Google answers with persuasion, no real changes

After 12 days of angry complaints and general controversy around the net Google gave an official response.

Problem is they are just repeating the same instructions that started this problem to begin with. There are many ways for stopping your content being pushed to your gmail contacts that use greader, but they all involve removing all your previously shared content (you can put it at a new feed, but then you'll have to make everyone update their links too). Or removing all your gmail contacts (yes, removing them and not writing e-mails to them again). Or just stop using their product. When I say there is no way to opt-out, it's because there still is no way to go back to how things worked for everyone two weeks ago.

So I wouldn't declare that Google understood the message yet. Their answer just reminds me some jedi mental tricks, as if they were saying "this is not a problem, no one had any conflicts due to the change we introduced". Sorry, there were problems, and people have been telling you about them since the first day.

As one user wrote in the forum after that non-response:

"Wow, Graham, I think I speak for many of the unhappy people who've posted in this thread when I say that this alleviates essentially NONE of our concerns. But you go ahead and keep thinking that you can somehow convince us that we like this change, instead of actually listening to, you know, what we have CLEARLY and REPEATEDLY said to you."

Some clarifications:

I said all your gmail contacts and not all your chat contacts as Google automatically adds everyone you've had e-mail conversations with to your gtalk contacts list. So it also depends on them using gmail and greader, but it doesn't involve chatting with them.

Some people say they don't have a problem with sharing their shared feed and publish their shared feed url. That's fine, I would do the same. The problem isn't that people can access the information, but that it gets automatically pushed to them. I can share articles, but I don't want to push them to everyone I had contact with, as that would be a rude form of spam. If they want to, they can subscribe, but please don't make them unsubscribe manually as that will hurt my relationship with them. Google, you are using my name and reputation to push content. Stop doing it. Please?

Say, another example. If someone puts a hidden camera in your shower and broadcasts it, maybe some people will be very happy. But you won't. It's not how many people are happy and how many aren't, but that you have a right to share your stuff with people who cares and not having it pushed to everyone. In this case Google message would be "Hey, you had a camera, we just told everyone about it. If you want this to stop you can remove the camera, even if you had it for other purposes before. We won't assure that this won't happen again". Even some people that start receiving these images don't want to, but thanks to Google they will start receiving each new transmission Google finds and each user will have to manually unsubscribe from them, one by one. With no way to stop them coming.

To end with an anecdote, WebMetrics Guru found an "embarrasing" use of this feature. Seems like an unaware professional started broadcasting his search for a new job. You might have been able to access that information before, but Google, you didn't have to tell everyone, did you?

And, yes, Google can do whatever they want with my data, as long as they respect the TOS. But this issue isn't about technical details. It's about trust, the expectations users had on them, and how they have been shattered by Google's newly developed arrogance.

For example, they can technically and legally delete all users emails from gmail, but if they did, you wouldn't except a nice reaction from people. Or more trust for Google.

Two buttons would had solved this whole drama: "Yes, I want to send my shared posts to all my gmail contacts", and "Yes, I want to receive shared post from all my gmail contacts". But Google just wanted to push hard. They assumed a yes, and there is no way to say no.