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
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
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,"
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.
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
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.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!