Slashdot Mirror
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.
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'.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
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 ...
My work here is dung.
Show photo geo location information in newly uploaded albums and photos.
Last I checked, this was optional.
Reply to That ||
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*.
Nowhere it says Zuckerberg closed his account so that he couldn't be tracked.
A wise man once said this.
Facebook's Zuckerberg Says The Age of Privacy is Over
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.
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.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
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?
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!
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,"
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.
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.
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
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.
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.
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.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Side Note: Zuckerberg is a marketing genius. This makes facebook actually look safer than G+. what a joke.
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?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
And I assumed it was a fake profile.. This is incredibly funny that it really was him.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
I8-D
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.
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.
My company home page
do you read or just spin things? He is saying that it DOESN'T have the same violations by default.
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.
Show photo geo location information in newly uploaded albums and photos.
Last I checked, this was optional.
It is also off by default.
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.
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.
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.
Whew! This water sure is cold!