×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Zuckerberg Quits Google+ Over Privacy Concerns

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the so-much-irony dept.

Google 284

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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

284 comments

Interesting fact (2, Informative)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747812)

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 (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747842)

So then make it LinkedIn instead of Facebook.

Re:Interesting fact (0)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747874)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748484)

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 (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748492)

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 (4, Informative)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747870)

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

Last I checked, this was optional.

Re:Interesting fact (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36747880)

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)

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

1. What is "your information" that google releases? It's same they have been doing for years with your searches. Unlike Apple, they do not track you without notifying you, and unlike facebook, they don't sell your personally identifying information to anybody. Stop being a douchbag.
2. Photo geo location - not all, and not private pictures. and only those you allow it to, you asshole.
3. And the public profile has what information ? your name and gender - as if it's not already publicly available?

Go back to the Facebook/Apple dungeon, you bitch.

Re:Interesting fact (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748078)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748422)

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 (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748164)

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 (1)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748520)

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 (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36747998)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748374)

. 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 (5, Informative)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748016)

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 (1, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748448)

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.

Frankly G+ can suck it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748074)

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. (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748176)

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

Re:Interesting fact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748084)

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 (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748330)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748094)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748102)

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

Re:Interesting fact (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748344)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748140)

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 (1)

mat catastrophe (105256) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748154)

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 (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748376)

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 (2)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748416)

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 (4, Informative)

trum4n (982031) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748166)

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 (2)

trum4n (982031) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748428)

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

Re:Interesting fact (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748526)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748180)

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748196)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748482)

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 (5, Insightful)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748252)

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 (2)

ctrimm (1955430) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748262)

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 (5, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748308)

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 (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748362)

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 (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748370)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748432)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748464)

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 (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748468)

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 (1)

DiarrhoeaChaChaCha (985322) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748488)

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.

What a douchebag... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36747846)

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? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36747860)

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

In other news... (5, Funny)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747862)

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... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36747994)

Android fans brag about how they're about freedom.

Re:In other news... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748338)

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... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748470)

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.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748042)

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

Pope leaves church. Dismayed with Baseless beliefs.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748064)

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.

And also (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748116)

Zuckerberg avoiding being tracked isn't irony, it is hypocrisy.

Irony would be if Zukerberg (or anyone) joined Google+ in order to avoid being tracked.

Why can't people understand these very simple concepts?

Hypocrisy: do as I say not as I do.
Irony: effect is the exact opposite of that which was intended.

IT IS SIMPLE!

Re:And also (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748304)

Take a break Eisenstein.

Re:And also (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748478)

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 [wikipedia.org].

He Still Shows Up in My "dbags" Circle (3, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747868)

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 [google.com] ...

Re:He Still Shows Up in My "dbags" Circle (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747984)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748446)

Yeah, and he's following sixteen others [google.com].

Are you kidding me! (1)

vxone (668809) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747910)

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 (5, Informative)

mother_reincarnated (1099781) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747922)

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*.

are you f'in kidding me?!!! (0)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747924)

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

Re:are you f'in kidding me?!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748312)

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

Misleading headline? (4, Informative)

romcabrera (699616) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747932)

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

Re:Misleading headline? (5, Funny)

rust627 (1072296) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748026)

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

Re:Misleading headline? (2)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748290)

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

I love this story so much. (1)

drunkennewfiemidget (712572) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747938)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748046)

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. (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748430)

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.

The tracker becomes the trackeee (1)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747962)

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! (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747986)

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 (4, Insightful)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 2 years ago | (#36747996)

A wise man once said this [readwriteweb.com].

Facebook's Zuckerberg Says The Age of Privacy is Over

mod parent +5 (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748120)

insightful. the irony is dumbfounding

Re:mod parent +5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748296)

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 (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748442)

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'.

please, learn how to read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748088)

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

Interestingly... (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748206)

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... (4, Informative)

Godai (104143) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748280)

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... (3, Informative)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748444)

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.

Coke and Pepsi (1)

mfh (56) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748220)

This move could trigger a Streisand_effect [wikipedia.org], 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.

Selective Memory (1)

Tony Sharp (2369770) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748250)

"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.

Irony explosion indeed. (1)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748282)

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.

Closes up account != closes account (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748322)

I think the poster misunderstood the title of the article.

True stories would be great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748390)

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.

What I don't get... (2, Interesting)

Junta (36770) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748438)

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?

You have 0 friends (1)

Patron (2242336) | more than 2 years ago | (#36748452)

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.

Reading Comprehension... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748458)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748472)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36748476)

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?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...