|
????谷歌和Facebook一直在互相抄襲各自的發(fā)明創(chuàng)新,。Facebook率先從簡單的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)網(wǎng)站轉(zhuǎn)型成囊括了幾千家網(wǎng)站的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺；谷歌隨后也開始計劃在其核心業(yè)務(wù)之上建立一層“社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)層”,。谷歌率先暗示社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)應(yīng)該被分解成多個網(wǎng)絡(luò),；隨后Facebook也開始推介自己的“群組”功能。現(xiàn)在,，Google+的Hangouts推出了視頻聊天服務(wù),，而Facebook則引進了Skype提供的視頻聊天。
????這種創(chuàng)新,、模仿,，再創(chuàng)新,、再模仿的循環(huán)意味著任何公司都無法長時間保持技術(shù)上的優(yōu)勢。不過兩家公司在用戶隱私方面的差距可能會拉大,。他們都在隱私方面都遇到過大麻煩,。谷歌 Buzz的默認隱私設(shè)置曾遭致媒體大量惡評，導致Buzz不得不以失敗收場,，而它的其余隱私問題也引起了監(jiān)管機構(gòu)的注意,。至于Facebook，其隱私政策在長期以來也遭到不少批評,。
????不過谷歌和Facebook在處理個人隱私的方式有很大不同,。馬克?扎克伯格似乎很看好用戶將會越來越樂意和他人以及廣告商分享個人數(shù)據(jù)，后者對Facebook尤為重要,。扎克伯格去年曾表示,，“用戶不但真的越來越樂意分享更多不同種類的信息，而且也更公開地與更多人分享這些信息,?！边@番論調(diào)隨后引發(fā)了不少爭議。Facebook大膽地重新設(shè)計了其網(wǎng)站,，以便用戶能夠更為開放地分享信息,。毫無疑問，與Twitter這類公司相比,，此舉為Facebook帶來了更多廣告收益,。
????由于在隱私管理方面曾經(jīng)遭遇一系列麻煩，谷歌的隱私策略相對保守,。但這并不意味著谷歌堪稱保護個人隱私的楷模。雖然谷歌仍希望通過用戶分享數(shù)據(jù)以獲得更個性化的搜索結(jié)果,，但管理谷歌的隱私選項還是要比Facebook容易得多,。對Google+的評測指出，該產(chǎn)品具備優(yōu)秀的個人數(shù)據(jù)管理功能,；分享個人數(shù)據(jù)的手段更為透明,；提供了刪除所有個人數(shù)據(jù)的選項。事實上,，關(guān)于Google+發(fā)布,，值得注意的一點是，隱私問題鮮有提及,。雖然Google+仍爆出了不少缺陷,，隨后才得到修復，但與Buzz當時的慘敗相比,，這些缺陷無關(guān)痛癢,。
????Google+面臨的問題在于,，測試版用戶對該社交服務(wù)的好評能否滲透到到已經(jīng)熟悉了Facebook的主流用戶。假如對于很多人而言,，更好的隱私保護真的是個重要因素,，那么Google+可能很容易地就風靡開來，屆時Facebook將不得不改進自身的隱私政策,。
????然而,，假如扎克伯格說得沒錯，大部分人對于在網(wǎng)上共享哪方面的個人信息已經(jīng)毫不在意,，那么Facebook可能將繼續(xù)保持它在社交媒體領(lǐng)域的主導地位,。
????譯者：項航 |
|
|
????Google and Facebook have been copying each other's innovations for some time. First Facebook transforms from a simple web site to a web "platform" embracing thousands of other sites, then Google begins plotting a social "layer" over its core services. First Google hints that a social network should be broken up into multiple networks, then Facebook introduces this very feature with "Groups." And now that Google+ features Hangouts' video chat, Facebook has Skype-driven chat.
????This cycle of innovate-then-imitate means neither company can hold the technological edge for long. Where there is likely to be a bigger gap is in privacy. Both companies have had major privacy snafus. Google Buzz flopped after its privacy defaults garnered bad press, and other privacy issues have drawn regulators' scrutiny. Facebook has a long history of privacy concerns of its own.
????Yet there are important differences in the two companies' approaches to privacy. Mark Zuckerberg seems to be betting people will grow more comfortable sharing personal data with people and, more importantly, advertisers. "People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people," he said last year to some controversy. Facebook has unabashedly designed its site to entice people into sharing more openly. As a result, it's drawn much more ad revenue than, say, Twitter.
????Google's privacy mishaps has left it with a relatively conservative approach. That's not to say it's a model of privacy protection. The company still wants users to share data for more personalized search results, but it's much easier to manage Google's privacy options than Facebook's. Reviews of Google+ mention its superior ability to manage personal data, better transparency on how that data is shared and the option to delete all your data. In fact, one of the more notable things about the launch of Google+ is that privacy was barely mentioned. There were a few bugs spotted and fixed, but nothing on the scale of the Buzz fiasco.
????The question facing Google+ is whether the positive reception that beta users are having over the social service will cross over to a mainstream audience already familiar with Facebook. If better privacy is in fact a big factor for many people, then Google+ could easily become so popular enough that Facebook will be forced to improve its own privacy policies.
????But if Zuckerberg is right that most people have simply grown cavalier about what they share about themselves online, then it may maintain its role at the center of the social media industry. |
