Comments on: Google+ The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly http://mrblog.org/2011/07/15/google-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ Mr Blog. Very technical, or silly, sometimes absurd. Thu, 09 May 2013 22:35:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Google+: Too complex for the average user? | comUq http://mrblog.org/2011/07/15/google-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/comment-page-1/#comment-5516 Google+: Too complex for the average user? | comUq Mon, 08 Aug 2011 07:17:12 +0000 http://mrblog.org/?p=1414#comment-5516 [...] articles and reviews of Google+ have consistently praised the platform’s privacy features as top-notch, but too [...]

]]> By: Aswath Rao http://mrblog.org/2011/07/15/google-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/comment-page-1/#comment-5505 Aswath Rao Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:55:41 +0000 http://mrblog.org/?p=1414#comment-5505 EnThinnai shows a technical approach to solve the problem you identify in “Ugly” section. Apart from the obvious business reason, there are no inherent reasons for Google Plus to require a Google identity for bot the “poster” and the “receiver” of the posts. EnThinnai, which was developed some four years before uses OpenID for authenticate both the parties. It has to because it is distributed social networking application and there is no single entity that can issue identity. Accordingly, my ET server will authenticate me using my OpenID and if I do Limited share, I will identify you with your OpenID and you will access the shared data at my server after authenticating yourself under OpenID protocol.

Of course Google Plus could have done the same thing.

]]>