[Pedrom]

Sorry but I still don't understand why deleting that picture is such big deal? Google has the right to build their community with the rules that they want and the people eager to accept those rules. Mr Sieger has also the right to complain and he did so that should close the case right?

I made an analogy yesterday between this site and reddit and the differences between the cultures on both sites. A lot of people downvote that post (not sure why because I wasn't say anything offensive) and that's the kind of things that you have to accept in social sites... There are rules.. You either accept them or just move on...

[zobzu]

The "accept or move on" rule applies less when such sites are used by the majority of the population.

When it's used by the majority it becomes something you, in many cases, have to be part, that you like it, or not.

That even include "to be accepted at school", mind you. (just like you didn't have to smoke back in the days, but also you were gay if you did not, no matter how wrong that reasoning is).

Based on that new perspective, you may understand that restricting free speech on such services is actually "big" deal (yeah, the quotes are important here. i'd go for medium deal in the current state of affairs.)

[JoshTriplett]

I found your reasoning so wrong it left me momentarily at a loss for words. No, sites don't ever become subject to a different set of rules just because the majority of people use them. That kind of thinking leads down a very dangerous road.

And if you still care about "to be accepted at school", grow up. Speaking as a "four-eyes" and a nerd, some of us never bothered caring about that in the first place. Unfortunately, the people that did care grew up to form "the majority of the population", leading to quite a few of the social problems that currently plague us.

Free speech only applies to governments, and it applies there specifically because there you truly do have a "whether you like it or not" situation when it comes to governmental policies. It does not, and should not, extend to speech made on someone else's site. That remains entirely subject to the policies of the site owner, who may set them however they wish, keeping in mind that any choice they make may gain them some users and lose others.

Now, that said, I think better solutions existed for the particular issue at hand (so to speak) than immediate deletion without notification (such as hiding potentially offensive profile pictures for people who don't have that person circled), but that remains entirely up to Google's policy. I personally think that policy ought to change somewhat, but I'd never argue that anyone other than Google has the right to determine that policy.

[lmm]

Different laws apply to companies in a monopoly position, and that is right and proper. (Not that G+ is in that position yet).

[JoshTriplett]

> Different laws apply to companies in a monopoly position,

That doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as "used by the majority of people", since people can and do use many different sites rather than choosing one exclusively. Those laws also doesn't have anything to do with the absurd schoolyard notions suggested by the comment I responded to; monopoly laws exist primarily to keep monopolies from preventing others from entering the market and disrupting that monopoly.

> and that is right and proper.

In your opinion; I strongly disagree with the notion that such laws have any basis in morality.

[Pedrom]

>That even include "to be accepted at school", mind you. (just like you didn't have to smoke back in the days, but also you were gay if you did not, no matter how wrong that reasoning is).

Sorry for disagree, but I think people should have more personality and do not take decision affected by what the majority is doing.

Maybe I am being too naive, but if I can't find an online community that fixes with my way of think then I am going to build one... Isn't that what Internet is all about?