>not even a share video option
What the fuck Google?
Share what video?
>>54851380
Any video
>>54851395
Well Hangouts certainly does video chat, so I'm not sure what this is all about.
>>54851416
I think he means send videos, not video chat.
>>54851370
this seems like a good software.
I hate people who post videos all the time
>>54851422
So we're specifically talking about video files? Because you can send someone a URL through Hangouts too. I'm not trying to be intentionally obtuse, I just find his complaint so vague.
>>54851433
Um... "HE" is actually a HER.
Presumptive prick.
>>54853080
leave your gender at the door or fuck off
anonymous is he
>>54851370
They haven't written a way to transocde your video transfer into easily NSA-searchable text on the fly yet. Feature on hold.
>>54851370
Botnet
>>54853080
>i'm a girl btw teehee
FUCK OFF NOBODY CARES
>>54853113
>>54853502
I'm not the one you're arguing with, but just so you know.
YouTube.
Or Dropbox it.
Or Google Drive it.
Or Email it.
>>54853570
do you honestly think 4chan is mostly women?
like you just take that at face value without questioning the credibility of the data at all?
>>54853744
>like you just take that at face value without questioning the credibility of the data at all?
It comes from tracking (google captcha, *wink*wink*) for the users who are logged into their Google account and don't block tracking.
>>54853744
The data doesn't show that there are more women than men on 4. It shows that you have higher chances to meet a woman there, than on on average internet site. Check 4's page about ads. It shows that on 6 men there are 1 woman among visitors. And it is an average number for game resources, for example.
>>54853845
Nigger, what the fuck are you talking about?
>>54853828
don't most people use a secondary/throwaway google account with nonsense data? or at least some sort of incognito mode?
if it's based on the data it's gleaning from google profiles, that's only more definitive evidence that the conclusions are totally flawed, in my opinion.
>>54853878
>don't most people use a secondary/throwaway google account with nonsense data?
I doubt. Very few do that actually.
Also what this user said >>54853845 those statistics are relative to the average of all sites.
>>54853828
It doesn't come from logged-in users only. It comes from google adsense. Yes, partly they know it cause login-data, but mostly because google's cookies. They know what you search and what sites you visit. It helps them understand what she you are, your gender, etc. Even if several people use the same computer-browser
>>54853899
>I doubt. Very few do that actually.
Do either of us have any data on this or are we both just speculating based on our own experience using 4chan? my hunch is that you haven't spoken with anyone on 4chan about whether they use a separate profile, nor have i, and we're both largely being informed by our own practices (i use a sandboxed profile, and you probably don't).
>>54853915
She->age
>>54853925
It's safe to assume that 4chan's demographics don't differ too much from the average population, and the average Joe/Jina barely knows what private browsing is, let alone use it. There are many studies on how people browse the internet, and most see rather.. careless.
>>54853915
Yeah, this as well.
>>54853925
The people who shout a lot don't represent the mass. If you often see linux users, it doesn't mean there are a lot of linux users. They just the ones who are "louder" than other.
>>54853915
if you're talking about google's ads preferences manager, where it tells you what demographics it seems to have inferred about you based on your history, my sense was that it was notoriously unreliable. i remember it thinking i was much older than i actually am on this throwaway account, and about 10 years (so not MUCH, but still quite) older on my main account. and i think it thought i was a woman on one account and a man on another for a while.
when google realized that sherlock holmes was fictional and you can't deduce everything about people from completely random clues, they started pushing google+ as a vehicle to learn more about people from the people themselves, but that just made giving them misinformation that much easier. if google retardedly guesses you're 45-60 years old, that's still actually a little better than them asking and you erroneously telling them you're 65.
in any case, without some study validating or discrediting the demographics inferences, this entire discussion is speculative.
>>54853953
>it's safe to assume that 4chan's demographics don't differ too much from the average population
are you seriously this naive?
>>54854043
Demographics as in their skill with computers in order to figure how to block tracking. And yes I am sure, /g/ is a small part of 4chan, if that's what you mean.
>>54851370
>can send gifs via hangouts
>can't via hike
Why
>>54853968
assuming that there's some silent majority is not logically sound.
the only reasonably safe assumption, unless you have hard data to suggest otherwise, is that every group that has members has roughly the same proportion of loudmouths and the same proportion of lurkers. if the proportion of loudmouths is 0.1, then ~10% of every group is loudmouths. if we see 10 macfags and 15 linuxfags posting on /g/, we have to assume that there are ~100 macfags and ~150 linuxfags. that's how sampling works. we can't just assume that one of those groups is disproportionately lurking unless we have data to justify that conclusion (and, as far as i know, that data's not made available to us).
>>54851370
You used to be able to embed webms and mp4 in Hangouts. They've removed that feature sometime in either 2014 or 2015 with no given explanation.
>>54854073
4chan is a relatively niche community even today in 2016. it's socially disapproved of to be browsing it (compared to reddit, which has a lot of cultural cross-over), and based on the content on 4chan it's reasonably safe to assume that a lot of people on 4chan aren't socially well-adjusted. but the overwhelming majority of people in the world are reasonably well-adjusted.
you lose sight of how off center your community is if you spend all your time in it, but 4chan is not a normally distributed/random sample of the human population. it skews more tech savvy, for sure, for instance.
and i wasn't talking about /g/. i'm talking about what you brought up - 4chan as a representative sample of the world (or even of the internet-enabled global population).
>>54854090
>hike
poo in loo detected
>>54854133
>it skews more tech savvy, for sure
On /g/.
>>54854133
>4chan as a representative sample of the world
As far as it can be. You could make the same argument about the whole internet otherwise.
Who uses this? Seriously...
>>54854154
>on /g/
i'm willing to bet on 4chan as a whole. the long tail of computer savvy is a lot longer than you seem willing to give credit for. even reddit probably skews slightly tech savvy. more than a billion people are mostly on facebook and youtube every day. even reddit only gets a small fraction of that kind of traffic
a quick look around suggests reddit gets ~250M unique visitors/month, which seems huge, but facebook exceeds 1.5B in that timespan.
apparently (according to 4chan, anyway) 4chan gets ~28M unique visitors per month.
>[4chan is as representative of the world] As far as it can be.
no, not really even remotely. that's the whole point i'm trying to make
>you could make the same argument about the whole internet otherwise
that's the magic of statistics. if your population is scoped to reddit+4chan users, then you might be able to convince me that 4chan is roughly representative of reddit, but i would probably push back on that because reddit is 10x larger and has none of the social stigma that 4chan has. if we're talking about the internet as a whole, then 4chan quickly becomes less useful as a sample of the population.
and you're absolutely right that internet users are not a suitable sample of a world of mostly non-internet-using people. that's how demographics work. we couldn't sample all the men on earth and infer that the other half of the world's population is anatomically equivalent, even if (on paper) a sample of 50% of the population is pretty good. the whole point is getting a good random sample, and if the community you sample from is not randomly selected then you can't claim (or hope) to have selected a representative sample.
>Can't send documents and save them in G. Drive
Come on Google!
