Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Google Facebook Privacy Social Networks Technology

Zuckerberg Quits Google+ Over Privacy Concerns 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Zuckerberg Quits Google+ Over Privacy Concerns

Comments Filter:
  • Don't worry I am following you, and that is all you need.
  • by Compaqt ( 1758360 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @09:47AM (#36747862) Homepage

    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... (Score:5, Informative)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @11:30AM (#36749066) Homepage Journal

      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!
      "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.

  • 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] ...
    • 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.
  • Didn't quit (Score:5, Informative)

    by mother_reincarnated ( 1099781 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @09:53AM (#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*.

    • by Inda ( 580031 )
      Them along with the rest of us. It was so easy; why not?
    • Re:Didn't quit (Score:5, Informative)

      by kai_hiwatari ( 1642285 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @10:13AM (#36748204) Homepage Journal
      Yes, his profile is still visible at https://plus.google.com/104560124403688998123/about [google.com] . Only the details like number of followers, followings etc has been made private.
      • by Ambvai ( 1106941 )

        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

      • by Tolkien ( 664315 )
        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.
  • Misleading headline? (Score:5, Informative)

    by romcabrera ( 699616 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @09:53AM (#36747932) Homepage
    Nowhere it says Zuckerberg closed his account so that he couldn't be tracked.
  • 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...
  • by Frankie70 ( 803801 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @09:58AM (#36747996)

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

    Facebook's Zuckerberg Says The Age of Privacy is Over

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

  • 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... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Godai ( 104143 ) * on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @10:18AM (#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... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Riceballsan ( 816702 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @10:34AM (#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.
  • 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.
  • What I don't get... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Junta ( 36770 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @10:33AM (#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?

    • 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 wi

    • by BJ_Covert_Action ( 1499847 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @12:22PM (#36750024) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • Google+ =

      meticulous control over how they communicate and with whom

  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @10:45AM (#36748560) Homepage

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

  • 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.
  • by Frightened_Turtle ( 592418 ) on Wednesday July 13, 2011 @03:27PM (#36753018) Homepage

    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.

"I prefer the blunted cudgels of the followers of the Serpent God." -- Sean Doran the Younger