Shared publicly  - 
Facebook brings sharing, privacy settings closer to those of Google Plus

Well, that was expected - though it's not turned on, yet. The key things seem to be that Everyone is now labeled Public and easier to access your groups for publishing. But it's incremental. The friending and grouping model is the same. It's also possible to add a location to your posts. Did anyone expect Facebook not to do these things?

The page that describes changes to public viewing seems somewhat misleading. It says: "We changed Everyone to Public to make it even more clear who you're sharing with when you select this audience. The setting still means the anyone on the internet can view this content, and any of your past Everyone posts are still visible to the same audience."

Well, if by "on the internet" they mean everyone on the Web, that doesn't seem to jive quite right. Posts in Facebook are not visible on the Web to just anyone; you have to be logged in to Facebook first. By comparison, you don't have to be logged in to Google+ to see your Public posts and Profile. Moreover, as far as I can tell, there won't be changes that would allow you to link to a specific post in Facebook from outside of Facebook. In other words, unless there's something that I am missing or that has not been announced, it's still a walled-garden concept of "Public."

So, all in all, although I appreciate +Robert Scoble's "heads up" note on this last night, it's still the "schminternet" fake-friend version of social media with some doo-dads that make it somewhat easier to do some things kind of like how you do them on Google+. That's not to say that these aren't good changes - they are - but I don't see that they are really game-changers. Of course there's more to come, both from Facebook and Google. In the end, hopefully the winners are the Web and us.
Mark Holmes's profile photoM Eeee's profile photoDavid Ford's profile photoJohn Blossom's profile photo
Completely irrelevant. This is windowdressing. A few feature changes don't materialise the engagement there is on g+. The more I experience g+ and participate the more I realise that metaposts are the essence. It is like realising that electricity is different from a mill as a powersource. Now we can have social energy anywhere we want it. Facebook still doesn't have that.
I agree - the fundamental engagement model remains the same. It has its strengths, but it's not Google+ - and it's still not the Web.
Pretty much my thoughts on it, only far more eloquently expressed. ;)
M Eeee
This sums up my Facebook versus Google+ interaction experiences: Today's first thing I read on FB ? "so y do i pee more when i am on vacations?" Obviously not all encounters are this base, but MANY MANY are exactly this vacuous. My Google+ interactions are ALWAYS more meaningful, more insightful. Perhaps that's because people interested in CONTENT are posting here. In FB, it's much more often just mindless banter that friends certainly do enjoy with each other. We will see that grow on G+ as our friends arrive here. But since we're starting with CONTENT, we should find that to be an eventual improvement to an already better new social networking tool.
I would like to see google put an embed code for our profile and public stream. I would think this will come with the API, G+ for Apps, and Business/Brands Accounts. Then we are really rocking!
Yes, it will be even nicer when we can embed G+ as a commenting and sharing system on our blogs and other Web publishing resources, also. The best is yet to come - and far easier for Google to implement than Facebook, since it's starting from the get-go with the fundamental premise that embracing the Web is the place to start.
Add a comment...