Peeple is back and now available to download, that is if you want to bother with this watered down version. Gizmodo is appalled, saying "(i)t still sucks" and "it's still awful". Gone is the star system (or is it? PC Magazine continues to describe using stars to rate someone) and in it place is more control over what reviews appear on your profile by allowing users to hide any reviews they choose.
CNET said "is it even a good idea?" and that "it's also terrifying" and yet accepted a review from co-creator Julia Cordray remarking, "I have to admit, that's a review I won't mind sharing," and yet the author remains uncredited.
CBS News choose to include social media comments and Tweets in its story while glossing over the "Truth License", a future monetizing effort that will let users, for a fee, a view of all reviews, hidden or not.
TechCrunch took a negative stance against the app, troubled by the language of the terms:
" 'Once Content is published it may not be able to be removed,' and that by joining, 'you hereby irrevocably grant to Peeple the continuous, non-exclusive, royalty-free right to use your Content for any purpose whatsoever and in any format. These rights shall be assignable, transferable, and licensable by Peeple.'
Um, no?"
They also took the app to task for its reactive stance toward abuse (like much of social media). They even declined to try out the app due to two conditions: the terms of the app (as stated above) and, because it requires a Facebook account, creating a fake account just to test it would break the terms for using Facebook.
Since only users can create a profile, reviews can only be posted with the cooperation of the reviewed. If the reviewed does not have a profile, the reviewer can send an invitation to join so that the review can be posted (or at least be seen by someone).
My suggestion is to not accept these invitations nor to even download the app in the first place.
Because no one wants to see reviews from the social media lonelies.
