Google ToS Change Means Your Photo Could Go In Ads 136
An anonymous reader writes "Google [on Friday] announced an upcoming change to its terms of service that will let the company add users' names and photos to certain parts of its advertising as of November 11. Make no mistake: this is a direct attack against Facebook. One of the few advantages of Google+ is that it features no ads. To be perfectly clear, Google isn't changing that. Google+ will still have a clean interface, at least for the foreseeable future. Instead, Google is tying Google+ into yet another one of its properties, and arguably its most important one: Google Ads."
It isn't that bad (Score:5, Interesting)
This only happens when you participate in a similar activity, such as using +1, writing a review, or following a product. These actions already act as endorsements within your circles; the new ads only make them more explicit. In my view, this is merely yet another reason to avoid putting anything on your Google+ profile, if you needed one. All this spying and marketing is slowly but surely making social network users shut up - a very good thing indeed.
Re:Opt in? (Score:2, Interesting)
no, you have it backwards. you are opted in by default, you have to opt out.
The default setting for "Shared Endorsements" is to use your google+ information in ads.
do no evil, huh?
No, you are wrong. The checkbox is off, you have to opt-in. That doesn't mean they won't change that at a later date, though.
Re:Opt in? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually some people where opted out by default. I and others were opted in. There's no discernible pattern I can figure out for who was opt-in and who was opt-out. It does not depend on what you already agreed to previously, and it does not seem to depend on the jurisdiction where you live.
Re:The big differences... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see.
Curious (Score:1, Interesting)
I just noted a curious fact.
I had a Firefox extension installed that kept me informed about the personal information I was sharing with the sites visited. This extension had a nice calculator, too, letting me check how much my personal information was worth for Google and Facebook advertisers, so I could restrict the settings and diminish my "value" as an ad target.
Before installing the plug-in I was worth more than 750$/year for Google and 134$/year for Facebook. After "closing" the holes, my value as ad target had dropped to 70$/year for Google and 0$ for Facebook.
I probably installed this extension one year ago. I didn't check it often. I just knew it was there because I saw the icon in the Firefox bar. Today I noted that it's not there anymore. Checking the "Extensions" it appears that it has been actually disabled. Not by me, that's for sure.
I believe there must be some "incompatibility" with the latest Firefox release, although normally Firefox informs me when an extension is disabled. Probably there are "software incompatibilities" and "incompatibilities" of a different kind.
Very curious, indeed.
Re:Attack? (Score:5, Interesting)
look, I only technically have a google+ account because google tricked me into getting one. I could resist them on gmail. but as soon as I changed my youtube account to "new style" (or some shit like that) then BAM! I was as a google+ user.
you know why they did that? to drive up g+ user stats. fucking peons hunting for fake user numbers, that's what they are.
I'm not aware of fb using say instagram to trick people into becoming stat manipulation users..
and I sure as fuck don't want my social network to be handled by the guys who handle my search and mail..
There are ads on Facebook?!?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Attack? (Score:4, Interesting)
Most people who actively use it seem to be using it as a replacement for Skype. That's a pretty big market in terms of users, so I'd guess there are probably tens of millions of people actively using G+.
Re:Attack? (Score:5, Interesting)