Sunday, March 12, 2017

Latest struggles with our EVIL corporate overlords

    The ONLY good part of my experience on the Starbucks website was that the second submission attempt did not try to route me to the FAQ again, but just accepted the message. Probably a bug, and the claim that the message was accepted was probably false.

    Visiting a corporate website should NOT make you dislike the company.
    no plus ones
    Shared publiclyView activity
  • 38m
  • Shannon Jacobs's profile photo
    I did NOT want to put it there, but the increasingly EVIL google insisted that I put it somewhere and that was apparently the least irrelevant place on the short list of places the google offered. If your goal was to convince me that the Google+ "product" is not useful, then you are already too late.

    Tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to wait a couple of minutes to see if you suggest anything constructive, though right now I think I'm tossing keystrokes in a bit bucket. Then I'm going to the website that linked to Google+ and give them feedback to the effect that they should cut the link to Google+.

    Actually, I'm quite likely to go farther than that. If time allows, and unfortunately I have nothing but too much leisure time these days, then whenever I see a 'share' link to Google+ I will make the effort to explain to the managers of that website why they should cut that link.

    I'm trying to imagine what a constructive response might look like. "I deleted your comment" was obviously not it. Maybe something like "Your comment belongs on [other google product] and I have taken the liberty of transferring it there" or even "We are sorry that our nice little google company has grown up to become such an EVIL monstrosity."
  • 14m
  • Shannon Jacobs's profile photo
    I shouldn't have double quoted "I deleted your comment" there. The correct phrase was "the post was removed" or "[your] post was removed".
  • 11m
  • Shannon Jacobs's profile photo
    While waiting, I now see that you [John Skeats] are not an actual representative of the google, but merely a self-proclaimed "Google advocate" of some sort. Funny sort of advocacy you have going there. Better luck next time, eh?
  • 9m
  • Shannon Jacobs's profile photo
    Hmm... How long should I wait... Refreshing, I see that it's only six minutes since I replied, but your [John Skeats'] censorious advocacy of the google was about that quick after my misplaced comment... On the one hand, I feel like I should give you some time to think about it, but on the other hand I wouldn't want to forget to do what I can to further reduce the visibility and use of Google+ since that seems to be what is most called for right now... Do your duty, and all that rot, eh?
  • 5m
  • Shannon Jacobs's profile photo
    While I'm waiting, I might as well note that I don't regard the EVIL as unique to the google or even Starbucks. The rules of the economic game of multinational businesses now worship cancerous growth uber alles. The growing EVIL is just the natural result of the worship of cancer.

    Okay, I think that's long enough and I can head back to the other website now...

    As the old saying goes, it's the poor craftsman who blames his tools. As the new joke goes, but it's the worse craftsman who doesn't know the different tools and how to use them and who doesn't want to use the best tool for the job at hand. Writing as a poor craftsman, I've NEVER been able to figure out what kind of job the tool called Google+ was supposed to be good for.

1 comment:

shanen said...

[Sorry, I forgot to include his belated non-apology, but I wanted to retain a record of my response:]

So you deleted the rest of it, eh? I should hope the website takes the time and trouble to figure it out before cutting the "Share" link to Google+?

Actually, I sort of hope they do, but I hope that just indicates I'm not EVIL. I am taking your position of helping the google for free as an indicator of the EVIL of today's google. Maybe you should ask the google to give you better tools or you should be more cautious in how you use the tools the google sees fit to entrust you with.

I feel provoked into summarizing the google thusly: The google's motto of "Don't be evil" has been abandoned in favor of "All your attention are belong to us." The mission statement has also mutated. The important information to be shared is the ads and the metric of usefulness is now the bottom line profits of the paying advertisers. All of the "real" benefits are distributed among inhuman corporations, with a pittance to the human beings who do the grunt work, though it sounds like you aren't even getting the pittance.

Good day, sir, and I do not anticipate returning to Google+. Perhaps that was your real objective, and if so, congratulations are in order.


About Me

My photo
As a blogger from before there were blogs, I've concluded what I write is of little interest to the reading public. My current approach is to treat these blogs as notes, with the maturity indicated by the version number. If reader comments show interest, I will probably add some flesh to the skeletons...