Google+ exec declares Facebook 'social network of the past' If you're looking for disingenuous quotation of the week then Vulture Central wouldn't blame you for looking no further than Google+ boss Bradley Horowitz. The exec not only described Facebook as the "social network of the past" but also labelled Mark Zuckerberg's ad strategy as "intrusive". He went on, while talking at a …
I signed up for a GMail account and was automatically added to Google+, I know they are basically all linked these days but it wasn't explicit in saying that I would be part of Google+ and that people could easily find me on it. It makes me wonder how many of those millions are throw away email accounts, or people who have no idea that they are signed up, and how much activity were people going to disable it.
G+ has ads?!
Actually, this is a semi-serious question - I've been on G+ since the early days and one of the really great things about it was the lack of ads and whatnot compared to FacePalm. Or, to put it another way, I didn't need to dick around endlessly with AdBlock Plus filters to clean up my G+ 'experience', again in stark contrast to Facebook.
To be honest, I never noticed the ads, but that's because years of prior Internet use already led to making Ad blocking a more or less default part of my Internet "experience" (the crappy marketing term for "use").
Whatever money FB and Google make on ads, it's highly unlikely to be by me..
I don't see ads but even from my very light use of Forkbork I know that they force "suggestions" into your feed which could be products that friends like or some random and blatant advert that you can't just block. If you try then you kill the entire feed which may not be a bad thing overall but I think you see my point.
Or, like any jaded Netizen, you simply ignore/mentalblock the ads and instead concentrate on the stuff you want to see. YMMV, but euro rules regarding advertising and privacy makes for a rather tame Facebook "experience" compared to some other parts of the globe, so it isn't that bad.
It's not like they use a plethora of flashy over/under/in/popups like quite a few other legitimate *non-porn* sites seem to like to employ.
It's not like they use a plethora of flashy over/under/in/popups
.. which I have also been filtering for a while - haven't been pestered by one of those for *years*. Heck, that's so old most modern browsers have that protection not only built in, but even enabled by default..
Google+ is like one of those Chinese cities that are built, but have no residents, no business or commerce and are overgrown with weeds, but have great adverts (no pun intended) to draw people there, promising the utopia of the future. All along knowing when you do move in, if you do, it's a holiday home at best, and you're tracked and your data sold at every opportunity.
that went onto Google+ and sat their and waited for someone to add him to their circles. You do know that Facebook and Twitter would also seem empty if you just registered an account and did nothing else...
I know it's fashionable amongst Facebook shareholders to pretend G+ is dead, however I can assure you it's most definitely not. You also don't get the twats there (yet), although as soon as David Beckham signs up, they will follow shortly afterwards.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
