Zuckerberg Quits Google+ Over Privacy Concerns

ianpm writes "Mark Zuckerberg has decided to leave Google's new social network because he 'doesn't want to be tracked.' In other news, the Internet's irony meter has just exploded. Robert Scoble is now the most followed person on Google+ according to The Inquirer." Most of the article is about the rankings of various G+ users with big followings. I currently have a measly 400 or so. Guess I'll never be as cool as MySpace's Tom.

Comments

Interesting fact

[cgeys]

Anyone that has signed for Google+ has seen the "i can be tracked all over the internet" checkbox. They have also heard that Google will be removing private profiles by end of the month. They have also seen that every profile will be by default indexed in Google.

As much as I also hate Zuckerberg, he is spot on. At least with Facebook I have control over what my information is made public. Most of the hate towards Facebook on slashdot seems to come from users with no practical use or just out of touch fear. You CAN change what information is public and what you want to give out. In fact you can make everything private if you want to, and Facebook doesn't allow Google to index that private information.

When you sign up to Google+, see these very information:
- Google can use your information to prodive targeted marketing across Google sites and every affiliated site (ie. millions of sites where AdWords is installed)
- Show photo geo location information in newly uploaded albums and photos.
- Show this profile publicly (enabled by default)

Re:Interesting fact

[jhoegl]

So then make it LinkedIn instead of Facebook.

Re:Interesting fact

[jDeepbeep]

Show photo geo location information in newly uploaded albums and photos.

Last I checked, this was optional.

Re:Interesting fact

[cgeys]

LinkedIn is for business and is very successful in that. Facebook is for common people, and Google+ apparently too.. but like with Google wave and Orkut they failed by publishing unfinished product.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the first is just Google data mining your info to provide better ads. Since this information is only being used by Google, its still private, in the sense that its not publicly available (note that the same will be true of EVERY social networking site by definition: whoever you give information to will have that info. No way to stop that. Google is just being honest and telling you that that info will be used BY THEMy them to provide targeted ads. NOT shared with third parties: only the ads they target you with are.) The third is, as you say, toggle-able, and as for the second, anyone I want to see my picture already knows where I live. So, yeah, not much going on there. As for being indexed by google: facebook indexes everyone too. Its an absolute requirement for social networking. Without being able to search for your friends, no one would ever be able to find them.

Facebook, on the other hand, has privacy controls deeply buried, which often reset themselves, and up to very recently at least (don't use Facebook apps anymore) didn't work properly with Facebook apps. I'll go with G+, TYVM.

Re:Interesting fact

[calmofthestorm]

Addressing your bullets:

1) Facebook also does this with the facebook ads network (on about 1/3 sites on the net). You can prevent this by disabling "instant personalization"
2) This is an option during signup unchecked by default (at least when I signed up). You opt in, a word Facebook would do well to learn.
3) Facebook makes profiles searchable on search engines by default as well. You can disable this.

So...it has the same privacy violations as facebook...not seeing your point.

Re:Interesting fact

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Troll much? Paid by Facebook/Apple? Your master Zukerberg or Jobs let you out of his dungeon early today?

That reminds me: Godwin's Law needs to be revised.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook tracks you all over the web too. Lots of sites have Facebook icons and other features that link directly to facebook.com, giving them the referrer header of the site you are on. I don't know exactly what these features are since I have blocked them months/years ago, along with the adsense and all of that other crap too, but don't pretend that Facebook doesn't also have ways to track you.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo hoo!

So i guess it will hurt your Chatroom & Dating site convos then?
Well having a profile of "hornyjill18" google back to your real name of "Billy Nomates" Born 1960
will put a stop to your sock filling sessions now won't it.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Difference is that even though the profile is public, the info on it is default hidden (most of it anyhoo).

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you sure typed a lot there in <60 seconds. It's almost as if you're spamming Slashdot in concert with an anon subscriber alt...

Re:Interesting fact

[mat catastrophe]

Facebook may have controls over your privacy, but they aren't very well documented. I know someone who hates FB who activated an account just to check out an event that was not available unless logged in. They set their account up and tried to make the privacy controls as strict as possible.

After being logged in once, they started noticing that sites with facebook sidebars were starting to show images from other fourms that he'd browsed. Apparently, just closing a browser tab doesn't sever the connection with facebook. You stay logged in and FB follows you where you click. Where's the switch for that behavior? Is it completely unreasonable for someone to not want their entire browsing history to be seen by a company? Should we just blindly accept the end of privacy and be happy because we have Angry Birds and Foursquare?

Again, there's no point in fearing an Orwellian society when you've already bought into the Huxleyan one.

Re:Interesting fact

[Chrisq]

3. And the public profile has what information ? your name and gender - as if it's not already publicly available?

GP might have difficulty determining the latter.

Re:Interesting fact

[trum4n]

Yea, i just unchecked that "i can be tracked" checkbox. I am an active G+ user, and im NOT on google. Are people really this dumb?

Re:Interesting fact

[E IS mC(Square)]

Just because you invoke Godwin does not make the argument wrong.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone that has signed for Google+ has seen the "i can be tracked all over the internet" checkbox. They have also heard that Google will be removing private profiles by end of the month. They have also seen that every profile will be by default indexed in Google.

As much as I also hate Zuckerberg, he is spot on. At least with Facebook I have control over what my information is made public. Most of the hate towards Facebook on slashdot seems to come from users with no practical use or just out of touch fear. You CAN change what information is public and what you want to give out. In fact you can make everything private if you want to, and Facebook doesn't allow Google to index that private information.

When you sign up to Google+, see these very information:

- Google can use your information to prodive targeted marketing across Google sites and every affiliated site (ie. millions of sites where AdWords is installed)

- Show photo geo location information in newly uploaded albums and photos.

- Show this profile publicly (enabled by default)

Um, they're removing "private profiles" as in Google profiles that were anonymous and hidden. You can still hide any and all information in G+. Or here's a stunning thought: if you don't want something on the internet, don't put it there.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, except FB routinely changes the way things are made private/public, and defaults those settings to 'Wide Open'. They then notify you up to 48 hours later, giving the search crawlers plenty of time to index your stuff.

I rather prefer Google's method. It seems more honest.

Also, anyone who didn't foresee Zuck doing this wasn't paying attention.

1. Sign up for competing service.
2. Give it an "honest try"
3. Quit over perceived "problems" that your site doesn't have, or resolved previously.
4. Profit!

Re:Interesting fact

[Serious Callers Only]

At least with Facebook I have control over what my information is made public.

Do you really believe this? You think the company which came up with Beacon and introduced it as on by default has any interest in giving you control over your information? Much as I don't hate Zuckerberg, he and facebook are playing you for a sucker.

You CAN change what information is public and what you want to give out.

If you trust Facebook to live up to their promises in this regard (which are pretty flimsy to start with) I have a bridge to sell you. I leave you with a verified quote from Zuckerberg about his users:

"They trust me — dumb fucks,"

Re:Interesting fact

[ctrimm]

At least with Facebook I have control over what my information is made public.

The only things on G+ that are made public without a choice is your name, gender, and a picture of your choosing. If you're worried about that information being more than what you'd like to share with the general public, you've got bigger issues and probably shouldn't be on a social networking site in the first place. To chalk those peices of info up to "zomg, they're giving away our private info to anyone!" is just fear-mongering. Please stop and stay on your lawn.

and Facebook doesn't allow Google to index that private information

Legitimate concern, I suppose.

When you sign up to Google+, see these very information:
- Google can use your information to prodive targeted marketing across Google sites and every affiliated site (ie. millions of sites where AdWords is installed)
- Show photo geo location information in newly uploaded albums and photos.
- Show this profile publicly (enabled by default)

1) So what? The information isn't leaving google. It's just making sure I don't have to look an ad targeted at demographics that have nothing to do with me. If I'm going to see adds, I prefer them to be about things I like.
2) This is an option that can be disabled.
3) If you're too lazy to configure your profile, don't have one. The only info that you can't make private (and control EXACTLY who sees it (hard to do in FB)) is your name and Gender.

In other words, if you don't want to be social, don't have a social networking account. If you don't want your information used for tailoring ads to you, then plan on paying for your service.

Re:Interesting fact

[tripleevenfall]

This was obviously a stunt from the get-go. Zuckerberg joined only with the intention of quitting in mock disgust later, in a stunt to protect his media empire, which is all based around collecting and selling personal information.

Re:Interesting fact

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

No, it just means you cannot make a strong case.

Re:Interesting fact

[tripleevenfall]

At work at least, I updated my hosts file to redirect anything related to facebook domains to a dummy IP. This prevents the facebook widgets and placement devices from functioning at least from any PC other than my home one.

Re:Interesting fact

[tripleevenfall]

We'll see if they take the facebook route of introducing things like "We'll use your picture in Starbucks ads" or "We'll use facial recognition to tag you in other people's photos" and opt you IN by default, requiring you to navigate an incomprehensible maze of ever-changing privacy options in order to opt out when new features - which you are never notified of - threaten your privacy in new ways.

I'm guessing Google won't do that.

Re:Interesting fact

[Andy Dodd]

As to photo geolocation - if it doesn't exist in the first place it won't show it. Don't geotag photos you want the locations of to be private.

I'm glad that finally a social network supports geolocation, there are lots of times when I WANT people to know where a photo was taken. I make a point of not geotagging anything that I don't want the location of to be known.

Re:Interesting fact

[bberens]

Facebook has on at least one occasion changed the privacy options available, wiped out your previous privacy settings, and defaulted everything to shared.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

. As for being indexed by google: facebook indexes everyone too

Actually, you can reduce "search for you on facebook" to only your friends ...

Re:Interesting fact

[jamesh]

On FB I sometimes see friends 'Like' things that seem surprising for them... I think some sites have figured out how to make you 'like' things without clicking on the 'like' button/link as long as your browser has you logged in to facebook.

Re:Interesting fact

[bberens]

It doesn't work that way. Have you ever noticed that a huge amount of websites have that little icon about "like this page on facebook" or whatever? Many sites also allow you to log in using your facebook account as a sort of single-sign on. Anyways, any site you go to that has the Facebook icon? Facebook can see the referrer for the icon image and therefore knows the URL for the site you went to. It's the same for Twitter and all the other similar type things where you see their little icon littered throughout the internet.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

That reminds me: Godwin's Law needs to be revised.

So, you're saying Godwin's Law needs to be revised like Hitler revised Germany?

Re:Interesting fact

[trum4n]

Side Note: Zuckerberg is a marketing genius. This makes facebook actually look safer than G+. what a joke.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, Information you've shared with everyone - as well as your name, profile picture, gender, networks, and username - could be seen by anyone on the , internet

Notice the bold part. Those items cannot be made private, EVER.

Re:Interesting fact

[Lunix Nutcase]

So...it has the same privacy violations as facebook...not seeing your point.

That's the entire point. It has the same privacy violations by default as Facebook thus negating the whole thing about how Google+ is so much greater about privacy than Facebook.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

They have also seen that every profile will be by default indexed in Google.

ALL PUBLIC-FACING WEBPAGES SHOULD BE DEFAULT-INDEXED

To do otherwise is to imply a degree of privacy that isn't there. Facebook wanted the opposite ("don't index our public profiles") and it only made them look stupid, unaware of how the internet works.

Re:Interesting fact

[poetmatt]

wow man, could you be pro fud a bit more?

The only things required to be public are your first and last name, gender and profile photos. That's it. I imagine that's about the basic to confirm you know someone.

Guess what? Facebook does this too, except for private profiles, which you can't even find anyway, and thus as google says "we intend for you to be able to find your friends" isn't going to happen with private profiles, is it?

The reality is that the only people the profiles are private to is the users, as law enforcement appears to have full access anyway. So what's left to hide/complain about?

Geolocation is an option, not a requirement. the marketing stuff and search indexing is also an option. Go away troll.

Re:Interesting fact

[salesgeek]

Google and Facebook is simply a real life example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Sign up for competing service.
2. Give it an "honest try"
3. Quit over perceived "problems" that your site doesn't have, or resolved previously.
4. Profit!

sorry, if it doesn't have a ??? step it cannot possibly be true.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Google+ apparently too.. but like with Google wave and Orkut they failed by publishing unfinished product.

Yes, yes. Because you said so and because Google let some people try out a self-described field test, Google FAILED and we must all go back to using Facebook.

Not. I'm sticking with Google+. The Facebook people should start buying diapers in bulk...Because is if this is what happens any time something competitive comes along, they will be dropping rivers of shit in their pants.

Re:Interesting fact

[DiarrhoeaChaChaCha]

Let me address your 3 points from looking at the Google+ account information and help files. I quote:

- Google can use your information to prodive targeted marketing across Google sites and every affiliated site (ie. millions of sites where AdWords is installed)

Configurable. " You can change your profile settings at any time if you don't want Google and other search engines to index your profile."

- Show photo geo location information in newly uploaded albums and photos.

Configurable. " Show photo geo location information in newly uploaded albums and photos."
As for #3, when creating the profile you get the option immediately to set visibility. Other than your name (which can be anything) and your gender, no information is initially required for your profile anyway. Not saying Google+ is better or worse than Facebook (I am in fact not particularly interested in either) but at least attempt to get the (current) facts straight.

Re:Interesting fact

[Merk42]

Google knows it's unfinished, it's called a "limited field trial", it's also why it's still invitation only. So, I wouldn't really call it "publishing unfinished product" unless you want to say the same for every other pre-beta software in existence.

Re:Interesting fact

[MonsterTrimble]

Are people really this dumb?

I assume that's rhetorical.

Re:Interesting fact

[trum4n]

It's also not directed as you, as you are clearly far smarter than most, as you can spell rhetorical.

Re:Interesting fact

[slyrat]

3. And the public profile has what information ? your name and gender - as if it's not already publicly available?

GP might have difficulty determining the latter.

In G+ the gender is going to become available to be private if you wish, like everything in your g+ profile other than ones name. It very plainly says this when you are editing your profile. I find this much easier to configure than the multi-page fun of privacy settings that is facebook.

Re:Interesting fact

[Archangel Michael]

Facebook and Google+ both have the same set of features and allows the same level of tracking (more or less). They are "SOCIAL" networks. that is their purpose. They enable you to socially connect with people, websites and so on, and they do it for "free". All you have to do is agree to be tracked. Don't like it, don't use it. Sit alone in your mom's basement and decry your lack of privacy on the net.

Really, I don't get what people are complaining about.

Re:Interesting fact

[fsiefken]

Correction: your profile will be public, but you can opt to only show your first and last name.

Re:Interesting fact

[arisvega]

You stay logged in and FB follows you where you click. Where's the switch for that behavior?

Ctrl + Shift + Del clears your browser's data. Knock yourself out.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

At least with Facebook I have control over what my information is made public.

For now. Until they change their privacy settings again and make things that you'd previously made private available to the public again. As they've done multiple times in the past.

I know Google is going to make money off my information - that's the tradeoff of me using their services for free. I'm fine with that. But, with Google, I trust them a LOT more than I trust Facebook. Google doesn't have a long track record of changing the rules of the game in an obvious and blatant effort to screw me over while Facebook has exactly that reputation.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Re:Interesting fact

[trum4n]

I'm with you. I hate how people bitch about privacy. If you don't like it, don't agree to the EULA.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly what domains did you add to hosts to block FB?

Re:Interesting fact

[cgeys]

Correction: your profile will be public,but you can opt to only show your first and last name.

Oh wow. Such a relief.

Re:Interesting fact

[kelemvor4]

When you sign up to Google+, see these very information: - Google can use your information to prodive targeted marketing across Google sites and every affiliated site (ie. millions of sites where AdWords is installed) - Show photo geo location information in newly uploaded albums and photos. - Show this profile publicly (enabled by default)

I just signed up about 20 minutes ago. You got it partially right. What you see are those exact words with checkboxes next to them so you can allow or disallow those things.

Re:Interesting fact

[SmilingBoy]

The only things on G+ that are made public without a choice is your name, gender, and a picture of your choosing.

And for the paranoid, Google offers "other" as an option when you select your gender. Really, they do!

Re:Interesting fact

[EastCoastSurfer]

The only things required to be public are your first and last name, gender and profile photos.

Just a note. G+ apparently listens to users and is rolling out the option to hide your gender this week.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how nobody was talking about Apple until you felt you absolutely had to take every chance you get to complain as much as possible about Apple.

Re:Interesting fact

[schlesinm]

Side Note: Zuckerberg is a marketing genius. This makes facebook actually look safer than G+. what a joke.

This was my first thought as well. Zuckerberg joins G+, gets a lot of followers and then complains about privacy. This focuses people's attention on G+ privacy not features.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Not almost, he is. This has been going on for months documented by many different ACs. Facebook even *admitted* to hiring a PR agency to smear Google on privacy issues in the news. The same PR agency that MS uses (MS is an investor in FB). Look at his post history, really look. Every other post is either subtly or overtly pro FB. The other obvious clue is that he mods himself up with alts before anyone can even comment to +4 or +5 insightful, then gradually back down as the real mods show up. There have been several +2M UIDs doing this for months now. It's always anti-Google/Linux/Apple and pro MS/Facebook. And the person always has the first post sans a subscription. We need to start listing the alts and finding out who these people are. They are paid shills and it's disgusting watching them shape the conversation. There are legitimate conversations people should have about FB, Google,MS, Apple, and all -- but not at the behest of this PR agency.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

But my grandparents are not on Facebook. That is a positive.

Re:Interesting fact

[poetmatt]

do you read or just spin things? He is saying that it DOESN'T have the same violations by default.

Re:Interesting fact

[LordLimecat]

Disclaimer-- I do not have google+, and I rarely use my facebook, so any corrections are welcomed.

As much as I also hate Zuckerberg, he is spot on. At least with Facebook I have control over what my information is made public.

I thought the complaints had all, historically, been that facebook was difficult to make truly private, tracking you even when you make an effort to lock it down.

Conversely, Google has historically been quite clear on what they do with their data, and my understanding was that Google+ made it easier to say "dont track anything, this is private".

Is that not correct?

Re:Interesting fact

[LordLimecat]

It makes the argument a bad one, even if its premise happens to be correct.

I have no problem tearing down someone's argument, even if they are in agreement with me, if it is an awful argument.

Re:Interesting fact

[djdavetrouble]

You are wrong about this. The way that google has decided to unroll this product accomplishes many things. To begin with, it creates hype, and the invitation tree premaps social networks. When you join by invitation, you already have at least one connection seeded, and its not some buster named Tom. Clever, eh?

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Except cges said that you see these options when you sign up for Google+.....back when I used Facebook, once I learned those became options, through a news article possibly even on /., I then had to use Google to search for where to find them, and then go deep into the facebook settings, where the faint of heart dare not voyage, in order to adjust them. So yeah, having the options right there in your face when you sign up is so much greater than the Facebook alternative.

Re:Interesting fact

[EraserMouseMan]

Admit it. You are an Apple hater too.

Re:Interesting fact

[Skarecrow77]

Facebook, on the other hand, has privacy controls deeply buried, which often reset themselves, and up to very recently at least (don't use Facebook apps anymore) didn't work properly with Facebook apps. I'll go with G+, TYVM.

This "feature" drives me nuts. More than once, out of the blue, facebook will start emailing me when someone replies to my status or sends me a friend request, even though I've disable that several times. I then have to go through every god damn setting to make sure they haven't randomly changed something else, like "show my posts to the whole fucking world" despite me setting them to "Friends only" very much on purpose.

I've had to remove every damn bit of information on myself possible just on the off chance that they screw up again, I don't my "dox" public. Facebook no longer has any idea where I live, have lived, what high school I went to, what college I went to, hell I'm not even sure it knows what year I was born. I had to get rid of all of that a long time ago (although in retrospect, I'm think I would have anyway and am glad I did). Anybody who wants to find me on the network better already know somebody else who is a friend of mine.

As for apps, I years ago uninstalled all the stupid "what transformer are you?" bullshit and haven't installed a single app since I found out just what the hell they had access to. Frightening.

Re:Interesting fact

[EraserMouseMan]

Marketing genius? The better move would have been to wait till the very day that Google headlines with "G+ out of Beta. Available to the Masses". Then when Zuck quits it makes the same side-by-side headlines with Google's press release. Would have been much more effective. Zuck blew his load too soon.

Re:Interesting fact

[bbecker23]

You can't be serious. If you don't want your name on your profile, then what's the fucking point? What should go there then, a 404?

Re:Interesting fact

[crashumbc]

Show photo geo location information in newly uploaded albums and photos.

Last I checked, this was optional.

It is also off by default.

Re:Interesting fact

[RKThoadan]

I think the setting your friend is looking for is here:
Accounts... Privacy Settings.
Click on "edit your settings" in the "Apps and Websites" blurb below the left column - yes they've somewhat disguised this so it appears more like an ad or something otherwise ignorable even though it's some of the most important privacy settings in the system.
I strongly recommend turning off all platform apps, games and websites.
You'll know it's working if those websites with facebook sidebars show a blurb that you have disabled integration.

Re:Interesting fact

[Is0m0rph]

But apparently on by default or something. I don't know my wife posted her first picture on it and it had a link underneath with our exact address on Google maps. She didn't enable it she just took a picture with the Google+ Android app.

Re:Interesting fact

[Snarky McButtface]

I think the added privacy comes in the ability to segregate content and contacts via Google Circles.

Re:Interesting fact

[hedwards]

That was the WTF part of this, Zuckerberg the douche that regularly changes the privacy policy to catch people off guard is complaining about Google+'s privacy policy? Seriously, Google doesn't randomly change the privacy policy to find people that missed the memo so that they can release the information without consent.

Re:Interesting fact

[D'Sphitz]

Exactly, at least that's the biggest draw for me. I don't want every one of my contacts to see my detailed account of the dead hooker in my trunk. There are things that may be relevant and appropriate to say to friends that you wouldn't want your family or colleagues to see. My RL friends don't know or care about my online friends and vice versa, and none of my friends don't care about my grandma's 80th birthday or the company picnic.

Also, the Zuckerberg creating a G+ profile, and then publicly quitting for "privacy concerns" is so transparent.

Re:Interesting fact

[Bengie]

"Google will be removing private profiles by end of the month"

You can still limit what profile info gets seen by which "circles". The "private" profile is nothing more than a circle of just you and only ever you. If you have profile information that neither friends or family should see, don't add it. To put it simply, at least one circle must be able to see profile information that you add, if you don't want ANYONE to ever see it, don't add it.

- Google can use your information to provide targeted marketing across Google sites and every affiliated site (ie. millions of sites where AdWords is installed)
If I'm going to get ads, I don't want shitty ads for car insurance. Yes, Google will "display" targeted ads on affiliated sites, but they don't *share* that information with those sites. All they do is give you more relevant ads anywhere Google Ads are used. At most an affiliated site could do is keep track of the ads Google sends and try to extrapolate information about you based on which ads Google provides.

- Show photo geo location information in newly uploaded albums and photos.
Or people could just download the images that you uploaded and look at the geo-location info in the image itself. Really, this is already public info that you provide when you upload the image. Strip the geo info before you upload. I wouldn't be surprised if browsers just add a feature to see this geo location info by checking the properties of the image in the page. Or better yet, disable the feature in your camera.

- Show this profile publicly (enabled by default)
And they VERY blatantly state this and give you a large colored button to easily disable it when you first setup. Your average person is going to want a public profile, otherwise the whole social network idea is useless. If you're really that concerned about privacy and want to still use it, it's crazy easy to change your privacy settings with Google+. Facebook is a nightmare by comparison. They even give you an option to see what your page will look like from any of your circles. "Preview as Family", there you go, see what they'll see. "Preview as Public". Hell, I can choose the name of another Google+ person and view my profile as them!

Holy crap, what more do you need?!

Using your logic, I could also create FUD about protected memory by stating "Protected memory is horrible, it will make it so much harder to communicate among programs. Protected mode is bad, Real mode is good."

I'm not saying Google+ is awesome or will take over, as I'm not a huge fan of social networking, but your logic has issues and/or is very biased to take things out of context to pervert their meaning.

Re:Interesting fact

[CraftyJack]

He's also got that IPO to worry about.

Re:Interesting fact

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I have a question for you or anyone out there that can answer it. I accidentally failed to uncheck that, "I can be tracked," box when I signed up (it was late, I was sleep deprived and in a rush). Does anyone know where the option to turn this tracking thingy off is after after you sign up?

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook: Public everything by default (generalization, but for the most part)
Google: Private everything by default (ditto)

Yeah, no differences whatsoever there. Private is the same as public, right?

Re:Interesting fact

[cgeys]

Except cges said that you see these options when you sign up for Google+.....back when I used Facebook, once I learned those became options, through a news article possibly even on /., I then had to use Google to search for where to find them, and then go deep into the facebook settings, where the faint of heart dare not voyage, in order to adjust them. So yeah, having the options right there in your face when you sign up is so much greater than the Facebook alternative.

Yeah, because Settings -> Privacy Settings is so damn hard.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Or she could turn off GPS tagging of photos on her phone in general....

Re:Interesting fact

[demonbug]

Marketing genius? The better move would have been to wait till the very day that Google headlines with "G+ out of Beta. Available to the Masses".

Zuckerberg is young, but not that young. Come on, this is Google; G+ won't be out of beta until our grandkids are in college.

Re:Interesting fact

[crashumbc]

You can also turn off searching in Google+

Re:Interesting fact

[gilleain]

Possibly he wants to use his hacker name : "ShadowHawk". It's what his (online) friends call him, after all!

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely! The whole thing is just cram packed with Judaism and faggotry. That shit needs to go.

Re:Interesting fact

[Miseph]

Not sure it's for the paranoid so much as the people who do not conform to standard gender roles or titles.

if you don't know anyone for whom that is a legitimate concern, then it won't come up. I expect to see "other" selected on a fairly large number of friends.

Re:Interesting fact

[tripleevenfall]

True. Google+ arrived in time to likely cost him the GDP of a small (medium?) nation in stock value after the IPO

Re:Interesting fact

[jojoba_oil]

I find this much easier to configure than the multi-page fun of privacy settings that is facebook.

The most fun privacy setting to find is the little check-box, hidden away from almost all other privacy settings, stating: My friends' apps can access any of my data, regardless of whether I use the app myself

(That's a paraphrase. I'm at work and don't want to log into my soon-to-be-deleted facebook account now.)

Re:Interesting fact

[Verteiron]

If only there were some way to populate those fields with bogus data, or not have a Google account at all! Pity Google reaches directly into your brain and autofills them without your consent.

Re:Interesting fact

[bigstrat2003]

Look, man. You can fight biology all you want, but that doesn't make it true. You are either male or female. There isn't another option.

Re:Interesting fact

[Miseph]

You can also opt not to use the service, which resolves all potential privacy issues it could cause.

Or you could use a pseudonym. I have friends with 3 or 4 of them that they use for various things.

Re:Interesting fact

[thetoadwarrior]

I just checked and it's off by default. "Show photo geo location information in newly uploaded albums and photos." is what it says so it may very well show her but that doesn't mean it's public.

Re:Interesting fact

[wiedzmin]

I'm sticking with Google+.

Ditto, regardless of how imperfect it is in the beginning, I believe that Google will do a much better job managing privacy in the long run and will not change privacy settings every week, opting in all users by default and waiting for them to maybe find out about the issues on their own and change their settings to adapt. I dropped Facebook a couple of years ago and haven't looked back once - if Google+ can replace it, great, if it can't - I will stick with LinkedIn and more immediate means of communication with my friends.

Re:Interesting fact

[Snarky McButtface]

Just remember to get rid of the dead hooker when she starts giving you lip.

Re:Interesting fact

[mat catastrophe]

Even it is that benign, I still find it creepy.

Re:Interesting fact

[mat catastrophe]

I'll pass that on. Gracias.

Mods, take note - that's a helpful post.

Re:Interesting fact

[Fwipp]

Some reading might do you good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Re:Interesting fact

[Squiddie]

Here's a fun fact: Facebook keeps logged everything you've ever put on there. They still know, even if it may be outdated information.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

. Facebook no longer has any idea where I live, have lived, what high school I went to, what college I went to, hell I'm not even sure it knows what year I was born. I had to get rid of all of that a long time ago (although in retrospect, I'm think I would have anyway and am glad I did).

It's funny cause you think taking the information off your profile deletes it from FB servers. Odds are, they still know where you live and how often you poop.

Re:Interesting fact

[SmilingBoy]

I know that there are a few people which wouldn't be able to select either male or female. I commend Google that they think about this minority, and give them a choice as well. However, I have never seen this before on any other website, I think.

Re:Interesting fact

[Segisaurus]

actually you can hide your networks / circles. Go under your profile, click edit, click on your circles (left side bar) You will see the options to show or not show your circles. You can show all circles or specific ones. You can limit circle viewing to public or only those already in your circles. You can even stop people from seeing who has placed you in a circle. The only mandatory public information is your Name, Gender, and a profile pic.

Re:Interesting fact

[Schadrach]

You missed the whole Battle.net outrage, huh?

Re:Interesting fact

[Nick Ives]

As hilarious / creepy as that comment from Zuckerberg is, it's so easy for comments like that to be taken out of context.

I mean, if someone were to take all the cuff comments I make in private and on instant messaging out of context, they'd think I was worse than Stalin.

Re:Interesting fact

[228e2]

Lol, you guys are crazy.

I am not endorsing Facebook by any means, but thinking Google will do a better job at managing privacy is baseless. How private is Gmail again? Google may do a better job at presenting a front, but these are all companies with little HONEST interest in your privacy.

Re:Interesting fact

[toriver]

At least with Facebook I have control over what my information is made public

You cannot be fucking serious. Facebook makes you hunt like a bloody vampire for the convoluted settings for every small nuance they can think of. And then they change it in the next update.

On Google+? A nice icon next to each element in the profile, telling me what level of "publicness" the info has, with the option to change it (options are world, extended circles, circles - or only you, i.e. private). Far easier.

Here's a hint: Don't like it? DON'T USE IT! How hard can it be to resist? And what is the point of using a social service if you intend to hide? You sound more like a "Zyngabook" fanboy...

Re:Interesting fact

[Nemo's Night Sky]

And yet Facebook does all of that too, but instead of being up front and honest about it, its all hidden in a massive EULA. If a fake sense of security is your comfort blanket, be my guest, go ahead a cuddle up. Only name and gender are public, so do some research before you post. Actually it is a good thing that profiles come up in Google searches. Now instead of going to page 2 or 3 of the results and finding out stuff I have no control over, most people will now be satisfied with clicking on my profile and seeing ONLY what I have chosen to share. (Other than name and gender.) As for privacy, Google+ has much finer and intuitive privacy controls than facebook, this (circles) being the main selling point over facebook. Facebook allows you to make groups and allows you to hide and show specific posts to specific friends, but does not allow you to use your groups with the security options, forcing you to look over possibly hundreds of names every-time you want to post something semi-privately. This is a bunch of FUD made for the sole purpose of making Zuckerberg money. Thank you for feeding the trolls.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

However, LinkedIn has started out of the blue e-mailing LinkedIn Updates from "your Extended Network". Even if Network Updates is set to No Email.

They seem to ignore user feedback now, so it's best to just set all options to No Email and also block any e-mail from LinkedIn as well.

So LinkedIn IPO's, then they want to be like Facebook.

Now that means anyone who wants me to add me to their network will need to e-mail directly, or will just have to wait until the next time I log onto LinkedIn.

Re:Interesting fact

[hairyfeet]

What I don't get with both Google and FaceBook is this: Their ultimate goal is to gather as much data on their users, aka data mining, so that they can make teh big monies off of advertisers, yes? So whether that data is 'public" or private as long as THEY have access to it mission accomplished, yes? So WTF is it with them and the whole "lets shotgun blast this shit over teh webz LOL!" bullshit? Seems counterproductive to do this kind of crap when it will most likely run some off and cause others not to share any useful data.

I just don't get it. It is like these companies are being run by Snidely Whiplash or something.

Re:Interesting fact

[Gruturo]

. Facebook no longer has any idea where I live, have lived, what high school I went to, what college I went to, hell I'm not even sure it knows what year I was born. I had to get rid of all of that a long time ago (although in retrospect, I'm think I would have anyway and am glad I did).

It's funny cause you think taking the information off your profile deletes it from FB servers. Odds are, they still know where you live and how often you poop.

And even if you never told them in the first place, with a large enough network of relations they can most likely infer it.

Re:Interesting fact

[Annirak]

You mean G+ listens to Randall Munroe.

Re:Interesting fact

[smelch]

All of my circles are named after what kind of jokes I can show those people. It's going to help a lot.

Re:Interesting fact

[Luckyo]

While I agree with you on a principle, google mail is actually very much private. It's contents aren't made public to anyone, and it's only indexed to provide more accurate ads to you. Contents of my mails don't randomly become available to people outside google in any shape and form (at least as far as I know).
As a result, it's usable, even if not for communications that requires extreme amounts of privacy protection from google.

In comparison, facebook has a tendency of randomly excreting private info up for everyone (or at least many parties outside facebook) to see. There is a major difference there.

Re:Interesting fact

[Luckyo]

Untick the last part and don't geo your photos? Targeted marketing exists even in gmail, but it's still a private and privileged access info even inside google, and now one outside it can properly link it to me. Quite different from facebook that's become infamous for randomly changing privacy rules and opting people in into new sharing "features", resulting in massive amounts of private information becoming available to general public or at least parties outside facebook.

As a result, this is indeed very ironic.

Re:Interesting fact

[wiedzmin]

Very well put, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Re:Interesting fact

[modmans2ndcoming]

Google's TOS say that the user owns the copyright to all the material uploaded so I fail to see how they are going to use anything you produce for the things you mention without getting your permission.

Re:Interesting fact

[modmans2ndcoming]

In the G+ settings click profile and privacy, then click "edit visibility on profile". At the bottom is "Search Visibility". Click it and change the value.

Re:Interesting fact

[modmans2ndcoming]

my name is my email and it is not public....and I just turned off the visibility of my networks under "network visibility" in "profile and privacy" on G+

Re:Interesting fact

[modmans2ndcoming]

the first part should be "my username" rather than "my name"

Re:Interesting fact

[hansraj]

Go to G+ settings and scroll down to the part that says "Google +1". You will see an edit link. If I am not mistaken this should be the option that you want to disable.

Re:Interesting fact

[Skarecrow77]

I don't care so much if FB knows that crap. most of it is outdated, and what they do have that is still relevant doesn't matter to me since I have a good spam blocker in my email and a good adblocker in my browser. It is the internet at large I don't want to know that crap.

I've let loose enough details on the internet that anybody random nobody who cares to google me can figure out the basics like what states I've lived in, what my hobbies are, etc. I just don't want them to be able to connect my forum name to my real name to my real phone to my real address and FB is the worst offender for making that crap public without asking you.

I don't need some 15yo forum troll I offended by pointing out how retarded he is, trying to ruin my life. I read ED (before it died). I know what they're about.

Re:Interesting fact

[RoFLKOPTr]

How private is Gmail again?

How the shit is that even relevant?

Re:Interesting fact

[SnowZero]

FWIW, users will have the option to hide gender later this week:
    https://plus.google.com/106792630639449031994/posts/5kt9TpEb77m
While this isn't a feature that most folks would need, it is very important to some users. On my account at least, the setting is already available.

Re:Interesting fact

[allo]

the problems are the same as with facebook. but facebook belongs to zuckerberg, g+ does not.

Re:Interesting fact

[DaVince21]

In G+, as far as I can see, you can hide about the same amount of information from anyone, and you can opt-out of search indexing. Also, the marketing thing holds true with any successful social networking site.

Re:Interesting fact

[coolmadsi]

any site you go to that has the Facebook icon? Facebook can see the referrer for the icon image and therefore knows the URL for the site you went to. It's the same for Twitter and all the other similar type things where you see their little icon littered throughout the internet.

There is a list for Ad Block called "antisocial" that is designed specifically to prevent these from showing up and loading.

Note that it does also prevent the Google "+1" button from appearing anywhere as well, even on Google+, so you either have to disable that specifically, or allow an exception for plus.google.com. Or just not +1 anything your freinds post on Google+.

Re:Interesting fact

[Anonymous Coward]

it was on by default in France if I'm right (before the outcry)

dont worry

[tekgoblin]

Don't worry I am following you, and that is all you need.

Re:dont worry

[nitehawk214]

Don't worry I am following you, and that is all you need.

Mod parent +1 Creepy.

What a douchebag...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Peach Fuzz needs to be chemically castrated and then waterboarded to see what it feels like. Stupid, BLATANT move, kid. Do you really think that we're that gullible?

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

This from the person who said that 'privacy doesn't exist anymore'.!??!?!

In other news...

[Compaqt]

Steve Ballmer says he doesn't want to a buy an iPhone over proprietary software concerns.

Timothy Geithner is worried that we're spending too much on the FDIC program.

And Fox News is banning MSNBC from their studios over 'bias'.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

EA forces frehsly acquired PopCap to remove DRM from its games.

Pope leaves church. Dismayed with Baseless beliefs.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest, MS is much more open in that they don't force you to buy hardware X to develop for their Windows platform. I guess some people just never catch onto Apple's real scam.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy an HTC phone, get an unlocked boot loader. It's that simple. http://source.android.com/ http://www.techspot.com/news/44626-htc-announces-timeframe-for-unlocked-bootloader-updates.html

I fail to see your point.

Re:In other news...

[CapuchinSeven]

Ooh noes, the millions upon millions upon millions of people in the world that well never ever want or need to develop for and Apple platform will never ever catch on to their evil evil scam, when will those millions upon millions upon millions of people ever wake up to evil that is Apple requiring an Apple platform to be used in Apple development.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple doesn't force you to buy hardware. They are a hardware company, that's what they sell. They make software to run on that hardware. Most of that software is either inexpensive or free. If you don't want to buy their hardware, don't.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

And Fox News is banning MSNBC from their studios over 'bias'.

I think that one is actually true.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are implying that Apple requires you to buy Apple hardware to develop for their products, you are incorrect.

I develop quite well and completely legally by running Mac OS X server in a virtual environment. Yes, the server version is $500 but that's all I have to pay as the OS includes the development tools. That's still a lot less than I have to pay for Microsoft Visual Studio ($2200 or so), plus the cost of Windows 7 Professional ($200).

And I've read that even the standard version of OS X can be run legally in a virtual environment when Lion comes out, and the server version is reduced to $50.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Until I can recompile the kernel on an iPhone, then the iPhone is unquestionably "less free" when compared to a G1/N1/NS.

But advocating software freedom is like advocating male rape awareness, so I don't really concern myself with it. I care more about usability, and the iPhone probably wins in that department.

Re:In other news...

[LWATCDR]

Or that Slashdot slams any other website for putting up titles that are absolute lies just just to get clicks...
I mean this is really disgusting and Slashdot should be absolutely ashamed!
FTFA
"The changes were revealed on the Google+ account belonging to the Social Statistics compiler Boris Veldhuijzen van Zanten. He explained that some Google+ members could no longer be tracked as they had further closed off their accounts on Tuesday. Interesting that Zuckerberg, the man so happy to gather and share so much of everyone else's data on Facebook, is suddenly so protective over his own."

You have lies, damn lies, statistics and then Slashdot headlines.
Really guys that is so sad.

Re:In other news...

[KiloByte]

More like Hitler expressing concern over the well-being of Jews. Or Stalin claiming things he does are meant to improve life of the working class.

Re:In other news...

[AliasMarlowe]

Or Stalin claiming things he does are meant to improve life of the working class.

In politics, "improve" does not necessarily imply "make better", despite naive interpretations to that effect. For example, Stalin improved the working class by making them work longer and harder, and die younger and poorer.

Re:In other news...

[Anonvmous Coward]

Read the articles you linked to.

"Keeping up with their promise to make smartphones more root-friendly,"

"They didn't specify which handsets will receive the capability or when we can expect to see it, but the company promises to keep us updated "every few weeks.""

"Motorola said it plans to enable the unlockable/relockable bootloader currently found on Motorola XOOM across its portfolio of devices starting in late 2011, "where carriers and operators will allow it.""

What's funny is you lot sure like to drag out the 'reality distortion field' a lot.

Why was this modded down instead of up?

Re:In other news...

[Compaqt]

The joke was not that iPhone is a proprietary platform (in fact, it is, just like Windows, and a lot of other platforms).

The joke was the irony in Steve Ballmer, head of the company famous for its "DOS isn't done till Lotus doesn't run" proprietary platform hypothetically complaining about another's proprietariness.

This hypothetical scenario, constructed for the purpose of eliciting a humorous reaction, was supposed to be a parody of the actual situation described in the headline, wherein the head (Mark Z) of a company dedicated to data mining is supposed to have complained about his data being mined by another company (Google).

The fact that I'm spelling this joke out in minute detail on Slashdot is meta-funny.

He Still Shows Up in My "dbags" Circle

[eldavojohn]

That's odd he's off the top of the list, maybe given special status or I'm following an impostor? Because he's still in my dbag circle ...

Re:He Still Shows Up in My "dbags" Circle

[alphatel]

He is still in my 'goons' circle as well. Maybe the whole article is meant as satire. Really, really, good excellent and obvious satire that I missed.

Re:He Still Shows Up in My "dbags" Circle

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and he's following sixteen others.

Re:He Still Shows Up in My "dbags" Circle

[goonjm]

He is still in my 'goons' circle as well.

The contents of this circle is relevant to my interests and I would like to know more. ;)

Re:He Still Shows Up in My "dbags" Circle

[Dogtanian]

That's odd he's off the top of the list, maybe given special status or I'm following an impostor? Because he's still in my dbag circle

A circle for douchebaggery sounds like something Dante ought to have come up with.

Pretty sure Zuckerburg would belong there... (^_^)

Are you kidding me!

[vxone]

Look at Face book the biggest privacy concern on the planet and Mark Zuckerberg is siting privacy concerns ! Give me a break total Hypocracy here That goes to show you that this is all b.s facebook, google and others are all trying to get away with tracking you so they can make money on your identity is the only reason they care in the first place.

Didn't quit

[mother_reincarnated]

The article (I know, I must leave now) does NOT say he quit G+. It says that he along with the top Mgmt at Google all seem to have opted for tighter privacy controls overnight. The number of friends and followers can no longer be *tracked*.

Re:Didn't quit

[Inda]

Them along with the rest of us. It was so easy; why not?

Re:Didn't quit

[kai_hiwatari]

Yes, his profile is still visible at https://plus.google.com/104560124403688998123/about . Only the details like number of followers, followings etc has been made private.

Re:Didn't quit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, his profile is still visible at https://plus.google.com/104560124403688998123/about . Only the details like number of followers, followings etc has been made private.

Click on the Buzz tab.

Re:Didn't quit

[Ambvai]

Really? From that page:

Mark has 4783 followers. Mark is following 16. Block Mark

Mark Zuckerberg has 4803 followers
lokesh chandel
Jeff McKean
digvijay pathania
Eddy Inserra
zakaria ziko
...
Load more...

Mark Zuckerberg is following 16
Charlie Cheever
Wayne Kao
Keith Adams
sarah goodin
Roddy Lindsay
Akhil Wable
Arjun Banker
Bret Taylor
Jared Morgenstern
Dustin Moskovitz
Aditya Agarwal
Adam D'Angelo
Mike Schroepfer
Mark Slee
Greg Badros
Paul Buchheit
Done

Re:Didn't quit

[Tolkien]

Maybe it's strange regional content blocking then because I can still see that he has exactly 16 followers: Charlie Sheever, Wayne Kao, Keith Adams, Sarah Goodin, Roddy Lindsay, Akhil Wable, Arjun Banker, Bret Taylor, Jared Morgenstern, Dustin Moskovitz, Aditya Agarwal, Adam d'Angelo, Mike Shroepfer, Mark Slee, Greg Badros, Paul Buchheit. He also (as of this writing) has 4782 followers.

Re:Didn't quit

[Tolkien]

Woops, I meant he is following exactly 16 people.

Re:Didn't quit

[Anonymous Coward]

Still showing on the buzz page:

https://plus.google.com/104560124403688998123/buzz

Re:Didn't quit

[Anonymous Coward]

As of when? If you click his profile and go to Buzz, it says, "Mark has 4806 followers. Mark is following 16." You can click on the 4806 followers to see a list of them.

Re:Didn't quit

[MurukeshM]

Maybe the Buzz people are separate from those in his circles, and those who have him in his circles. I'm sure the two are distinct. And I know we can hide the Buzz tab (already hidden when I started using G+). P'haps he forgot.

Re:Didn't quit

[Anonymous Coward]

How come I can still see it?

Mark has 4826 followers. Mark is following 16.

Re:Didn't quit

[HuntingHawk]

You can still get his number of friends and followers here: https://plus.google.com/104560124403688998123/buzz

Re:Didn't quit

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you go to his buzz tab. :)

"Mark has 4869 followers. Mark is following 16. Block Mark."

Also linked from number of followers is his full list of people he follows. And a list of people he follows.

Looks like someone forgot something :D

Re:Didn't quit

[old and new again]

https://plus.google.com/104560124403688998123/buzz Mark has 4890 followers. Mark is following 16. Block Mark

Re:Didn't quit

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you click on 'Buzz' you can see that he as 4,951 followers.

Re:Didn't quit

[wikdwarlock]

He's not hidden any of those things as far as I can see... See this image I just captured: http://tinypic.com/r/11rt72q/7

are you f'in kidding me?!!!

[Thud457]

"Zuckerberg Quits Google+ Over Privacy Concerns"
Oh, they ironing is delicious!

Re:are you f'in kidding me?!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not ironing, it's hippo-grease.

Re:are you f'in kidding me?!!!

[InsectOverlord]

I on the other hand, don't enjoy ironing... that's why I always wear T-shirts.

Re:are you f'in kidding me?!!!

[Dunega]

They're ironing? Where? I need a few shirts done.

Re:are you f'in kidding me?!!!

[dzfoo]

If they ironing is delicious, would they cooking be scrumptious? Or do you just have an appetite for launderers?

        -dZ.

Re:are you f'in kidding me?!!!

[TheGratefulNet]

if you apply to a newspaper, they give you a press pass. so you don't need to worry about wrinkles, as much, then.

Misleading headline?

[romcabrera]

Nowhere it says Zuckerberg closed his account so that he couldn't be tracked.

Re:Misleading headline?

[rust627]

he probably thought that accounts cant be cancelled , like facebook..............

Re:Misleading headline?

[joocemann]

The plain truth is often less 'newsworthy', and requires sensationalization to garner attention.

Re:Misleading headline?

[kalirion]

Shhh, don't spoil the perceived irony!

Re:Misleading headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

Re:Misleading headline?

[Anonymous Coward]

You CAN get out of facebook... I did.

I love this story so much.

[drunkennewfiemidget]

Seriously. What a fantastic PR move on Zuckerberg's part. I mean. We're all here talking about it, right?

What a load.

Re:I love this story so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

no, he would never sign up for a competitor site planning to quit soon after to create a stir. never...

Re:I love this story so much.

[betterunixthanunix]

We're all making jokes about it, because it is completely absurd. Zuckerberg is the guy who kept on telling people that there is no privacy anymore and that anyone who wants privacy must be up to no good.

Re:I love this story so much.

[Captain Spam]

I know! Now that I know Zuckerberg's no longer on Google+, I'm a lot more willing to use it! That's fantastic PR for Google!

Wait, what did you mean?

Re:I love this story so much.

[Haedrian]

Zuckerberg is the guy who kept on telling people that there is no privacy anymore and that anyone who wants privacy must be up to no good.

I thought that was the TSA

The tracker becomes the trackeee

[madhatter256]

The tracker became the trackee....

Sucks to be on the receiving end... but of course you agree to the terms and conditions when signing up... google still keeps your info even if you deactivate your account.

I'm just shocked!

[AngryDeuce]

Wow, who didn't see this one coming? Is the Zuck trying to make the claim that Facebook cares more about privacy? Give me a break...

The Age of Privacy is over

[Frankie70]

A wise man once said this.

Facebook's Zuckerberg Says The Age of Privacy is Over

Re:The Age of Privacy is over

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop spreading that bullshit you passive cattle!
Don't you realize that it always takes two?
One asshole to violate a rule,
and one idiot to just accept it.
Guess who you are. :P

The operative word here is accept. It is you who makes the decision. Don't let them tell you it's them.

And: The age of privacy isn't over until I say so!
You go that?
And Zuck Doucheberg will comply, or go down. No discussion. Period.
Just like you.

Frankly G+ can suck it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly cannot afford to upload any photographs I need for work or might be work related. Hell I am not sure if I would put any personal ones there.

Re:Frankly G+ can suck it.

[wintercolby]

Then don't opt-in for instant upload. I was asked if I wanted it on when I installed G+ on my Android.

Re:Frankly G+ can suck it.

[fritish]

Also, they are private by default. I like how my photos are backed up to picasa now. I used to use a third party app to do that.

All in all, so far G+ has been a pretty positive experience for me. It's a social network, so it's odd when people act surprised when you can share information with others and stuff marked "Global" gets posted and indexed everywhere for everyone to see.

please, learn how to read

[Anonymous Coward]

can you let someone with a basic reading comprehension write the headlines?
thanks.

TFA

[Frankie70]

TFA doesn't say anywhere except the headline that Zuckerberg quit it because of privacy concerns

mod parent +5

[unity100]

insightful. the irony is dumbfounding

Re:mod parent +5

[Anonymous Coward]

Except to the people who read the article or read the numberous posts that point out that Zuckerberg didn't quit Google+
 
I guess it's too much to ask that Slashtards read anything without giving their unfounded opinion based on sensationalist or slanderous headlines?

Re:mod parent +5

[unity100]

you would be the retard here. since you are not able to see the irony of someone who has been calling privacy to be over, complaining about privacy in google+. and then proceed to comment about 'slashtards'.

Interestingly...

[elsurexiste]

MZ is right. In FB, I configured it right from the start into "sociopath/paranoid mode", and slowly opened myself to the web from there. In G+, everything is open from day 0. Yuck!

Re:Interestingly...

[Godai]

Not that its an excuse, but 'everything is open from day 0' is how Facebook was until maybe a year ago. So its still ironic :) You'd have thought Google would have learned that little lesson though from just watching the complaints against how Facebook handled privacy. Also, I thought the whole point of Google+ was that they learned not to make everything public, like they did with Buzz. I guess not.

Re:Interestingly...

[Riceballsan]

Umm I fail to see the logic in the statements. I opened a Google account yesterday, I shared a picture, it asked me, which circles do you want to share this with, pretty certain on Facebook were I to upload that same picture it would automatically assume everyone on my friends list is free game unless I went much deeper into the settings and tweaked things.

Re:Interestingly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wtf are you talking about? Google+'s privacy is already better than Facebook and provides easier and more comprehensive control.

Re:Interestingly...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also privacy options beside each individual area in the profile. So I am failing to see the problem.

Coke and Pepsi

[mfh]

This move could trigger a Streisand_effect, much like how Coke acknowledged Pepsi during the cola wars. Zuckerberg's first mistake was to sign into G+ because it obviously becomes embarrassing when he emerges as the most popular G+ user, as if he is acknowledging how wonderful G+ is when it's going to inevitably replace FB. Now the next mistake was to tighten his privacy controls to make him disappear from the leader-board. That is the kind of thing that draws a lot of attention to the fact he was even on G+. Until this morning I had no idea he was even on there. Now I know. And I'm laughing at him for it.

Hyperbole.

[SilentSheep]

He didn't quit Google+ he just changed his privacy settings so that you can't track how many friends/followers he has. You can still see his profile right here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/104560124403688998123

Selective Memory

[Tony Sharp]

"Why are people so surprised that I'd have a Google account?" Probably because you (Facebook) tried to run a smear campaign on Google just a few months ago. He probably thinks everyone forgot about that.

No, the Pope's not Catholic

[tepples]

Pope leaves church.

Some believe this has already happened. See Sedevacantism.

Irony explosion indeed.

[Stumbles]

So Mr. Suckerberg the shoe on that other foot does not feel so good, does it? I can understand not wanting to be tracked but Mr. Suckerberg you'll have to explain to me why then I should join Facebook. Especially in its early days when you said people were fucking idiots for trusting you with their data.

Re:And also

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a break Eisenstein.

Closes up account != closes account

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the poster misunderstood the title of the article.

True stories would be great

[Anonymous Coward]

News for nerds is great, but I consider "true" to be a requirement. I'm kind of sad that this is the last story I'll ever see from the RSS feed.

Oh really

[MrDiablerie]

Pot meet kettle.

What I don't get...

[Junta]

I know a handful of 'oh hell no I'm not doing facebook' people (I'm one of them). They want meticulous control over how they communicate and with whom they communicate, and that flies in the face of the whole point of facebook. I understand this. I understand you can be meticulous and all that with facebook in theory, but then I see no benefit to using Facebook at all over other forms of communication, so why bother.

What I don't get is why about half of the people I know who have consistently said this about facebook have started pestering me to join Google+. How the hell does Google get people to make an about face like that?

Re:What I don't get...

[Diss Champ]

As someone who has avoided Facebook and is trying out Google+, part of it is trust.

I don't trust Facebook to honor what I tell them in my controls; I think they will neither provide adequate technical protections, or believe they will act in good faith whenever they can make a buck. I also don't like their lock-in.

I think Google will do a better job on these fronts. The non-lock-in approach is an excellent show of good faith. I've used other Google products, and with the exception of some honest mistakes with Buzz they have AFAIK done a good job of walking the line of only using info they have access to ethically.

Of course due to personal web pages I have had in the past (accessible forever via the wayback machine), and various publications, there's already plenty of info about me out there- combined with what Google already knows from my gmail account, they already know more than they would learn from mining what I've put in Google+.

And there are things (i.e. pictures of parties) that I won't be putting online in any form, because I'm only willing to bet so much on my assessment:).

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been asked this by people before. The difference is in trust. Do you trust Google to treat its users fairly? Do you trust Facebook to do the same.

Historically speaking, Google has made mistakes. I'm ok with honest mistakes, even stupid mistakes, as long as you:

1) Admit it
2) Fix it
3) Learn from it

All 3 of which Google has been pretty good about.

Facebook, on the other hand, has over and over done things that just give me the creeps. The privacy policy changes happening multiple times while trying to tell their users it's a "feature" is just wrong. They exude indifference, if not animosity, towards the people who made them successful.

So while both companies want to make money by using the data they collect, I tend to trust Google to be much more open about how they operate and upfront about what they're actually doing with the data and how I can control it.

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

G+ makes it much, much easer to be "meticulous" about which information goes to which people. That's basically the main advantage that their system has over FB.

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

This should explain most http://xkcd.com/918/

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same way Facebook was once "not MySpace."

Re:What I don't get...

[BJ_Covert_Action]

How the hell does Google get people to make an about face like that?

Using Facebook makes you feel like a cheap hooker that just took part in a tranny bukake scene for $15.

Using Google+ makes you feel like a wined and dined princess that finished off the perfect date night with the perfect guy by giving the perfect BJ.

Sure, in both cases you will have a bit of spunk on your lips, but one situation makes you feel a lot better than the other.

Re:What I don't get...

[RJFerret]

Google+ =

meticulous control over how they communicate and with whom

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. the interface is better
2. better integration with gmail/picasa/etc.
3. Google makes its money on ads, so they're not going to sell your information directly to other people - just target ads at you.
4. the privacy controls work differently than Facebook, so you can have separate "circles" without accidentally having your wife and mistress be able to see each other's connection to you (read: they learned from the Buzz clusterfuck)
5. no more retarded Farmville-like games

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not publicly expressing the attitude that it's wrong to expect any sort of privacy, not having a number of past instances where trust was violated by changing user settings underneath them and forcing them to opt out by crawling through insanely complex menus, not having insane access to personal information being handed out to every application using API, not making it really feasible to prevent people from tagging you in every photo that was ever taken of you... no data liberation options and an ongoing policy of actually trying to lock you in to the platform further... do I really need to go on here? I have NEVER had gmail share my information like an asshole, and I have ALWAYS had Facebook try to do so as far as I have used it.

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I hate facebook, and do not use it, or any other social networking site. Why do people want to use Google+ as opposed to Facebook? Because they want Big Brother Google to know even more? Weird...

Re:What I don't get...

[RazorSharp]

Your user name is extremely appropriate.

Car analogies no more! It's now the era of BJ analogies!

Re:What I don't get...

[Threni]

An `about face` is when one changes their behaviour. This is another company seizing on the opportunity to do what another company is trying to do, properly. Facebook understands privacy the way Microsoft understands security; they have to have it explained to them breach by breach.

Hopefully Facebook will someday be as popular as MySpace.

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

They want meticulous control over how they communicate and with whom they communicate, and that flies in the face of the whole point of facebook. I understand this. I understand you can be meticulous and all that with facebook in theory, but then I see no benefit to using Facebook at all over other forms of communication, so why bother.

What I don't get is why about half of the people I know who have consistently said this about facebook have started pestering me to join Google+. How the hell does Google get people to make an about face like that?

because Google+ gives you meticulous control over how you communicate and with whom you communicate. In other words G+ gives them the social network that they wanted instead of FB...

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about audience management.

Your boss doesn't need to see your drunken pictures from last night.
Your party-friends don't need to read your interesting work-related articles
Your mom doesn't need to post pictures of you that the girl you're currently dating will see

It's about content control.
You don't need to be reading two of your friends telling each other how cute they are every 3 minutes
You don't need to be reading your coworker's lifestyle-posts to his friends in some hobby you aren't remotely interested in
You don't need to know what all 1000 of your friends are having for dinner, but you might want to know what a select group of local friends' dinner plans are tonight.

Google+ makes the "Circle" the center-most concept of sharing, thus letting you control the granularity much more precisely.
Facebook makes it possible but difficult to do the same.

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except some of these people are the ones that said they don't need social networking in the first place.

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

Using Facebook makes you feel like a cheap hooker that just took part in a tranny bukake scene for $15.

That would be a good comparison, except that Facebook don't give you $15.

Re:What I don't get...

[arkhan_jg]

They want meticulous control over how they communicate and with whom they communicate

Which is precisely how circles work. You add people to circles, and a) you see their public posts in your stream and b) they can see stuff you post that you deliberately select their circle to see.

(If you don't add someone to a circle, but they're sharing stuff with you, it just goes into the 'incoming' circle, but not your main stream - you can hide bits, block them entirely, or add them to the appropriate circle)

Everything bar your name is selectable for privacy, so you can choose which circles, if any, see what, or you can make it public if you like, and it's all optional - blank by default, and you're prompted to choose secure settings when you select who to share with.

That you can remove your circle of followers/friends from view is a feature, not a fault. Having your 'social graph' visible makes it easier for friends to find you, as you probably share mutual friends and it uses that to show how many people you have in common when it makes recommendations. You can make some circles visible but not others (the circle itself they're in is not shown) or just hide them all. I have limited mine to just one group, while we're all finding each other.

I loathe facebook, the way they make it as hard as possible to make sure your settings are really, truly set to friends only, and have a nasty habit of changing it back to open without telling you. That, and the relationship with zygna, a truly scummy company.

Google cocked up with Buzz and privacy; they really seem to have learned from that with google+. I already have 100 odd co-circled people (mostly friends from a common forum) and am loving it. Google may not be a saint of a company, but they've demonstrated so far they've got a helluva bigger clue when it comes to managing who sees what than facebook have ever demonstrated. Well, that and hangouts are just really cleverly done.

Re:What I don't get...

[ArundelCastle]

Sure, in both cases you will have a bit of spunk on your lips, but one situation makes you feel a lot better than the other.

With the handle BJ_Covert_Action I think we can guess which situation earned you your stripes. ;)

Re:What I don't get...

[Anonymous Coward]

Using Facebook makes you feel like a cheap hooker that just took part in a tranny bukake scene for $15.
Using Google+ makes you feel like a wined and dined princess that finished off the perfect date night with the perfect guy by giving the perfect BJ.
Sure, in both cases you will have a bit of spunk on your lips, but one situation makes you feel a lot better than the other.

roflmao, these are the metaphors of the year! +1!!!!!!

You have 0 friends

[Patron]

Damnit, this is one of the reasons I don't have a facebook account; I don't want a competition over who has the most friends. I thought G+ would be different, but I think it will also become just another means to increase your e-peen.

Re:You have 0 friends

[CapuchinSeven]

*shrug*, then don't get involved with the competition. I've used Myspace, Facebook and Twitter and I think if anything, I like that I have small friends lists. I don't think I've ever felt like I should have more friends so I can be cool.

Re:You have 0 friends

[Mashiki]

Well it's pretty obvious that social networking is for ego stroking and gratification. I mean how else are you going to blow your e-load all over the place. Can't you hear those electrons buzzing in excitement now?

Reading Comprehension...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not high on /. submitters' list apparently, and just below the writing clearly over at the Inquirer. Actual headline: "Zuckerberg closes off Google+ account so he can't be tracked", which ought to be at best translated to "Zuckerberg hides previously available information," or the less sensationalist "Top G+ users opt to not have their follower statistics revealed, using Google's (previously missing?) privacy control"

Over privacy concerns

[Anonymous Coward]

What's so weird about the guy having privacy concerns? He didn't say what the problem was... Now, everyone knows that the guy thinks privacy shouldn't exist, so why wouldn't he have concerns when Google+ suddenly makes privacy settings easy to use.

Why does anyone care what Zuck thinks?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's his competitor -- do you think he's seriously going to be like "Wow, Google+ is so awesome -- fuck Facebook and all of my billions of dollars" This response should not be a surprise to anyone. He may as well have said "Oh, I tried Google+ but I heard it kills babies and hates jesus."

Seriously - aside from being funny in an ironic way (as the post pointed out) -- why does anyone care what he thinks?

Re:And also

[Chrisq]

If you want to be anonymous use a fictitious name. OK I am sure governments and police could track you but for 99.999% of users this is sufficient. The others should look at going via tor.

Everyone followed him as a joke.

[Lumpy]

And I assumed it was a fake profile.. This is incredibly funny that it really was him.

Re:Everyone followed him as a joke.

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, it is like Steve Balmer using an iPhone. "What's wrong, isn't your company's product good enough?" I agree that media coverage is an enormous influence on the number of followers one gets, but I'd bet a pretty high stake that turning up his privacy settings on G+ (if indeed it is a real account) is based purely on embarrassment. All his keenest followers are on a competing product!

Mark Can't Spy, Publicity Stunt

[Kamiza Ikioi]

On Facebook, Mark sees other people's info, and they can't see his.

On Google+, he set his profile public, and they can all see him, and he can't see all the stuff they set private like he can on Facebook.

See? Privacy... Concern...

Unless Mark can be private while at the same time looking into everyone else's dirty little secrets (I wonder exactly how many private nude pictures he's check out late nights at FB...), then it's a concern for him, a... privacy... concern...

Besides, this is a publicity stunt. He is trying to throw privacy concerns Google's way to make them look just as bad as him. Of course, it could be the biggest FAIL of the year. It'd be like McDonald's calling out Wendy's on obesity concerns.

Re:Mark Can't Spy, Publicity Stunt

[_Sprocket_]

This was my reaction too (steepled fingers, "well played, Mr. Zuckerberg. Well played."). A bit of G+ chatter / press went to Zuckerberg being the most followed on G+. He gets some attention. Then throws his hands up and goes "never-mind how I said that the age of privacy is over... G+ is too scary!"

Re:Mark Can't Spy, Publicity Stunt

[poetmatt]

of course it is. Haven't you noticed how anti-google they became as soon as they inked the deal with mcirosoft?

Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

And furthermore, it's not an instance of irony; it's an instance of hypocrisy.

Re:Irony

[Macgrrl]

The irony is that people purport to be surprised by this when it was an obvious move on his behalf.

Pot to Kettle

[PerlDave]

If this is not a case of the pot calling the kettle black, then I must not understand the point of that analogy.

Re:Pot to Kettle

[SeNtM]

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle Facebook.

Alternate Reality

[Anonymous Coward]

The scary thing about google+ is that you realize your full life is on google and joining the two things social web + real life is a scary thing...
Also when I joined seeing all of my google contacts easilly exported into this new world and the joining of my other google services with google+
scary!!

I'll keep using facebook, it's a better place to keep an alternate reality. :D

Re:Alternate Reality

[Haedrian]

My full life is on google? As in my medical history? Videos of me taking a shower? My paycheck ? My jobs?

If you mean "Google tracks the websites you visit", so does Facebook. At least one is transparent about it.

Heard in the Facebook-kitchen

[Anonymous Coward]

Pot: "Damn you're dark, Kettle, you're practically black, black as night, tar-black, as black as the heart of Hitler. You're a nigger-kettle, I say, a nigger-kettle!"

cgeys is a paid shill for FB and MS

[Anonymous Coward]

cgeys is a paid shill for FB and MS. This has been going on for months -- documented by many different ACs. Facebook even *admitted* to hiring a PR agency to smear Google on privacy issues in the news. The same PR agency that MS uses (MS is an investor in FB). Look at his post history, really look. Every other post is either subtly or overtly pro-FB. The other obvious clue is that he mods himself up with alts before anyone can even comment to +4 or +5 insightful, then gradually the score goes back down as the real mods show up. There have been many +2M UIDs doing this for months now. It's always anti-Google/Linux/Apple and pro MS/Facebook. And the person always has the first post sans a subscription. There are legitimate conversations people should have about FB, Google,MS, Apple, and all -- but not at the behest of this PR agency. Time for a new alt cgeys. You've worn this one out.

Re:cgeys is a paid shill for FB and MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, this stupid "OMG HE IS A SHILL" is getting tiresome. These are my honest opinions. For a community that should be somewhat intelligent and pro-anticensor, these kinds of messare are fucking stupid. But keep making slashdot even worse place than it currently is. I bet you would like to see "I agree with this" comments on every discussion instead of actual honest, intelligent opinions.

Re:cgeys is a paid shill for FB and MS

[horza]

He is definitely in love with Facebook and Microsoft, and hates Google (including Google+, Adsense, Chrome) and Open Source. Looking at the post history, there is a definite repetition of Google+ is supposed to be worse for privacy than Facebook despite providing no evidence. And he has the same tactic each time. "As much as I also hate Zuckerberg" in this post before complimenting Facebook, "I use Open Office daily" before explaining why he prefers M$ Word, "I use CentOS for servers" before dissing Open Source.

I don't think anybody really believes Facebook is better for privacy than Google so if he is a shill he is failing badly.

Phillip.

Didn't he simply join

[Spiflicator]

so that he could promptly quit, w/ reasons why G+ was bad (and FB was better?)

Facebook & Google Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The need for privacy verses the need for money to support the cause is a balancing act. To be real advertisers need the consumers presence to sell their product. Its still door to door sells only the doors are now computers. So for the advertiser to pay for ads they need to be assured of market exposure.

Just marketing

[Mr. Freeman]

Mark Zuckerberg, a person owning a company that's a direct competitor to Google+, has bad things to say about Google+? NO WAY! THIS IS HEADLINE NEWS!

Of course he's going to claim that he has privacy concerns, what a better way to slander your competitors without getting in trouble.

G+ Impacts Facebook market value?

[rainhill]

I Wander if G+ had any negative impact on Facebook market value?

By the time it arrives you can't be cool

[smoothnorman]

All this competition for coolness before it even becomes possible for most of us to compete. ("the rankings of various G+ users with big followings. I currently have a measly 400 or so.") So by the time it comes available to us, sans-culottes, why should we bother? ...sort've reminds one of Bitcoin in a way really.

Stop bitching.

[Shoe Puppet]

If you don't like Google+, make your own social network or stop complaining.

So how do I hide my friend count

[LazyAcer]

I don't care about rankings, but it would be nice to have a clean profile without displaying everyone I've circled or has circled me

Re:So how do I hide my friend count

[imunfair]

Privacy > Network Visibility

Maybe he just never realised

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Zuckerberg just never really realised what it feels like to give somebody else all that access to and control over your information, because he was the somebody-else. Now he's had a go at giving Google the reins of part of his online presence for a while, maybe he'll realise what an enormous mistake he's made and immediately set about shutting down Facebook for good, donating all the proceeds to starving children and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Mark Z. doesn't want to be tracked.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mark Zuckerberg has decided to leave Google's new social network because he 'doesn't want to be tracked."---too funny. ...he doesn't want to be tracked---he just wants to track everyone else.....funny as h....l.

Thought

[DaMattster]

Wow, now that is the pot calling the kettle black!

Of course he quit

[Maskull]

Of course he doesn't want to be tracked, he wants to be the one doing the tracking.

"Meow"

[retroworks]

I can't decide whether the tone of this discussion reminds me more of Austen Powers post-insult "meow", or the two grumpy balcony muppets. All the article says is that several people set their Google+ to "friends only" or something.

New settings for circles

[Anonymous Coward]

This could also be totally blown out of proportion and be, in fact, related to the new settings allowing users to not show their circles or circles that they are a part of...

That is fine, but...

[nonzen]

...can someone please tell me why would anyone want to follow Robert Scoble?

I already have!

[OrangeTide]

But my social network is so exclusive that I'm very lonely now.

The Irony of it all

[Frightened_Turtle]

Ironic, as I'm leaving Facebook for privacy concerns and moving to Google+. With Facebook, I never quite know what is going to be publicly revealed and displayed—intentionally or not. Google+ is taking aims to ensure it is easy to control who sees what when I post something. With Facebook, it's always been a crapshoot as to what may be considered private one week and public the next.

Before anyone really gets up in a tizzy about privacy, the point behind these two services is to broadcast to a given collection of people—the world, friends, or family—the activities in which you are participating. With G+, I can fine tune who sees what.

I will say that the Google+ interface isn't quite as matured as Facebook's. But they've done a good job for right out of the gate! I also believe that once G+ gets more people, we will better be able to judge how well it works.

Re:The Irony of it all

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you can't stop Google themselves seeing all that information and grouping it altogether with the rest of what they have on you.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not at all comfortable about Google having so much information about me...way too easily abused. Do people *really* trust Google that much? They are a public company just like any other. They may be fine right now...but who knows who they're letting see that data behind closed doors?

Re:The Irony of it all

[EmagGeek]

I've found that the Android interface is quite well-polished compared to the web interface.

Re:The Irony of it all

[Frightened_Turtle]

I've found that the Android interface is quite well-polished compared to the web interface.

That's good to know! Thank you for the information. I'm looking forward to when it is available for my phone.

It's probably a wise move on Google's part to put emphasis on the mobile interface, as Android and iOS devices are a very strong market for any social networking product to set a foundation.

On Google+

[Anonymous Coward]

You. Control. Your. Own. Data.

You can set everything to private except your name...which you can make unsearchable, if you want.

Now, quit trolling.

Jesus

[crhylove]

Pot, meet Kettle....

Er...

[Anonymous Coward]

That, like Alanis sings, is not irony.

"The pot calling the kettle black"

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

As the subject matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_calling_the_kettle_black

I think it's cool

[ToddInSF]

That even though I haven't signed up for Google+, I can, and have, blocked Zuck.

I am sure...

[DaVince21]

He just joined Google+ so he could leave it.

Hahaha, talk about a publicity stunt

[EmagGeek]

The sad thing is that many will NOT see this as the completely transparent and idiotic publicity stunt that it is.

They probably read the headline here and went "Oh Snap! pwned!"

Removal of "Anonymous" postings

[Pigskin-Referee]

What really needs to be done is the elimination of "Anonymous Coward" AKA "Douche Bag" postings. These pathetic, under achievers are responsible for 90+ percent of the trash posted on this forum.

Just Like a The Onion News Headline...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh? What? Is this The Onion News?

Is Google+ publicly available?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can hardly wait for G+! I will be migrating very quick from Facebook and leaving the latter behind. If publicly available, Google must be rolling it out very slowly. I suggest this as I can't get on when I sign in.

Screw Zuck

[Anonymous Coward]

I quit Facebook yesterday because of privacy concerns. Not to mention it was an addiction sucking the fun out of my life and constantly trying to strengthen my dependency on it. The really do make it hard to get rid of an account.