Random Rant about Social Media, Consumerism, and "Change" Where None Would Be a Far Better Option

This is one of the things I hate about social media and grand business markets: companies forcing you to do things you don't want to do.


I've been a part of Youtube since 2005.  I'm currently miffed at the forced integration between Youtube and Google+.  There's a reason why I left Google+ from my mainstay email address.  I like some degree of privacy on the internet, I prefer to use screennames,  If a service does not allow me to exercise some degree of protection/privacy, I do not want to sign myself into that. I *prefer* to keep my accounts separate or opt out of using a service I don't want to use.  The keyword here is "choice."


Now Google tells me that in order to comment on some of my favorite videos on Youtube, which I've had since 2005, I have to do the Google+ integration.


WTH?  Seriously, WTH?  Some of the people I follow on YT have no problems with these changes, and I respect that, but there are many others who are thinking about moving to different services because of the changes.   I myself have accounts on multiple video sharing sites such as Dailymotion and Vimeo, but then again,  I've always been open to the idea of "shopping around" to share my content and contributions because I'm passionate about them - I seek to find mediums to share my content, not necessarily share the service (though my continued use and enthusiasm should do enough to sell the service I use from how much I frequent it!).  But when a company you've been loyal to for so long suddenly pulls a stunt that limits your ability to share that passion, how are you supposed to react?  How are you supposed to just sit back and not be upset about it?


Have companies truly forgotten that consumers are to be put first?  Facebook, Goodreads/Amazon as companies and others have pulled this crap on their consumer bases for really no reason at all as well - and all the while ignoring other requests for changes that have been asked over and over again with actual benefit to the community dialogue and function,  Or the implemented change somehow limits the degree and freedom of "choice." It's like they don't care that they make people angry or upset when they've been loyal participants in their services for years.  If you alienate the people that are loyal to you, and force their hand, it's going to put a strain on the trust and overarching relationship of that consumer with your service, and while it may not seem like it has an impact, it will in the longer term of things.


I understand the need for certain changes and that over time, there may be changes implemented with certain services I use that I don't like.  It may be in response to a much larger demand that I may not see, or a natural growth that the company chooses to take with their own intrinsic goals and aims, but I'm usually willing to compromise. I think many people are with *some* degrees of change.  But if such changes limits the choices that you have of using that service to put across your voice by forcing you to take an option you wanted nothing to do with - it's a blow.  It's a significant blow.


Even more of a blow when the company's not exactly transparent about it. Transparency is important for trust - it may not necessarily be used at all times because of certain issues that may arise and levels of function, but it's still an integral part.


Granted, I'm writing this post from a space of growing frustrations with multiple services I've been a part of for years.  It feels like a blow because on one hand, as a consumer, you're forced to either compromise with the limitations that are put upon you by something you've been loyal to for a long time, or start over somewhere else.  Not an inbetween because you may voice the dislike with the changes, but it falls on deaf ears for the company that puts their foot down.  Starting over is always difficult in transition because it takes time to rebuild, regroup, and allow the people with whom you share your respective passions with to grow to perhaps a space where you once brought your A+ game to within a place/space you once trusted.  It's also difficult because you already are a part of a ballplayer who is obviously good at what they've done over time in their market (hence why people use such services), but if they're the only player making the baskets with others who are still getting their feet wet in training, it's going to take time for them to grow and nurture to be able to compete against that major power hungry presence who isn't even willing to share the ball or be able to exercise teamwork, especially teamwork with their consumer base.


I'd rather risk my chances with a company that builds upon its strengths and maintains the open, intimate dialogue that responds directly to consumer need than those that may have a lot of bells and whistles but turn around and say "Sorry, we're making these changes and if you want to continue using this service, you have to conform.  There's no discussion about it, really."


The latter part's right, there's no discussion about it.  That's part of the problem, and that's the part that TRULY needs to change.


Rant over.