Google+: Tools, Names, and Facebook 194
Several readers submitted stories about Google+ today. CWMike writes in with an article
about the lack of developer APIs from Computerworld
"Currently, external developers don't have any Google+ APIs or tools
to tinker with. A Google spokeswoman said, 'We definitely plan to
involve developers and publishers in the Google+ project, but we don't
have specific details to share just yet. Please
stay tuned.' The spokeswoman declined to say specifically if
Google+ will be compatible with the company's OpenSocial set of common APIs
for social networking applications."
Anita Khanna writes
"Facebook is trying real hard to block users migrating to
google+. Although the recently announced Google+ social platform is
still in private beta, it has generated enough excitement to have
Facebook making some preemptive measures. Shortly after the
announcement, Facebook made a peculiar change to their TOS that
resulted in the ban of popular Chrome extension Facebook Friend Exporter. Over the
weekend, another personal data migration tool, Open-Xchange, has also
been deactivated."
Finally, an anonymous reader notes that Google is requiring
real names for profiles, and may have already suspended some
users for using aliases.
Suspending users for not using real names? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Suspending users for not using real names? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Suspending users for not using real names? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh come on, it's not like everyone doesn't already know your real name. Just switch to Anakin Skywalker...
Re: (Score:2)
This should be in Rob Malda's circle.
I guess I won't be using it then. (Score:5, Insightful)
I was going to check it out, but if they're requiring real names, then I'm not going to use it.
Re:I guess I won't be using it then. (Score:4, Interesting)
I had an invite and put it off trying it out.
until today. created an account and just had a bad feeling about the whole thing. really don't WANT a 'public profile' forced on me. don't want to get too far along and then have something happen to my data.
probably the best thing is a regular old website for a lot of us. social 'networking' is out of control and won't come back to OUR control any day.
google just FEELS wrong, these days. hard to explain, but its the constant watching over me that creeps me out. no, I never joined FB and my 1 day affair with g+ turned me off from the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
hard to explain, but its the constant watching over me that creeps me out
Welcome to the internet. Not to freak you out, but all the sites are constantly watching you. Hope you didnt switch from gmail to hotmail or yahoo....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Diaspora has a Facebook page. Figure that shit out.
Re: (Score:3)
I was one of the early backers of Diaspora and it is, as far as I can tell, dead in the water. They barely have rudimentary social networking operational, much less something that handles real tasks. The choice to implement on Ruby/Rails was, IMNSHO, retarded since the limitations, like the inability to run more than a single instance of Ruby simultaneously, simply defeat anything that they develop. I think their project would have moved forward a LOT faster if they'd have chosen PHP.
Re: (Score:3)
Diaspora's greatest accomplishment was getting $200,641 out of Kickstarter Users.
Re: (Score:3)
Also no matter what you do, you will have a self replicating and updating profile. You will have posts in all areas automatically, slashdot, twitter, facebook, all of it. They will also be belivable that you did it, your google+ profile will take on a life of it's own and compete for friends./quote>
Now those are some features that would get me to actually sign up for a social network.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've wondered for many years about probably 99% of social network users and if they even realise there are so many great sites out there beyond the scope of their interactions "on the wall" (or whatever the f*ck it's called).
I know of several people that have almost lost all knowledge of the world beyond their social networks and have got themselves trapped in the "Zuckerberg Web".
If this is true, then I believe Facebook serves a greater good. Much like AOL kept the sheeple safely away from the rest of the internet so will Facebook.
Honestly, think of how this would effect the quality of comments on places like slashdot if they allowed every "moran" to post on he.... actually never mind.
Re:I guess I won't be using it then. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, the sheer arrogance in this thread. Just wow.
Re: (Score:2)
I've wondered for many years about probably 99% of social network users and if they even realise there are so many great sites out there beyond the scope of their interactions "on the wall" .
Oddly enough, there is this rare and little-used Facebook feature called "posting links". Unfortunately nobody ever uses this and therefore all Facebook users are doomed to completely forget the rest of the World Wide Web.
(sorry for the damage to your sarcasm meter, here's a replacement bulb for it)
I Sit Here in Slack-Jawed Amazement (Score:2, Insightful)
The only company I would trust LESS than Facebook with my personal data, the only company with an even more cavalier attitude towards privacy, is Google. I'm more likely to hire Casey Anthony to babysit my daughters.
I find it truly, genuinely, startling that anyone outside of spinster aunts, fourteen year-old girls, and twitchy Marketing Suits whack-a-mole-ing anything and everything termed "social media" are giving this thing a second, un-shuddering glance.
Re:I Sit Here in Slack-Jawed Amazement (Score:5, Informative)
I trust Google vastly more than Facebook. I'm still not sure what, exactly, Facebook does with my data. Google on the other hand, tells me up front that they're going to datamine my information to use for advertising.
I'd much rather see ads for things I stand a chance of being interested in, than tampon ads for example. Additionally, Google hasn't had a major privacy issue (Buzz foolishness excluded) in 10 YEARS. Mark Zuckerberg was applying to Harvard 10 years ago, and Facebook has been much less than stellar with regards to personal information privacy.
So Google has a much better track record. This is, I think, difficult to dispute - but I'd be happy to read your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll get a lot of anti-google replies - but you're absolutely right. Some people dont want their data used for advertising research, and in their twisted logic they think they should still be allowed to access google's services for free, even if google can't profit from it. There are paradoxes everywhere if you go down this path. So someone doesn't like advertising, but wants the company to survive, but then they dont want the company to survive, but they still want to use Gmail...its real confusing.
Bu
Re: (Score:2)
A pretty standard privacy policy. I think you may be misreading the content of that section... the portions:
You agree that Google may transfer and disclose to third parties personally identifiable information about you for the purpose of approving and enabling your use of the Services, including to third parties that reside in jurisdictions with less restrictive data laws than your own.
and
Google may share non-personally-identifiable information about you, including Web site URLs, site-specific statistics, and similar information collected by Google, with advertisers, business partners, sponsors, and other third parties.
are two separate components. Personal info will be sent, by Google on your behalf, to third parties - this sounds like application developers. That clause could be interpreted differently, but lots of places have a clause like "in order for us to do what you want, you need to allow us to do it" (see any youtube-esque site where you give them a license to distribute it, because otherwise they can't
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the piece indicating they are not responsible for said data once it gets into 3rd party hands is pretty clear, and doesn't seem to differentiate between personally identifiable, or anonymous data. Why leave it ambiguous?
As I said, it doesn't inspire confidence.
Re: (Score:2)
The only company I would trust LESS than Facebook with my personal data, the only company with an even more cavalier attitude towards privacy, is Google. I'm more likely to hire Casey Anthony to babysit my daughters.
I hope you're exaggerating...
Re:I guess I won't be using it then. (Score:5, Informative)
...but if they're requiring real names...
They don't, and haven't as of yet, they want your "common name". Here's their remarkably readable brief policy [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, you can't create a profile for a non-person entity such as a pet or business.
At least they have some integrity. That statement right there is sacrificing a lot of money for a better system. I get so pissed off when some business expects me to do this or that on their Facebook page*. The interesting thing is that you don't have to be a user to view Google+ pages, so they could have stolen a lot of those business users away from Facebook but they chose not to.
Ford Motor Company [google.com] certainly seems like a business to me. I'm sure they'll refer to Ford's google+ page as something other than a "profile" to lawyer their way out of that one. :)
One interesting thing I noticed is that even though I don't have any problems viewing Google+ pages with Safari/Firefox, a little box tells me there is a problem. It doesn't appear on Chrome. That's a little underhanded. I even checked to make sure everything worked just like it worked in Chrome.
It's quite obnoxious of google to claim that the version of firefox which was released with debian stable a year ago and is well-supplied with security updates is not a "modern browser". A googler I know says this alert is just because they haven't done any testing on these versions, but the red inline, scrolling pop-up is still
Re: (Score:3)
Am I missing something? What distinction are you making between a "real name" and a "common name"?
Huh?
Yeah, you are missing something apparently. Nobody uses my "real name", most people I associate with in RL don't even know my last name, nor I theirs. Some I only know by their online handles, despite spending weekends with them, hiking, traveling, etc.
I've never been called the name on my driver's license except my my mother, when I was a child, misbehaving. I'm quite sure Google isn't looking for that.
They are suggesting your common name, what most people you want to connect with would put in a sea
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I would not go so far to require real names if I was doing a website. I'd prefer people be non-anonymous and use real names if they can (I do). But in the real world I know it is not always possible because of various problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't put my full real name in my Google Profile, but I was caught between a rock and a hard place with Google+. I use my GMail address as a private address but much of my online interaction is via a pseudonym. (Slashdot is an exception from before I switched.) I can use my pseudonym with Google+ but then friends and family will see my e-mails as coming from that name. Or I can use my real name but then my pseudonym will be worthless since everyone will see my real name. For the moment, I've resolv
Re: (Score:2)
----
Hi Mom! I just got my new Google + account.
PS. Please don't try to look up this name, or else you'll find out about the highly detailed tentacle-porn artwork I made. With pokémon in.
-----
Re: (Score:2)
but if they're requiring real names, then I'm not going to use it.
Umm... why not?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems you're going to be a minority then. And it seems that the "real name" requirement shouldn't be taken so serious anyway, see other comments in this thread.
An estimate 10 million users since launch some two weeks ago, and growing exponentially with an expected 20 million by the weekend. Sure it's a mere fraction of Facebook's estimated 750 million (which surely includes a lot of fake/ abandoned/ company accounts while Google+ is much fresher and thus cleaner in that respect) - yet it's impressive. T
Re:I guess I won't be using it then. (Score:5, Funny)
Not really, I'm a douche in real life, consequently, I go online to be friendly and helpful, if people ever found out that I was helping people and being nice, my life as I know it would be over.
Re: (Score:2)
no, irony was posting against pseudonymity as an AC
Re: (Score:2)
no, irony was posting against pseudonymity as an AC
Whoosh...? or... no whoosh? Help!
Re: (Score:2)
For folks with a really common name like say John Smith or Dan Johnson it's not much of an issue, but for those of us who have a relatively unusual last name, it is a lot more significant. I'm fortunate in that I share my name with somebody that's a lot more known than I am, but that's mostly because he's a physicist with a lot of papers written and I keep my name pretty much completely off the net.
The problem is that you're never sure how little bits of information will be accumulated and put back together
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong with putting your REAL name on the internet THE ONLY thing that NEEDS to be public IS YOUR NAME. Not even a profile pic. Why is this such a big issue for people?
Says the AC. Anyway, some people behave a bit differently online or even flat out create a separate persona for one reason or another and don't want it to get back to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I guess I won't be using it then. (Score:4, Insightful)
So says AC...
There are a couple problems with it. Google can still see all your private data. If you used G+ pseudonymously, it would limit the privacy implications giving it all to Google.
You may also want to hide your real identity from those you are networking with. I have certainly interacted with people online who I enjoyed and wanted to keep contact with (e.g. would add them to a social network) but don't necessarily feel comfortable inviting into my real life. Using a pseudonym gives me an extra layer of control.
Re: (Score:2)
For one thing, I doubt I'm the only one, and for another thing I don't really care what they choose to do. I'm perfectly fine not using Google+ the way that I didn't use Facebook, MySpace or Orkut. The point is that it would have been nice to be able to use something like this at times.
Testing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of Google+ over facebook is that it natively lets you separate your work life from your friends from your family from your old school buddies. Now, if you don't to identify yourself by name to any of those groups then social networking of any sort is not for you. Fair enough. But don't blame the tool for acting as designed.
Re: (Score:3)
Since google+ doesn't have a developer API yet it doesn't really need test accounts. Once the API is released I'm sure they will come.
Facebook strangers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NO NO NO NO. The "API" and the "Apps" were when facebook turned to shit. I want a place to share photos. Tag people in them. See what is going on. THAT IS IT. No API, no "games", NO.
Google Apps (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto, although at least this time they're promising profile support for Apps accounts "within the next couple of months" rather than the previously nebulous "coming soon".
Interestingly, if you try and sign into the Android + app with an Apps account and then follow the "Learn More" links it points you to an Apps help page on how to enable it, it just happens to be a 404 at the moment.
Re:Google Apps (Score:4, Informative)
A Google employee confirmed [google.com] that support for Google Apps is coming. I think the more interesting point [venturebeat.com] is that it sounds like Google Apps users will be able to send G+ messages to people only within their Apps domain. So it sounds it will be a service sort of like Yammer [yammer.com] for Google Apps users.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not have two emails/profiles? (Score:2)
My google apps use is much more important to me than google+ is.
So do what I do, and just run your public google profile in a separate account on a separate (instance of) browser. Route all your (public) emails (if you choose to gmail) into your domain account.
I see no reason why there has to be a choice between the two.
Re: (Score:2)
I just signed up for G+ on my Google Apps account via an invite. A while back, I created a Google profile and put my Apps email address as the contact address. It often pesters me to create a Gmail account, but it's not that obnoxious, and it apparently lets me use G+.
I like it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using G+ only for people I actually know unlike Facebook.
Funny, I'm doing exactly the opposite. Facebook treats all of my contacts as friends and when I share something it has to be shared with all of them. Yes, I can exclude people, but for that I have to pick them one by one...
G+ circles let me organize my contacts in as many categories as I want and I can choose which circles will be able to see what I'm posting. So I can have something like this:
* Family
* People who would not be offended by goatse
* People I know
* Random people I met online
* People I subscribe
Re: (Score:2)
if you already KNOW those people, what the hell's wrong with email?
you people are butt-stupid sometimes, I swear! this is a tech forum and you kiddies are eating this social spying stuff up like there's no tomorrow.
you'll learn. the hard way, but you'll learn.
Re: (Score:2)
if you already KNOW those people, what the hell's wrong with email?
Theoretically, email (or RSS) should be able to do everything social networks can, and I'd be in favour of it, because I dislike walled gardens when there are perfectly good open protocols. Practically, though, there are a couple things missing with email:
1. Social networking is many-to-many communication. You want to tell short things to "all your friends" or subgroups of friends at once, not have to send an email multiple times. Email can do this, but it needs mailing lists to be really useful - otherwise
Re: (Score:2)
PS. For those of us oldies who remember the 1980s "online service" and BBS worlds, Facebook and the other social networks are very familiar. The BBS mail and chat scene had a similarly "cosy" feel which, for whatever reason, the Web and email doesn't. I think it has something to do with centralised identity and authentication, or with the ability for users to rapidly self-select chat communities and create ad-hoc groups in an environment like Facebook which in practice tend to be very small, localised and p
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'm happy with Google+ as well. The android app isn't avalible for my country (for some reason . . .), but I like how we can have basic Principles of Least Privilege.
Now once the rest of the rabble come in, I hope/guess each circle will have its own detailed permissions, so maybe I don't want to see Friends of My [Aquaintences]'s stupid app requests, but I don't mine my Friend of Friend's or whatever.
This has potential.
Editor fail, Anita Khanna blogspam (Score:3)
How about linking to the real source [slashgear.com] instead of a spam site stealing content.
Terrible misquote (Score:3)
Look at this terrible misquoting:
Currently, external developers don't have any Google+ APIs or tools to tinker with
My sources say the actual quote was
Currently, external developers don't have any Google+ APIs or tools to steal private user information under the cover of "gaming" and "surveys" and sell the info to spammers, HR departments, and miscellaneous unregulated data warehousing companies do be used against the end users
I know we're all supposed to be in the "Privacy Stockholm Syndrome Groupthink" so I am very naughty for preferring they continue to not get access. Everyone please face their telescreen, and direct their "Two Minutes Hate" toward me and not poor emmanual goldstein who is too busy recording episodes of "off the hook" for 2600 anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I want batman to regulate the internet.
we are thru trusting the government. nice idea but it does not work. no one with half a brain trusts the gov to PROTECT OUR PRIVACY.
we are thru trusting big corps. in fact, we never trusted them to begin with.
what's left?
its a nice idea that 'some good guy' protects us, but we've plum run out of trustable good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
its a nice idea that 'some good guy' protects us, but we've plum run out of trustable good guys.
Tell me about it. Some flying boy scout in blue tights turns up and says he's championing the little guy, and next thing you know he's using X-ray surveillance and ultrasonics to violate five million citizens' privacy rights at once.
Tip: Yahoo can import Facebook email+name (Score:2)
Worked for me. All you really need is email. Other tools can add the rest I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe just a glitch.
I doubt it. I'd say Facebook have disabled it.
Rowan Thunder? (Score:3)
Why they'd QQ about that is beyond me...
I go by "Gary" [youtube.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. It's called "Doing Business As" here, and you pay something like 150 to 250 dollars to register. It's useful for people who write using pen names and don't want to have to make sure that every place they write for gets the proper name on the check come payment time.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can. It's called "Doing Business As" here, and you pay something like 150 to 250 dollars to register. It's useful for people who write using pen names and don't want to have to make sure that every place they write for gets the proper name on the check come payment time.
So there is absolutely no reason to complain about not having documentation for having documentation that states you're using a different name. Name change or DBA documentation, it comes back to the same thing ...
Which is why I'm calling BS on the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, like I had commented earlier, it assumes you have the money. Not worrying about charges of that level must be nice, but there are plenty of people who /don't/ have the money to get the legal documentation.
In which case, why are they kvetching about needing a name change? Sounds like a rich-white-man-problem. See, not having enough to eat is a problem. Not having a safe place to live is a problem. Short of being named "Adolph Hitler" or "Seymore Butz", the desire to be addressed by a different name does *not* equate to the right to be addressed by a different name, and is *NOT* a problem.
You want to change your name? Fine. There's paperwork to do that. But don't expect it to be processed for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, WTF is this! Where I'm from, I can wake up and decide I'm going to change my name. I start using it, and that's my fucking name. The government don't own my name.
Your name is established by use. Official documents can be changed later.
How's that work when you pay taxes? Or open a bank account? Wherever you live must be a great place to launder money.
Re: (Score:2)
Um.. plenty of people conduct business in a made up name. Authors, actors, people in marketing rely on having an easy to remember and easy to pronounce name for their business.
Oh. So having a name for a business is the same thing as a personal name change. I stand corrected.
God, some people are so american. Then again, corporations in the USA have the same legal rights as people, as strange as that may sound. Not that it makes *any* sense, but there you have it.
Computerbabies (Score:2)
Waak waak. Lack of API's.
They want it all and they want it now and they want it for free..
Cry babies...
Require Real Names (Score:2)
In today's world, that isn't acceptable and a breach of ones privacy. If they dont change that policy they can forget it ever being 'the next big thing'.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, just like what happened to Facebook.
Oh wait.
Real Names? Funny.. (Score:2)
Real names is a killer (Score:2)
Companies start to have policies that regulate what you can post with your real name. Prospective employers check what you have done online, also in social networks. I could not post here with regard to anything security or economically related if I had to use my real name.
Seems Google is increasingly out of touch with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Unless you have a very rare name, there will be more than one person with your name
2. Put the stuff you DON'T WANT OVER THE INTERNET in its own circle. Put the messages about how you're saving children in Africa in the public one. Its meant to be used like that. Its designed to be used with these groups.
3, If you're leaking company stuff to the internet I think a social network is the last place to do it.
Ignoring the Poll, But... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you hate social networking sites, then ignore them! Millions of people find them pretty damned handy. Like any other tool, there's good and bad, and no shortage of idiots and/or corporations that can make a good experience into a nightmare. Same is true of e-mail, or IRC, or plain old letter mail.
Of course maybe you're the guy who announced that he would never again write a letter or mail a check once he got his first piece of unsolicited junk mail from Publisher's Clearinghouse.
I genuinely am liking G+. It's early days yet, but it seems to do just the minimum that you would want in social networking, but without the layer upon layer of crap that Facebook has added over the years. Less is more!
Do I trust Google more than Facebook? At the end of the day, yeah, I do. I trust Google to archive my e-mail, but I wouldn't for minute give Facebook the same choice. It's not a black and white issue - there are some things that I will trust Google with, and a lot that their servers will never see. Likewise I do have Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter accounts (and possibly an old MySpace account somewhere) but am pretty careful about how much information they can get their hands on. In Facebook's case it's the utter minimum.
But oooh! Privacy! That boat sailed a long time ago. If you think that you can be active on-line and maintain anything more than a limited amount of privacy you're dreaming. You're constantly creating a stream of data transactions on-line. You maybe able to limit those somewhat, but ultimately you're leaving behind a trail that will likely be around for years or decades. Deal with it - that's the reality of the time we live in.
Unless you're the guy who has refused to own a telephone for eighty years because you were pissed off about having your name and address published in the White Pages.
Finally I'll say a word about the G+ app for Android phones - it's one sweet little item, that seems to work flawlessly on my crappy Moto Charm.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't agree more. I'm loving G+. And unlike Facebook, Google has proven quite happy to give you all of your data in an open format. And unlike Facebook, the privacy options of EVERYTHING on your page and everything you post is an integral part of the UI, not something that seems like it was tagged on as an afterthought. Every post you make it shows you exactly who it's going to be shared with. Makes the 'oh, we update the privacy settings and now all your shit is public' stuff that Facebook always pulls
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the number of online services Google has, I would be very surprised if we didn't start to see them get integrated into G+ in one way or another. Calendar, Docs, Groups, Reader....they could end up with one seriously killer set of functionality, all in one place.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, from what I've read that is the plan. I just hope they're integrated well enough that they become a part of G+, not a separate entitity accessible _through_ G+.
Re: (Score:2)
If you hate social networking sites, then ignore them!
I don't have a Facebook account. I graduated in 2003; by the time Facebook opened, my college e-mail account had been shut off. Since then, I've used that as an excuse to ignore social networking sites, along with the perceived dangers of spreading myself too thinly [slashdot.org]. But it just irks me when I find a web site that sells a product that I want to buy (such as a monofin swimsuit) but won't let me learn about the product until after I have logged into Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
If you hate social networking sites, then ignore them!
Easy to say, but now that many clubs and social activities are being organized solely via Facebook, not being in the soc-net club is actually quite difficult. I'm a fairly quiet guy so I don't have much need for things like Facebook and frankly I don't trust Facebook, but clubs that organize via Facebook kind of force me into it.
Re: (Score:2)
You were NOT required to be in the phone book. Unlisted number - are you too young to remember? We NEVER had to give up our privacy until recently. This was a choice we let be made for us.
Re: (Score:2)
You were NOT required to be in the phone book. Unlisted number - are you too young to remember?
Yet phone companies got away with charging extra for an unlisted number.
Extracting friends list etc is trivial (Score:2)
Since it says it was a chrome extension that was banned, I have to wonder how hard it would be to get around that ban. Could probably make a greasemonkey script or something too, I don't really know, haven't messed with that stuff...but I'm assuming all Facebook is doing is revoking app access codes, right? So...use theirs!
Load this page:
http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/ [facebook.com]
Scroll a bit down the page and you will see the following link:
Friends: https://graph.facebook.com/me/friends?access_token= [facebook.com]...
Clicking that link (not here, but on the actual page) gives
Re: (Score:2)
- Open a Yahoo mail account. Use their 'import facebook to contacts' feature.
- Export your Yahoo contacts to a CSV file.
- Upload the Yahoo/Facebook CSV file to your Gmail contacts, perhaps in a 'facebook' group.
Google+ automatically uses your contacts to recommend contacts for your circles, so you know pretty quick if your facebook friends are on G+. Has worked well for me so far.
Re: (Score:2)
Open a Yahoo mail account. Use their 'import facebook to contacts' feature.
It doesn't work any more. I don't think Facebook want Google+ stealing their userbase!
Facebook's anti-competitive behavior (Score:2)
I tried adding my Facebook e-mail address to a 'status slaves' circle, and then included it for updates.
Facebook is truncating them at 50 characters, apparently only when they come from Google's servers.
If there's somebody at the FTC who's been wanting to poke his bureaucratic nose up in Facebook's business, they sure are making it easy.
The Proprietary Phase is over. Facebook needs to participate in confederation if they're to survive. But it looks like they're going to take the 'kicking and screaming' ap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[......] I wish there were a way to hide all content from applications.
There is. You can completely disable the application platform in your account. Privacy settings --> Apps and web sites. You'll never be bothered by apps again.
Re: (Score:3)
My name, email and home address are all over the net, and have been for years. I'm still alive.
Re: (Score:3)
My name, email and home address are all over the net, and have been for years. I'm still alive.
But that's awful! It means just anyone could send you a letter, talk to you about work, or even pick up the phone and send their cootie-filled voice waves to you right in the privacy of your own home! And all your so-called "workmates" and "real life" "friends" could be tracking your reputation and status and fashion sense right now and could treat you horribly if you did something quirky and creative, like turn up naked and dump rancid dogfood on their lawn in the middle of the night. After all, this is A
Re: (Score:2)
My name, email and home address are all over the net, and have been for years. I'm still alive.
And you have lovely hair.
Re: (Score:2)
My name, email and home address are all over the net, and have been for years.
That's the modern equivalent of having your name, address, and phone number in a telephone directory - like everyone used to have not that long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay. What are they then?
http://www.pineight.com/contact/ [pineight.com]
I would say you don't have children.
I have no children of my own, and watching my aunt's children probably doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2)
And, strategically such a move should have been done later.
1 get some FB fodder
2 some anonymous douche will harass people eventually
3 ???
4 overreact and kill all anonymous accounts. "we had no other choice blah blah"
Re: (Score:2)
It is a social networking site. If you don't want people to know your real name make one up which looks real
What I think it is is an attempt to not have the mess facebook has with companies having facebook 'person names' and then tagging the crap out of people.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll just decide. Unless you want to prove you are really "Qatz" with your driver's license, you'll stay deleted.
Re: (Score:2)
A bit of a pain, but works well.
Not any more, it doesn't! I assume Facebook have disabled it...