Google top brass (and Zuck) hit Google+ privacy button
Do as we say, not as we do
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Mark Zuckerberg, Google founders Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and a whole raft of Google's top brass have suddenly activated the privacy settings on their Google+ profiles.
Even though they want you to expose your entire life to world+dog over the interwebs, they would rather not.
The newly activated privacy settings has made it impossible to see who is following them on Google+.
Zuckerberg, who had been the most adored with 134,328 followers, is now publicly listed as having zero followers.
His place at the top has been taken by Rackspace "chief learning officer" Robert Scoble.
Zuckerberg's sudden attack of privacy on Google+, from Google+ Statistics
Also now with “zero” followers are Google’s Page and Brin, the head of Google's web spam team Matt Cutts, Google’s senior vice president for social Vic Gundotra, and vice president of location and local services Marissa Mayer. Gundotra is the man who oversees the Google+ project.
The Google+ Statistics mentioned the changes here, saying: "Some Google+ members have further closed off their accounts last night, which means you won't be able to track their follower and following counts. This completely reshuffled the top 100."
Google+ Statistics linked to a The Next Web article on the mass friend suicides here. Type the name of the execs into Google+ Statistics, and you’ll see who’s gone and how suddenly they departed.
Zuckerberg's move can be understood: Google+ is the mighty search company's answer to Facebook. But Page, Brin and the rest should be expected to lead by example. Alas, experience teaches us that while Google operates a business predicated entirely on knowing everything there is to know about you, it prefers that you know as little as possible about it.
Back in 2005, tech title Cnet claimed it had been banned for a year from Google press events. Its crime? Running an article that pieced together details on the life of then chief executive Eric Schmidt using a well-known search engine. That would be Google. ®
COMMENTS
Irrelevant?
"Privacy's Irrelevant.. When the majority of posts are meaningless"
Meaningless posts become very meaningful when they have the power to make privacy irrelevant.
explain...
@nyelvmark, which completely misses the point. It appears that all these big-wigs are setting their profiles private and it was announced recently that private profiles would be deleted. So please explain what's going on (some of us aren't on Google+ yet and can't look at settings to see if you can have a "public" profile that gives no info (and then what's the difference between that and a private profile?)).
"newly activated privacy settings has made it impossible to see who is following them on Google+"
But isn't that supposedly one of its big points? And as privacy *is* a big feature that is being currently tested, should we be surprised that certain people wanna see if it works as advertised?
Who would follow Zuckerfuck, anyhow? I don't even believe he's a real person anyway.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
Data control in the cloud
Cloud based data management
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
