Tiny bubbles.
By now, we've all heard the strangely angry charges that Google Plus is a "ghost town." But the most honest criticism against it -- and Google's defense -- are far more important than its traffic stats.
Take the latest round of jeers from Fast Company, which recently revealed Plus's unflattering data analytics:
Even with users who have engaged with Google+ on multiple occasions, there are signs that the network never becomes quite addictive.
Plus apologists who gently remind us that everything shouldn't be compared to Facebook are on the money, but we ought to stress exactly why that is. Facebook's traffic and user participation are driven by the simple principle that there's only one you. In practice, only one you means inexorably eradicating the lines between your private and public identities. Facebook's a greater enthusiast of total user transparency than Facebook's users, but Facebook's premise is that maximum publicity, maximum freedom, and maximum consociation are identical. That translates into a business model that cultivates and rewards heavy traffic and heavy use.
Not so Google Plus. And why? Because the premise is privacy!
In a statement provided to Fast Company, a Google spokesperson challenged the claims made in RJM's report. "By only tracking engagement on public posts, this study is flawed and not an accurate representation of all the sharing and activity taking place on Google+," the spokesperson said. "As we've said before, more sharing occurs privately to circles and individuals than publicly on Google+. The beauty of Google+ is that it allows you to share privately--you don't have to publicly share your thoughts, photos or videos with the world."
Let's put two and two together. Google Plus isn't addictive. The beauty of Google Plus is privacy. Coincidence?
I think not. Now, clearly some relatively more private social networks -- Twitter, for instance, can be supremely addictive. But Twitter, to stick with the example, does a marvelous job of integrating into your narrow field of followers and follows the permanent possibility of surprise. If you're not getting new and unexpected people, conversations, and retweets in your timeline, you're doing Twitter wrong, and if you don't grasp that intuitively you quickly figure it out. The solution is to treat Twitter less like a private message board and more like a public portal. Google's pitch is not just that you can stay private on Plus. It's that you should want to, because privacy is, well, beautiful.
That itself might be a beautiful message. The killer is that, as the messenger, Google has zero credibility. Google sells privacy about as well as Facebook could sell unchanging product design. Google Plus doesn't just seem like a ghost town because people want the publicity that it doesn't put a premium on. It seems like a ghost town because, if you want privacy, you don't go get it from Google.
