Dominate me, Google. Please

Google is apparently "getting ready to fully cast its social net over its web properties," according to TechCrunch, the latest signal being the automatic creation of a Google account when opening a YouTube account.

It's a clever, almost Microsoft-esque move designed to make Google the center of our social universe. It can't happen fast enough. But Google shouldn't stop with its own properties.

The social Web is currently a morass of mostly siloed choices. I can be on Facebook but also have to build a profile on LinkedIn, not to mention Digg, Slashdot, Bebo, Classmates.com, etc., etc. While we've seen marginal linkage start to form between these through initiatives such as OpenSocial, they don't get nearly far enough toward the one-stop social experience most of us want on the Web.

Yes, choice is good, so sometimes we assume a dizzying array of choices must be very good. Not so.

As I've argued before (PDF), what we need is not a myriad of choices but rather a limited, manageable set of quality choices. Markets trend toward such choice naturally by eliminating weak players and elevating strong competitors.

This is as it should be.

Fearful as I am of any one vendor controlling my Web experience, as Microsoft did for decades in desktop computing, I'm almost equally fearful of a disjointed Web experience that never really hits its stride because users are hamstrung among different social Web sites.

I want the Web to be just that: a connecting web, not an isolating one.

So, dominate me, Google. You've been a good steward of data and user experience thus far, albeit not without hiccups. Find some way to pull in my Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and other social data to my Google profile. Just ask: I'll give it to you. I have better things to do than waste time schlepping between different social Web sites. Save me the bother.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

[umbrae]

I think begging any corporation, especially Google, to "dominate" you is probably not a good idea.

[CrimsonCantab]

Oh c'mon, what's there to worry about when their motto is "Don't be evil?"

[moretroops]

I'm fairly sure the author is aware of the irony. That's sorta the point.

[myles taylor]

Did anyone else get the double entendre on that? That title had clearly sexual overtures.

[jaxstephens]

You betcha.

[Henzapper]

I thought the first one was by accidental, but as you keep reading you can see that he was really having fun with it.

[Police_States_of_America]

the problem i've seen with certain google sites tied together is that sometimes you wish to remain anonymous, or be able to at least switch between accounts on-the-fly. its not good to use a business email address to post restaurant reviews on the web or bug reports on google code, but the only other option is logging out and logging back in with an alternate email address which just gets annoying.

[yipcanjo]

Wow. The irony of this article unbelievably thick.

[Michichael]

*snicker*

[dbrohamTV]

lol best CNET article ever

[iteachnology]

I couldn't agree more!! Only having to go to one place and get everything I WANT ... what could be better? (please, exclude chocolate - nothing is better that chocolate.)

[alegr]

But bread is better than nothing. Therefore, bread is better than chocolate.

[ace10134]

This sounds like the new Web Activities added to Windows Live! Facebook, Digg, and Twitter integration all right in your Windows Live Home.

[rapier1]

Every time I start to think Asay isn't completely off his rocker he goes right back off it again!

[Matt Asay]

Oh, I can always get worse. Give me some credit.

[rapier1]

I'd almost believe you but your name lacks the little cnet icon so I'm not convinced its actually Matt Asay. However, let's assume you are actually Matt Asay. The implications of Google, which is primarily an advertsing sales company, having more and more of your personal, quanifiable, minable, and traceable information doesn't bother you? If you really aren't bothered by the implications of this, why not? Are the rest of us just wrong to be concerned about this? Are the rest of us to paranoid to not take the word of a corporation at face value? Are you similarly sanguine about the NSA data mining programs? If not, how are they fundamentally different?

[monkeyfun14]

@rapier

Only employees of CNet get the icon he's just a journalist they let post on here.

[Wolverine1717]

Global Domination through the World Wide Web. Could Google be the much anticipated "Beast" of Biblical prophecy?

[Matt Asay]

You're not feeling the same need to have your web experience in one place? I am, and I'd happily grant the rights necessary for a trusted organization like Google (or Apple or Mozilla, in my book) to do so.

[vikinzer]

I find your argument slightly creepy actually. I wouldn't trust anyone with that kind of data stewardship because I believe strongly in the old adage that power corrupts and total power corrupts totally. I trust Google more than Microsoft because for all of their privacy issues I really can see a culture clash between what they honestly think to be ok and where other people are coming from. Microsoft started out intentionally undercutting some poor guy out of his software and then stealing what Apple stole from Xerox. The beginning set the tone for everything that came after. While Google isn't starting as low on the totem pole of corruption though power greases the pole. I'm not in a real hurry to add any more grease to the pole they're hanging from.

That and I shun your social web. I use facebook when my fiance makes me get online and accept some event invitation, and to post messages to this website. I don't have myspace, livejournal, twitter, or any of your other youtube poop (As my friend so eloquently calls it) breeding grounds. I just don't feel the need to be "connected" to people just for the sake of connecting to them. It's boring and painful, in a deep meaningful melting my soul kind of way.

I just want to expand my cooking skills, have a little garden and throw a dinner party for my friends ending in role playing and video gaming every now and then. That's really enough social stimulus for me. Thanks.

[pentest]

If you want to give up everything to a soulless corporation fine, just don't be surprised when free-thinking people laugh in your face.

Talk about being a corporate slave.

[yipcanjo]

Would you grant Microsoft the "rights" to your unified web, Matt? I'll assume "no"...and the reasoning is laughable: you actually think that Apple or Google (or Mozilla) is more trustworthy, and less likely to sell your soul for 0.1% market share.

Wake up, Matt.

[alegr]

"what we need is not a myriad of choices but rather a limited, manageable set of quality choices." I thought you like the software choice in each Linux distro.

[codemonkey2]

You trust Google?? Or Apple?? Common. The only thing a corporation can be trusted to do is what's right for the corporation. You don't really think they have your best interests in mind do you?

There is no way I want any organization having access to any more information about me than is absolutely necessary. The government has shown way to much willingness to subpoena computer records for search, email, etc for fishing expeditions or who knows what (remember the whole child online protection act craziness?).

[rapier1]

"The only thing a corporation can be trusted to do is what's right for the corporation."

For a public corporation that's pretty much the legal and moral obligation.

[pentest]

Not a moral obligation, but a legal one.

Other countries require that their corporations also act in the best interest of the public.

The legal obligation in the US for corporations to only be beholden to shareholders, and thus only profit, is one of the biggest reasons why we are in decline.

[pentest]

yeah, give all your data to a marketing company.

What could go wrong?

[itworker--2008]

Where to start.......

Open sourcer, bashes MS every chance posible
Open sourcer, Says he was dominated by MS for decades
Open sourcer, Now wants to be dominated by new company

Open sourcer, Just likes being dominated

[rpcutts]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

The more choice the better. If you want to limit your use to a limited set of quality choices but I don't see why that should be the case for everyone.

If standard protocols can be set up and adhered to then walled gardens could be a thing of the passed leading too a federated web full off dizzying choices.

[helio9000]

If you are dumb enough to be using the racket that is classmates.com no one on the web should be taking your terrible suggestions.

[broncopulse]

Just out of curiosity, did you know that Microsoft already offers this with the Windows Live product? Check it out if you like, http://windowslive.com/Online/Profile. Of course, you probably will dismiss it immediately, but if you want it it is there.

[Uzbekistani]

I have no idea who the hell Matt Asay is, but it seems that people are giving him way too much credit for supposedly being ironic in this blog post. I don't think he's being ironic (if he can be this ironic, he should go work for the Onion network) and that is quite disturbing. Now if Mr. Asay idea of an ideal world is a choice-less universe controlled by Google, I can certainly see his point, all others should probable steer clear of Mr. Asay's Marxist ideas.

[pentest]

Matt is wrong and is contradicting himself, that is par for the course, but you clearly have no understanding of what Marxism is.

[mvdyk03]

This would've been better posted in early April....perhaps the 1st.