hasn't really changed much in the past few years [wsj.com] .

Tensions erupted during a meeting with about a dozen executives at Google's Mountain View, Calif., headquarters about 18 months ago when Messrs. Page and Brin shouted at each other over how aggressively Google should move into targeting, according to a person who had knowledge of the meeting. "It was awkward," this person said. "It was like watching your parents fight."

Mr. Brin was more reluctant than Mr. Page, this person said. Eventually, he acquiesced and plans for Google to sell ads targeted to people's interests went ahead.

I often go back to that article when I hear Page-did-this, Page-did-that, and I love to, because everything that has gone wrong with Google, its transformation into a marketer paradise, and Brin's general fawning for him since [wsj.com] , can be traced to it. It's easy for people to love you and build your goals when you give them no other damn choice.

A wise man said (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307131)

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

-Batman

Re:A wise man said (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307177)

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

-Batman

I've always disliked Batman for various reasons over the years, but if that is a real quote I think it highlights one of his
worst attribute. I'll keep this in mind when I introduce my kid to comics.

The world is not a large set of Boolean logic. Epic Batman fail. Even Superman (who seems to be either full-retard,
or alien-super-genius depending on the year) knows this.

Re:A wise man said (4, Informative)

vakuona (788200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308461)

That wasn't Batman. That was Harvey Dent, before he became Twoface.

Re:A wise man said (3, Insightful)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308707)

You couldn't misunderstand Batman more even if you tried.

When it was introduced, Batman was the first comic that didn't take place in a manichean world. The sentence means that anyone claiming to be pure white will in time necessarily become grey.

Committing a single thing against the law is enough to be villain, while you have to not do anything against the law to be a pure hero. Not white is not equal to black.

The point of Batman is that, unlike Superman, it is not a simple world of black and white, since even the main character, a dangerous vigilante, often fighting for revenge or his own selfish reasons, is morally ambiguous. The good guys can act like bad guys, and sometimes the bad guys do good things too (or at least have good intentions).

I suggest you don't teach any stupidity to your kid at all. Let him learn things by himself and reflect on them.

Re:A wise man said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307183)

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

-Batman

OK, dude. You're quoting philosophy from a comic book character. A character that is mentally deranged. [toplessrobot.com] .

And you're comparing it to Twitter posts.

Oh! You're trying to tell us that Vic IS Batman!

My bad.

Re:A wise man said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307187)

I'M BATMAN!

Re:A wise man said (1)

SirSlud (67381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307267)

Batman's a scientist!

Re:A wise man said (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307723)

I'm Batman. You're Spartacus.

Re:A wise man said (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307509)

I find some comic book based wisdom as valuable as anything. You know, things like "with great power comes great responsibility."

Re:A wise man said (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308767)

As far as I can tell, all of these are valuable traits and not "illnesses".

Re:A wise man said (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308899)

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

-Batman

Harvey Dent isn't Batman.

Now only if... (5, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307135)

...we could get everyone else to top using Twitter or other modern social networking...

Most social media is talking at each other, not to each other. Forums are already hard enough, but most forums are for a specific purpose and smaller in membership and thus easier to moderate. General purpose forums have proven impossible to moderate with all have access- Usenet was the first example of that.

Re:Now only if... (-1, Offtopic)

nopainogain (1091795) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307141)

I wish i had mod points to mod-up your comment. (thumbs up gesture)

Re:Now only if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307271)

...we could get everyone else to top using Twitter or other modern social networking...

Just equate Twitter with AOL and pretyy soon it will become the vast wasteland that MySpace is.

Re:Now only if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307351)

...we could get everyone else to top using Twitter or other modern social networking...

Just equate Twitter with AOL and pretyy soon it will become the vast wasteland that MySpace is.

Like you really need to talk in anything other than present tense. Twitter already is a vast wasteland of pointless shit propped up by the mindless masses who think they're actually that important.

I can't wait until being less of an attention whore is the new "hipster" thing to do. Perhaps we could kill two turds with one flush.

Re:Now only if... (2)

cjjjer (530715) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307909)

Well they are re-booting MySpace from scratch https://new.myspace.com/ [myspace.com] (only viewable on Chrome, Firefox or Safari).

Re:Now only if... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308679)

Well, good luck to them. If dead online services have taught me anything it's that "MySpace" should really be named "TheirSpace" until it works in a decentralized way like Diaspora (or better), where the users can host their own nodes, then I'm not interested. I still can't see what benefit any new "social network" has over Lurking a few mailing lists & IRC rooms I'm interested in, with RSS for web sites I'm interested in. Sharing photos? IRC p2p transfer, a personal/family blog, email, or one of the various free image hosting sites if you must.

Oh, but celebrities and advertising! Everyone's using it! Everything's publicly stored forever! These are not benefits, IMO.

Re:Now only if... (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307309)

Most social media is talking at each other, not to each other. Forums are already hard enough, but most forums are for a specific purpose and smaller in membership and thus easier to moderate. General purpose forums have proven impossible to moderate with all have access- Usenet was the first example of that.

We should carve up our lives into specific topics and areas of interest. Anything that falls outside of those bounds is of no interest to anyone, certainly not the people we have chosen to bestow the title 'friend' upon. Human relationships would be so much better if we could only subscribe to the parts that we, personally, have an interest in. Rather than taking each relationship as part of a whole person, why can't we just pick and choose the parts we like and discard the rest?

Modern social networking should be thrown away so we can return to the past, when we subscribed only to the parts of each person we were interested in.

Re:Now only if... (1)

kiwimate (458274) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307559)

...we could get everyone else to top using Twitter or other modern social networking...

Slashdot is social networking. I do find it funny/sad that Slashdotters love to rail against Facebook and do this on their own niche social networking site.

Most social media is talking at each other, not to each other.

Yep, sounds like Slashdot.

Re:Now only if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307669)

...we could get everyone else to top using Twitter or other modern social networking...

Slashdot is social networking.

Sure, but it isn't modern social networking. Though come to think of it I'm not sure that Twitter qualifies as that either.

Pretty clear what it says. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307157)

You say what we want you to, otherwise you lose your job...and trust us, we ARE watching. Very closely.

I sometimes wonder whether or not the reason Google gets away with a lot of what it does is due to them having databased "dirt" on just about everyone in the US.

Google+ head barred from Twitter? (4, Insightful)

segin (883667) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307167)

Maybe it's just as simple as Twitter being the competition? Would Apple allow the head of their iOS division walk around 1 Infinite Loop touting an Android?

Google Corporate Continues its Twitter Use (5, Informative)

theodp (442580) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307215)

Except Google itself apparently has an official corporate Twitter account [twitter.com] that's active and has 5.4+ million followers ("Verified Profile"). BTW, Apple also has an official YouTube Channel [youtube.com] despite Steve Jobs' feelings towards Google.

Re:Google+ head barred from Twitter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307297)

Twitter and G+ aren't really direct competition, at least in my opinion. The two services are not very alike.

Re:Google+ head barred from Twitter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307397)

Maybe it's just as simple as Twitter being the competition? Would Apple allow the head of their iOS division walk around 1 Infinite Loop touting an Android?

I know a number of Apple's top engineers personally. I don't want to out anyone, but we're talking about people who are widely known to the public as technical innovators at Apple. The most popular phone among them is usually a Google Nexus device. And on a tangent, they all use Windows 7 instead of OSX.

Re:Google+ head barred from Twitter? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308321)

I know a number of Apple's top engineers personally. I don't want to out anyone, but we're talking about people who are widely known to the public as technical innovators at Apple. The most popular phone among them is usually a Google Nexus device. And on a tangent, they all use Windows 7 instead of OSX.

"Knows a number of Apple's top engineers personally" = read a couple Wozniak interviews

And he uses, or plays with, pretty much all the computer and phone OSes - not just Windows.

Re:Google+ head barred from Twitter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42308897)

I don't want to out anyone, but I happen to know every engineer at Google, and they all use iPhones.

Gee, it sure is easy to spread lies on the Internet as AC!

This isn't about social networking (5, Interesting)

Tr3vin (1220548) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307175)

It is about which networks you use. The employees were encouraged to promote Google+, not just use any old social network. I imagine that Vic's tweet was only bad because it sent views to another site. If you are the head of any project, you really shouldn't be using the competition publicly.

Re:This isn't about social networking (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307211)

It is about which networks you use.

Twitter is a service primarily organized for paid PR shills release carefully crafted tweets under corporate branded officer names which journalists read and comment on. Its basically the worlds briefest PR news release distribution company which is open to the general public, although most people don't use it. Its completely inappropriate for an underling to issue his own news releases without talking to his boss first, and apparently Sr. VP Eng is not supposed to upstage the marketing department by releasing his own PR messages.

G+ is not quite the same business model. If you want to publish cat pictures or comment on your competitors, or whatever, do it there.

Re:This isn't about social networking (0)

kiwimate (458274) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307595)

G+ is not quite the same business model.

G+ has a business model?

Re:This isn't about social networking (1)

markus_baertschi (259069) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307217)

Very much so.

I would expect the head of Google+ using mainly Google+ for his social networking needs, not the network of a competitor. He should not even need to be told that explicitly.

Re:This isn't about social networking (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307427)

Vic's tweet was bad because it poked fun at Microsoft and Oracle. As a senior exec of a competitor, that isn't something you do in an offhand manner on any of the MyTwitFace services. Exec's messages need to be spinified, PRified, etc.

meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307185)

If the gentleman in question uses Google+ then this is just a case of Google asking its own employees to eat their own dog food. And nothing in the world makes more sense. It's not one of those two-bit Linux companies where all "developers" use Macs XD

Re:meh (0, Flamebait)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307219)

Macs used to be the best hardware to run Linux on. Luckily, that's no longer true. I say luckily, as giving Apple money these days is offensive to many developers because of the direction they've pointed the industry.

Vic (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307189)

Vic posts all of the time on Google+. He hasn't been banned from social networking.

Re:Vic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307381)

/thread

Re:Vic (5, Funny)

DMiax (915735) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307773)

Yes but even Larry Page knows no one uses G+, so who cares...

Why? (4, Informative)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307227)

So, what does it say when the Google CEO who reportedly tied all Googlers' bonuses to social networking apparently finds it too dangerous to permit the head of Google+ to participate in social networking?"

1) Because he's in a Senior VP! What he says can influence the stock price, among other things.

2) Twitter and Facebook are the competition.

That was very complicated, wasn't it?

So, Why is Google Corporate Using Facebook? (1)

theodp (442580) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307281)

Google has 11.6 million "Likes" on its corporate Facebook account [facebook.com] .

Re:So, Why is Google Corporate Using Facebook? (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307385)

Yes, that's the second time you've mentioned Google's Facebook presence. What's your point?

Re:So, Why is Google Corporate Using Facebook? (1)

theodp (442580) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307647)

The other mention was Twitter, but the same applies - if Twitter and Facebook are truly viewed by Google as competitors, it would seem odd to ban employee use of the services while Google corporate finds them too valuable to resist. Another possibility might be that Google is afraid to let even a top exec - the one charged with heading its own social networking initiative - use other social networking services for fear of the consequences. Perhaps Vic or Larry will explain someday. :-)

Re:Why? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307583)

You missed one other thing. The Senior VP in question said something on Twitter which was potentially very damaging to Google's relationship with other major players in the market they are in.

Dear Tim...research (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307251)

He was asked last year to stop because he revealed information that the SEC finds inappropriate for financial information. But I expect nothing less then this from the illiterate editors at Slashdot.

Twitter is the "danger" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307303)

I'm sure he's still allowed to participate in other social networks such as... Google+.

Old news about an even older event (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307339)

This story made the rounds over a week ago, ran its course and faded into the background again. I was surprised to see it appear here - Slashdot is probably the last place on the web to run it as a front page story.

I don't think that everything that runs on Slashdot needs to be completely current, particularly if the subject is interesting, deep or has long term implications. This story is none of those things - it almost had a gossipy tabloid quality to it ("Vic Gundotra banned from Twitter!"). Oh, and the incident occurred over a year earlier, in June 2011 and seemed to be a non-event. Ho Hum. It should have been passed over in favor of a less stale story.

Re:Old news about an even older event (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307405)

If Slashdot were broadcast news, this article would be the "dog bites man" story, except no-one was bitten, and it's a cat.

Re:Old news about an even older event (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308599)

If Slashdot were broadcast news, this article would be the "dog bites man" story, except no-one was bitten, and it's a cat.

No , if Slashdot were Broadcast news the article would be "Tired Gay Succumbs to Dix" [reuters.com] .

Because while the title is TECHNICALLY accurate, it is entirely missing the point of the article.

What it says (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307393)

So, what does it say when the Google CEO who reportedly tied all Googlers' bonuses to social networking apparently finds it too dangerous to permit the head of Google+ to participate in social networking?

What it says is that corporate officers need to be measured in all of their communications, much more so than most other persons. Twitter, in contrast, seems to tempt its users to make spontaneous postings.

It's not inconsistent for Google to say that Google+ is a good service for many, but not all, persons.

Re:What it says (0)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307489)

Google+ is awesome. It's fantastic to have a social network that is 99% populated by Google employees, all in one place. Talking about Google. And Android. And Motorola.

what is twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307439)

no really
dont care anyhow back to life

Astro turfing (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307441)

It means that "social networking" is often expected to be used, not for frank communications, but for company managed advertising. I've actually attended staff meetings where staff were urged to talk up their own company's products and to help drive criticisms of their products to the next page of product reviews. I was not surprised, but saddened: the flaws were very real and could have been used as a great opportunity for the company to address the problems and turn that negative review into a great example of customer support, at a much lower cost in manpower.

Timothy, our own Wayback Machine (1)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307485)

Everyone one of his posts is like a little time capsule. "Hey, remember back when that was news? Yeah man, good times. Can't believe we ever cared about that shit."

Not surprising... (1)

Roogna (9643) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307745)

Because, even beyond disclosure. It makes sense to have the person in charge of your companies Social Network, to be using -it-, not your competitors.

Best way to develop a good product, is make the developers eat their own dog food and use it.

No Linux allowed at Microsoft either (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307859)

Using a competitor's product in a public way is bad business. He should be using G+, not twitter.

That would be like Bill Gates using gmail instead of .... whatever Microsoft is pushing today.

There is also the accidental release of proprietary data concern, especially for CxO level people in publicly traded companies to be worried about. Release if insider information, even by accident, is a serious SEC issue. Being "open" and staying within SEC rules usually isn't possible for key decision makers for companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft. Basically, they can only talk about items covered in the SEC filings.

grounded from? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308201)

What a load of arse. One can be banned from, warned off, or kicked out of something. Being grounded takes no indirect object; one is grounded or one is not, period.

It Says Nothing (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42308297)

"what does it say when the Google CEO who reportedly tied all Googlers' bonuses to social networking apparently finds it too dangerous to permit the head of Google+ to participate in social networking?"

It says nothing.

The social networking is a product, not an in-house employee tool. Just because a company sells something it does not mean that they want or should want their employees using it all the time.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...