Shared publicly  - 
The Facebook Freaky Line

Reprinted from my blog at

It seems everyone is getting freaked out by Facebook once again. Molly Wood at CNET says that Facebook’s automatic sharing features are ruining sharing. That got everyone to pile on over on Techmeme.

First, what does this automatic sharing feature (otherwise known as “frictionless sharing”) do? Well, every time I play a song on Spotify, for instance, it tells everyone something like “Robert Scoble is listening to Skrillex on Spotify.” On Facebook’s web interface that shows up over on the right in the new ticker (not everyone has that, and only the web version shows it). It also puts that onto my new Timeline (only developers have that feature, so far).

My Facebook Timeline is over at (everything I do is public, so you can take a look).

It doesn’t just do this for music, either. Everytime I read a story in the Washington Post’s new newsreader it does the same. “Robert Scoble read Ex-MySpace CEO resigns as Zynga executive on Washington Post Social Reader.” (Which I actually did, right now).

Here +Don Graham, Chairman of the +Washington Post shows me this app and how it works:

Soon, Facebook PR told me this week, about 60 different apps will do the same. So, whenever I take a picture of a meal, or do some other action, with Foodspotting, you’ll know it. If I ever exercise with Runkeeper, you’ll know it. And on, and on, and on.

Now many of you think that’s very freaky. You don’t want to be an oversharing social media wanker like me. You want some parts of your life to be private. You don’t like it if Mark Zuckerberg sucks every bit of knowledge out of your cell phone and shoves it onto your Timeline for everyone of your friends to see (remember, only egocentric social media wankers like me make all their detail public, right?).
Why would ANYONE agree to this? Well, some, like Dave Winer, haven’t. He deleted his Facebook account recently.

Others, like me, are “all in” and very intrigued with this new world. We’ve crossed the freaky line never to return to a world where apps don’t share with Facebook.
What’s really interesting to me is that my wife has crossed the freaky line. She loves the new Spotify and thinks it’s cool her friends get to see her music. That shocked me, because she usually is pretty conservative when it comes to being public. Even better I’ve had dozens of conversations with people and from teenagers to old farts, like me, there’s an astute level of understanding of where the freaky line is for them. If an app crosses the freaky line in a way they don’t like, they turn it off or learn how to use it so it doesn’t spray everything onto Facebook (Spotify, for instance, lets you do just that in the settings).

What the heck is Mark Zuckerberg doing?

He’s building a new media company. One where the media comes TO US. Compare to boring old Yahoo. There we have to visit the media by going to or

See, the new world is you just open up Facebook and everything you care about will be streaming down the screen.

This is what Zuckerberg doesn’t want to explain to you: to be your new media assistant he needs to know everything about you. Think about it. When i clicked “like” on the San Francisco 49ers Facebook Page, all of a sudden I started seeing news items about the 49ers.

The more Zuckerberg knows about you, the more media he will be able to bring you.
This is why I say Facebook’s real strategy is to know everything about everything. Of course they won’t get there. Why? Because there’s a freaky line.

Governments will soon step in to define the freaky line. They already have started that process and it varies from country to country. In Germany, for instance, the privacy laws are stricter than they are in the United States, so Facebook won’t be able to do some of its “studying” there.

Users will turn off apps, or change their behavior (I already have, for instance, I don’t listen to Lady Gaga on Spotify, I only listen to bands on Spotify that I want you to see).

Zuckerberg will have to change his behavior too. You’ll find them astutely moving the freaky line around. For instance, I really do agree with some of the criticisms about this “frictionless sharing” and I think Facebook (and the third-party developers) are going to have to give their users clear controls.

Spotify simply isn’t doing enough here. Let’s explain why:

When I click play on a song in Spotify it instantly tells all of you that I’m listening to that song. For instance, right now, on my screen, Facebook is telling me that Mark Zuckerberg is listening to Something Goes Right… by SBTRKT on Rdio. But is he really listening to it? In my case, possibly not. Why? I might be scrubbing through a list of song titles trying to find a good one. I might be sampling music for 15 seconds a song. I might have just accidentally left Spotify on play. You don’t really know if I’ve listened to that song, or if I really like it.

I listen to Spotify a lot in the car. I’m not even in a good place to tell you anything about the music I’m listening to. I wish I had 30 seconds to hit next before you were told I was listening to it.

Same thing with the Washington Post. Just because I clicked on a link it goes out to all of you. Very viral, and very good for software developers but it will quickly devolve into noise. Facebook always does this with its platforms (starts noisy, then moves the freaky line back as users get pissed off at the noise showing up on their screens).

This is Zuckerberg’s brilliance. Other companies just aren’t willing to even try to move the freaky line forward in order to build a new media company.

On the other hand, I find this new “world’s biggest smallest village behavior” to be interesting. I’m listening to the same music that Mark Zuckerberg is right now. And everyone who is watching me on Facebook can do the same. THAT is an interesting shift in our human behavior.

How fast should Facebook move this freaky line? Well, they are spending months arguing with third-party developers about the verbs that will be allowed and what kind of controls they need to institute so as to not piss off too many users.

So, why am I all in?

I’ve found new music over the past two months.
I’ve found new news over the past two months.
I’ve learned stuff about my own patterns and can go back onto the Timeline and learn more.

How far will this go? Well, look at Zuckerberg’s own Timeline. He just got the new Jawbone Up. He posted “I can’t wait until I can sync this data directly to my timeline.”

To many of you that is WAY OVER the freaky line. After all, the Jawbone knows when you’ve slept. When you’ve walked someplace. It might, gasp, even know when you are having sex. And Zuckerberg wants to report everything to his timeline.

Do you get why? I do. He knows that the more Facebook knows about him the better the media will be that Facebook can deliver. Oh, yes, and of course the better the advertising will be too.

“Oh, Scoble, how can Facebook bring you better advertising?” Well, check out Etsy’s gift recommendation page. It’s driven by Facebook. It’s magical. It recommends gifts based on my friends and family’s Facebook behaviors. In the case of my producer, Rocky Barbanica, it’s VERY accurate. Too accurate to tell you here just what he’s into. Yes, he’s into the San Francisco 49ers, too, but he’s into a few other things I didn’t know about. Now I can get him that perfect gift. All because he shared his life with Facebook.

Now, what will Facebook soon know about people because of Frictionless Sharing? A lot more than it knows today.

The freaky line is about to move. Are you ready?

UPDATE: of course this is being discussed on Facebook too:
i Cjay's profile photoBETTY GRANDSTAFF's profile photoAjit Singh's profile photoPeter Ignatius's profile photo
This real-time sharing stuff is just the evolution of Zuck's sharing increase graph. He wants people to share 10x as much each year. I can't imagine what the next step is going to be. This has convinced me to install a Facebook blocker.
As long as people understand that just because I read an article or listen to a song doesn't mean I endorse it.
What if I don't want people to know what i'm doing every second of my time on the internet?
Open graph seems ill-conceived to me. It's not frictionless sharing if it's done passively. Spotify and Social Reader are the new Farmville. If I see a news article a friend shared a la "frictionless" and click on it, I get an interstitial app signup request that I don't want instead of, well, being able to read the article. I'm no UX guru but I know that is very broken.
Interesting and I love your concept of the Freaky Line. Facebook has crossed it for me and I'm all out as of today. No hard feelings towards what they're doing, I was just having more annoying/irritating interactions than pleasant/interesting ones.
+Robert Scoble part of what makes the freaky line freaky for me is that I'm very uneasy about anyone knowing more about me and my behavior than I do. It's gets appreciatively freakier the less access and control over it that is afforded me.
I listened to a song called 'Ginger Pubes'. Someone took a screenshot of the post and emailed it to the WHOLE company. That's my experience of frictionless sharing :P
Changing what you listen to and playing to an audience (literally) instead of for yourself is a terrible thought, and is the type of change in human behaviour that no one should be happy about.
and I foolishly still have facebook, because it's the only way I can keep in touch with some friends. It's just knowing what to click and what not to.
If anything, this has caused my FB friends to learn of my passion for 80s alternative music. As Facebook gets their freak on, my mother-in-law is not amused.
Our minds are not able to cope with so much info. Also, the value of the info is different as the friendship relationships are different. FB should just keep this info and build better products, as Google does
facebook is nothing more than a stalker environment, and it fosters a very stalker type mentality in its users, I especially notice this whenever I make my once a month or so visits, its just over sharing more and more info and begging you to just go through people profiles to see everything they do, its really quite shocking how so many people still use it.
What's the outcome? Why is it "BETTER" for things to come to me? Is it worth it to divulge this level of surveillance so that Facebook can get better at throwing content at me?

My feeling? It's awful. Frictionless sharing is not a good thing and for me, it does not solve a problem or issue I'm having. I don't need my friend's Spotify noise to find new music, I've got plus scrobbling, Pandora and even my iTunes Genius feature. I don't need social news from Facebook, my RSS reader is carefully curated with awesome stuff from all over, my friends often look at things that mean nothing to me.

Frictionless sharing allows you to stumble over a gem by looking through piles of crap. The alternative, what we have now, sharing with intent, is the discovery of what WE choose we want, rather than Zucks newest algorithm.
"He’s building a new media company. One where the media comes TO US. " It's a step closer to the Minority Report, Scoble: fate gives way to design.
And also, the freaky line is crossed every time Zuck wants us to "trust him." We should all be skeptical of Facebook's every move. They do NOT have our best interest in mind.
Hmmm... interesting article... but I'm not sure I'm ready for all this. I have Spotify, and I made sure NOT to sign in with my FB account just because I don't want to overwhelm my FB friends with too many posts on what I'm listening to.
I wouldn't mind it if I had the ability to control who sees those things I do. I know some of my good friends would be annoyed by it, while others would actually enjoy knowing every stupid thing I bought, listened to, or ate. Some of my Facebook friends are people are former fellow authors, and some are fellow Autism parents. Some are neither. They don't all have the same kind of interests. I think this is an idea they need to refine before putting in place. +Jeff Cogswell posts political pieces to a specific group of people on his Facebook. It's a great idea. I think I might do that too. If I have to do it for every type of post I make, then I too may rethink staying on Facebook.
AC Zul
Facebook moved the freaky line way too far a long time ago.. I am only waiting to cancel the account. Waiting because I need to ensure I've deleted all of my media, and untagged myself from everything. I want to disappear from Facebook and make it like I was never there. Also, I have to figure out what to do about Professional Fanpage.
I've already started to severely limit my FB usage, I don't wish to share that much with everyone. I understand why FB wants me to, but I am just not comfortable with it. To me G+ has it really figured out. I like to share things but I only want to share the good stuff and with the people (circle) that I know want to hear it. Not everyone needs to know every little detail. There are so many things stated in this post about frictionless sharing that makes me cringe and want to make a move like Dave Winer.
hum...and guess what...even after this people aint gonna say a shit and never complain or move to Google Plus...why? because of their lazy ass...Facebook can do the worst in term of privacy and sharing and people still gonna be like : ok...I have no problem with this.
I wish FB would stop emailing me about notifications that don't exist...
I can never support "frictionless sharing". I think it's very dangerous and can get you in trouble. There is duo of Dj's i like called "Duck sauce"you may know them if you have heard the song called "Barbara Streisand". I heard that they had released a video called "The Big Bad Wolf" so rushed to watch the video on YouTube and it turned out that the video was a little lewd. Imagine if some other person had shared what i was watching with an entire office, i most probably would have lost my job. It is my right as a person to have choose who i want to know what i am doing or not. I have a right to privacy
In his quest to gather data about you, Mark Zuckerberg is threading on very dangerous grounds here. He is underestimating how much people value their privacy and if he is not careful, this might be the beginning of the end.
Mark my words +Robert Scoble, i give him a year, he is going to backtrack on this frictionless sharing thing
IF Facebook can do something similar to Google's "Instant Uploads", where you can decide up front that your content is private and then later choose what's shared, then people will go for it.

+Robert Scoble - "Don't use apps that automatically do this or don't give you controls..." Here's the problem: This is something of a bandwagon for software developers to jump on. In the short-term you will find that a ton of app developers will be integrating this feature and the controls will be clunky. When those developers finally see that they are getting less users it will be too late and users will have moved on by the time the developer re-factors their code.

Still, we'll have to wait and see what happens.
Since G+, I've pretty much abandoned FB, only logging in when someone invites me to something (because it's the only way to say yes/no). Mostly the reason for this was all the nasty changes they made around that time, and that horrid news ticker. I hated it.

Perhaps the best way to stop FB from posting all this 'news' is to just log out of FB when you're doing things you don't want it to record?
+Robert Scoble

I was really shocked by +Salman Rushdie's facebook experience. It just shows they haven't got a clue. 
The auto sharing is what finally pushed me over the edge to get rid of Facebook. I want to decide what I share and I don't want to have it in the back of my head that I'm reading too many articles and annoying my friends. This move is to make every internet site on the planet completely dependent on Facebook. If it's successful the only way to get your article read will be automatic sharing on Facebook. I believe the natural progression of this will be Facebook exclusives. Facebook is the enemy of the free internet in my opinion.
Don't like it don't use it, I don't really use it so I don't care about facebook
Discovering music is a magical process. It's not about "what your friends are listening to", but what appeals to you, and that varies widely among people. Even the best of friends have the most varied tastes in music.

This is why curation matters, as +Vic Gundotra says.

My friends wouldn't be interested in a song just because I'm listening to it. They'll be interested only when it appeals to them.

This is why Circles or curated recommendation of music is much better than "frictionless sharing".

When curating, because I know my friend's tastes, I'll recommend him a song that I know he might like.
In frictionless sharing, as I grow used to a whole bucketload of updates about my friends listening to stuff, I'll also get used to ignoring them... and I might actually miss something that I might have liked.

And finally, people like me, who like to explore music on their own will completely hate that feature. Because we don't care what others are listening to. We want to experience the joy of discovering a band on our own, and going through the band's work album by album to find the gems. This is a lasting musical experience (as compared to one-hit wonders).

So when a friend suggests a band to me and I like what I hear, I like going through the band's discography myself, not by following my friend around and listening to everything he is listening to.
it's unfortunate but I feel neither facebook nor google+ is really interested in protecting privacy.
You are on to something +Lokesh Mishra .The fact that i listen to a genre of music does not mean that my friends like it. I love trance music and in my circle of over 500 friends, i am the only one who even knows what trance music is much less listen to it.
again, facebook 1 : privacy 0. :(
Is dit nu laster of zijn ze bij Facebook echt aan het knoeien?
I closed my FB account, and I haven't missed it. I guess it comes down to a difference in definitions of the word "friend". I don't consider a friend to be someone who know all about me because he read it on a website - that is uncomfortably close to "stalker". A friend is someone who can share a good conversation, someone I would do a favor for and he would return it. I already know what kinds of music my friends are into (through conversation!) And I know they have different tastes from me, so why would I want to browse through a list of every song?

There's a reason all this is creepy. Someday when 5 friends give you the same birthday present because some website told them to, and you realize none of them bothered to find out what you like or spend a minute thinking about it, you'll understand why.
I'm OK with Timeline, but I don't want no apps sharing content without my knowledge.
+Robert Scoble I realize most people like Apple products because their idea is basically "it just works!" That is brilliant... this is not.
You mentioned in a line hidden deep within your post that users can find the controls and turn them off if they don't want to share. That's too much "to do" right there. If I don't want to share everything.. I don't want to share everything! Ask me WHEN I want to share rather than having me hunt down controls for sharing and disabling what I don't want to put out there. Freaky line you say? Well many people don't even WANT to encounter the freaky line. Heck..MOST people don't want to deal with the freaky line!! It's like forcing to look under the hood of their car - THEY DONT WANT TO!! This thing should just WORK and by "work" to MOST people it means - DONT Throw everything to the public! Passing on the burden of what I DONT want to share to ME is absurd! I should ideally just have the burden of what I DO want to share - everything else is UNSHARE-ABLE by default.
+Robert Scoble : "You are Wrong". I wasn't saying I won't be discovering music. I was saying I won't be discovering music I will like. The likelihood of that happening is low because only few of my friends share the same musical tastes as me, and even then their flavour is different.

Also, quoting personal experience does not validate a theory. Let's argue rationally here. This is G+, after all. :)
In my view Facebook crossed the freaky line years ago.
+Robert Scoble So you always have to be on edge, waiting to unmark something that is about to go out to your masses, instead of simply saying, "hey, I love this song, let me take 3 seconds to share it"?
+Robert Scoble I'm a tech person...but even all my tech competency.. found it easier to just use facebook in a browser separate from every other thing I do so I don't have to keep trying to keep track of what all it's posting from my life without telling me.
I dont want facebook to know everything about me. i dont trust them with that info.
i think Facebook is just going aggressive to tackle with Google plus'
growing popularity
+Arvind Gautam : I do the same. In fact, when I need to go to facebook, I use chrome's "Incognito mode" to prevent fb from tracking me through cookies.
Actually, I've realised there's no use arguing with +Robert Scoble. Most of his views are based on his own experience. Personal experiences are always subjective. Just because +Robert Scoble likes "frictionless sharing" does not mean everyone likes it or will continue to like it. I think he fails to understand that.
+Robert Scoble so basically you're defending FB's ability to throw noise at people and then let them sort out what's actually information? The idea is not about saying that users are idiots... but defending their RIGHT to be idiotic/ignorant/lazy when they want to be! I shouldn't be FORCED to keep track of everything going out and interpret everything coming in because a service decided that all information is shareable.
Great post Robert: it is good to see both sides of the argument. I must be getting old: I really do not like the seamless sharing model. For two reasons: 1) it removes intent and makes sharing a lot less valuable and 2) it requires you to give away your email and privacy as soon as you want to read something a friend has shared. Yahoo might be the old model but it lets me read things my friends have shared without having to give away my information and letting the world know that I read something. Explicit sharing >> Implicit sharing.
The quest to know everything about users on the web is getting out of hand and Facebook is not the only culprit here.Even Google is culpable, but Google is slighter smarter about their's(either for better or for worse)
The Intention behind sharing is the most important part to me.....What is the Intention?
"That pisses users off. I believe other apps will be better, but we'll see, won't we?" The problem with the new model is that as a user you do not see what the sharing behavior is at the time you are granting the permission. You first have to opt-in and then hope that the app does the right thing or has the right controls. Try to explain that to a non-technical user.
And you thought getting the same joke in your e-mail for the 87th time was annoying enough! Facebook... go right up to the creepy line and take a big leap over.
Posting what I posted in the Facebook discussion.

What we need is a news reader that could:

i) Let us have frictionless sharing, but categorized by personalized follower/friend groups.

ii) Use semantic tags, and learning algorithms that are able to present opposing views to broaden our horizon.

iii) Keyword clustering. With all the automatic SEO going on, it wouldn't even be that complicated to cluster news that contain 5+ similar keywords. It would be precise, and it would avoid having popular stories create too much noise.
The popularity could be displayed in another way.

iv) Let us easily adjust our filters on what/who we follow/read... as well as who follows/reads what we share.

v) Let us read social network feeds from one place, without the hassle of switching tabs/pages to view each network. -->A good example would be a "feed inbox", that similarly to email clients like Apple Mail 5, would gather (cluster) conversations/stories into one feed.

Clustering and gathering would avoid the additional noise that auto-posting updates on several networks creates.

vi) Allow us to define top news curators. i.e. in my case, obviously by commenting on a post written by Robert Scoble, I would prefer to read an article that my business associate in Sweden AND Scoble are recommending, rather than an article that 400 unknown persons are reading.

vii) Skip algorithms as the primary judge of top content, and let the peers be the judge. As networks, sharing and liking increases, the reliability of finding content interesting to ME... is less and less dependent on what algorithms choose for me.

I believe that two things would create a killer concept for a news reader app.

1. Leverage the social network and increasing sharing among peers.

2. Dump the on/off mentality of filters. People have changing preferences, and being able to tune out noise (with a social volume knob), instead of a on/off button.

Oh yeah... this was about frictionless sharing. Sorry about the slightly off topic write up.
The problem I find with this is that out of the 209 people on my FB friend list, only about 10% are actual current friends or family. Of the other 90%, half of these people I barely knew to begin with and the other half I knew well but no longer have real friendships with. Connecting to these people the first time was very cool 'cuz I got to see what they look like now and what they are up to. After that point, I have little to no interest in their daily activities. I care about their major life events and that's about it. So the idea of being bombarded with the most trivial details of their life like what they're reading or listening to really turns me off. I understand that it can expose me to new media. But to me this is not curated content, since for the most part these 90% are hardly different than any random stranger. It will therefore just be Spam to me. So I guess my question is, will I be able to filter this noise to only include content from the 10% I actually care about?
+Robert Scoble I see what you're saying - but I don't believe the intent of FB really is to keep you apprised of what info you gave FB as a user. The intent clearly is spamming all OTHER users with the info so somehow they can glean value from it and subconsciously attach value to FB's seamless sharing.
I really enjoyed this article! I do want news to come to me. I love the incredibly observant nature of Facebook....I have found more of what is relevant to me in one place. I know there is a trade off with some of the changes, but overall, still great. I do still love twitter for my news. I group it into lists. Love my social networks.
"just because we have frictionless sharing doesn't mean we got rid of the old style of explicit sharing. I think that's the bug in your thinking. Facebook even developed a new user interface to keep the two separate." Yes and No. The permission model is getting more complicated and confusion for the user. Do a test. Get a user and have them opt-in to an app and ask them if they understand if they signed up for explicit or frictionless sharing.
+Robert Scoble I think the default holder of the power of deciding what-to-share should always be the user! I understand there are controls and switches and dials to make things do that... but I think it's a bit much asking me to manage my default right that way.
+Robert Scoble There is another angle that I think is being lost in all this talk about privacy, and that issue is passivity. One of the great things I love about the Internet is how it enables interaction and community. Community is built around action - people contributing, helping each other, even having debates like this one. G+ is a great forum for this kind of debate. Is Facebook?

Obviously Facebook is trying to get all of our data. That is fine; that's what they are all about. But when they implement these kinds of passive data collection, they are disincentivizing active interaction. If 90% of my friend's feed has no thought or intention behind it, why would I care to read it at all? I don't want my public feed to write itself, I want it to be intelligent and thoughtful, to present the best possible version of myself.

I do think before I post anything to G+ or Twitter, which is why Facebook is not for me.
I think what's missing here is a consideration for people with internal locus of control . If you believe that an external environment / other people / higher power control your life, then frictionless sharing seems to really lubricate that world view. However, when one ends up on the internal end of the spectrum, then what?
I wonder when the day of electronic equivalent of "if you hadn't done anything bad, what is there to hide" will be here. And seriously, I don't think most of th users know about aggressive sharing that Facebook is trying to stuck down our throat. I had seen things shared by friends that I don't think they want to share.
3 times more comments here than on FB? Some still believe that G+ failed? Such new features from FB will make me even more stay out of it.
If it is on a social network, it is public, or at least not private, whether you like it or not
Another aspect of this that must be discussed is that I have no control over my friends' "frictionless sharing" even though I don't like to see that stuff in my stream. I don't like my stream to be bombarded with all that passive data.

I can disable posts from individual applications, but I have to do this for each and every new app. That's irritating.
It's not ruining it. It's just another form. Some like it some not. My auto shared message did generate conversation among my friends, so it works occasionally.
Jerry Asher has had a colonoscopy. Click here for 10% off your next colonoscopy. Like? Dislike?
+Robert Scoble what +Tom Yedwab is saying makes lots of sense. The reason why many intellectuals are on Google+ is because it encourages active discourse just like the one we are having right now. I see article online i post it and i make my own comments about it. With frictionless sharing, my story gets lost in junk and i will not be able to get as much traction as i want. You should read my article on how G+ is making us better people.
+Robert Scoble re: "don't put anything public on a digital device". But it doesn't have to be that way. Why should we not be able to gain all the benefits of technology without assuming it is public information? That's a baseline shift that is completely arbitrary.
If I share everything I do there is no value in it, the same as a conversation I would only tell you about the highlights and not my entire day otherwise you would lose interest. The only one who gains from this is +Mark Zuckerberg as he gets all your data
+Robert Scoble so are you attaching a "cost" of use to all digital devices? I would like to use my devices.. I just don't want them to throw my information to the public! If that precludes my use of the device itself - I'd say that's a shit device right there!
I think the term "Social Network" has become obsolete - because it really doesn't communicate the intent of the device - thus it's impossible to draw a line in the sand.
Ever since I started posting online my view was that anything I upload is public. That has pretty much been a guideline to what content I decide to share. The message I got from reading this article is that I need to be careful of not only what I share but what I may end up sharing "inadvertently."
As always, I think we will have to be careful and pay attention to what we're doing. Will everyone be able to do this? Probably not, and that's when governments will step in to define it.
+Robert Scoble I second +Kirby Iwaki Tsukino 's response - if Google does something similar - I too will be in line to act accordingly. The reason I (and probably +Kirby Iwaki Tsukino as well) use Google+ the way we do is because the non-verbal contract here is Google will probably not do that. If it does - it changes the understood intent of this device..thus making it toxic for my use.
+Kirby Iwaki Tsukino : I don't think G+ will do something like "frictionless sharing". When asked about it, Vic Gundotra, head of the G+ team said he believed that "curation matters". He also posted the same thing on G+ when FB announced frictionless sharing.
All of this "assume it's public" attitude is because we haven't figured out how to do it differently. Once we figure out how to efficiently execute computation with encrypted data ( a search engine that doesn't know what you are searching for, and doesn't know what results it's giving you [ see here ] ) the pendulum will swing the other way towards the "blessings" of online privacy.
+Robert Scoble : Yes, we all understand it's working quite well for you. But as I said earlier, that doesn't mean it works for everyone. And saying that "Oh, it's working out so well for me! If you're not doing it, you're just behind the times" is just being narrow minded.
+Robert Scoble Ah, but I think you're missing my point somewhat. I had a pretty rare disease back in the early days of Google, and indeed Googling help me tremendously to find people that had voluntarily shared their experiences, but that was all known, transparent, voluntary sharing, not just the rote, mindless, automatic sharing of some app developer doing it because it's part of the API or the marketing department doing it because of some corporate alliance.
I'm sure I'm an older fart than +Robert Scoble and I have less of a problem with FB or anyone, gleaning whatever they think is worth gleaning to share with whomever their algorithms suggest, than I do with being subjected to all the stuff thrown in my face because someone I chose to friend, like, circle or follow took some action. I understand I can control (to some extent) both which actions of mine get shared and which actions of others I'm notified of but the effort required to throttle the ever increasing stream of incidental activities of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances is what most bothers me and what I think will be the real problem in the long run. "Jim Coffis just looked at a Billboard advertising Las Vegas" Trivia fatigue.
+Robert Scoble : It is a philosophical choice. Ask Vic Gundotra. Watch the response he gave at s google event. He essentially says "we're not doing something like frictionless sharing".

There are a ton of things I want from G+ too. Like the ability to have some circles removed from my default G+ stream. Or to have underage users to sign in. But Google has a limited number of employees, and they have their own priorities... and I think their current priority is not the demands of the current userbase, but to attract new people. Hence their propensity to make updates that generate a lot of buzz. This is Google's risk. They're asking us early adopters to be patient. Let's see how it works out for them.

I'm pretty sure that when this place has gained enough momentum, Google will start focusing back on user demands.
+Robert Scoble I agree about the cost factor - the only thing is ... it's somewhat underhanded to change the intent of the device after I've incorporated it into my life. A weak argument here might be - it's the intent can be defined and controlled fully by it's creators... but the fact is - it's NOT free! The cost of being on a social network is - BEING ON the social network! I see what others are doing...but they see what I'm doing...and the gods of the network see what I'm doing and what they're doing and what everyone else is doing!
You are absolutely correct - our behavior WILL change - but not all change is good.
+Lokesh Mishra I categorize that in the #Hope section ;) I'm up to my neck in circle noise and can't wait to get noise-control on G+
+Robert Scoble : I agree. My behaviour will change. But in a way I decide, not in a way some company wants me to. I've almost stopped using facebook. This change was brought in because I decided it to make it happen. There are many like me... many of my friends have stopped using facebook. They have simply grown tired of it.

And let me be clear here: I'm not trying to convince you. I hardly care about your opinion. I just want to argue, because I want to present my viewpoint to everyone who's reading the comments. My efforts are meant for those people.
I'm more than happy for Facebook to collect as much information about me as they wish in order to deliver more relevant media (or whatever the reason is), but I don't think the whole "if you liked this then you'll love this" obsession works with me 'cause I'm just too damn changeable.
+Robert Scoble : Sigh... As I've said before, your experience does not validate a theory. What's happened in the past will not necessarily repeat in the future.

Frictionless sharing isn't the thing. The public reaction to it was mixed. And as I said, it depends upon person to person. Some may like it, some may not. I don't. Hence I'm here. If Google does it, I'll stop using G+ too. End of story. :)
Many people think I am allready across "the freaky line", but I will not cross that line.

First of all I doubt, that Zuckerberg has no clue, how to use that data. I mean when I here something and decide "one is enough", how will the big machine know. Amazons prediction are probably among the more advanced right now, and they greatly vary between great, bad, pathetic and even ridiculous and Amazon has such a small and focussed data set and the advantage that people have to spend really money, which is known to improve the quality.

Second if only a small percentage of that data ends up in any streams of human his brain will be flushed away from the useless. See, I have circled over 100 people here on G+ if anyone of them has 10 posts a day visible for me, I had to skim through over 1000 mostly pointless posts a day ... forget it.

I mean the evolution of sheere quantity to quality is concept of Karl Marxs dialectic. If I am right and Zuckerbergs vision is data socialism, it will work as good as the monetary one.
+Kirby Iwaki Tsukino about 35 comments.. basically a nice enuff discussion like the one happening here - but I did notice the direction of that discussion is very different than the one here. The comparison of that thread to this one BEST describes the different view-points people hold on auto-sharing :) Very interesting. What do you think +Robert Scoble ?
Oh and +kirby Iwaki Tsukino
There the post has 85 likes.
Here there are no +1's ! How does that make you feel +Robert Scoble ? ;)
Alex T
It will backfire. Very few people would wish to be so open. First, people stop sharing through Spotify because some wrong person can judge their music. Next, when you're applying for a new job you'd want to disconnect all suspicious connections on your account because hr are notorious for spying on workers on social sites. It's actually becoming so big an issue it's starting to pose a threat to your basic human freedoms, like freedom of thought and its expression.
+Kirby Iwaki Tsukino G+ is terrible at live-updating the +1s and reshares :P I didn't see that info till I re-loaded the page in the browser.
I think Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space series of books are a very interesting read in this context. The "Spiders" are those crazy people that enabled instant sharing directly from mind to mind, which is the ultimate "frictionless" sharing you can think of.
They go through this stage of "Enlightment" when they first absorb all the nano-things that enable their minds to be "connected".
The books show how this leads to inter-stellar wars. Not less :-)
A little bit off-topic but interesting info I read on the FB link of this post and this is a reply to a comment that says G+ is a ghost town.

Current stats for this link:

FB: 88 likes, 29 shares, 33 comments (maybe more but definitely less than 100)
G+: 91 +1s, 86 shares, 154 comments
The biggest "Frictionless sharing" machine is Amazon. And all of you got pretty much used to it.
Facebook is Second Life 3.0. Soon we'll all have ghost avatars. My Spotify, Foodspotting and checkins will be streaming only the freshest tracks and eats while I'm at Costco buying socks.
This is the first time that I have actually been upset with Facebook. All of the previous changes haven't really bothered me. I actually appreciate targeted advertising - I would rather be shown ads on things that I am interested in rather than the blanket marketing on TV.

I read an article on teenage pregnancy on the Facebook Guardian reader the other day and later that day my wife asked why I shared it. I didn't - Facebook did. As with the current methodology around social media, if you share something without comment, you are seen to endorse it.

This is a problem - I might read 10 articles and think that they are all nonsense, but I am not going to bore everyone with what I think. With the current default setting on these new apps, you are endorsing things before you know anything about them.

I suppose once people understand the new methods, they will get past that - but I will be switching off the auto-share. I read widely and don't want to have to explain why I am reading what I am reading.

(sorry about the long post)
I am doing a 3 month hiatus from all Facebook activity until the freaky line is clearly delineated. The oversharing and lack of user control is disconcerting.
+Peter F. Mayer could you elaborate on that please? How is Amazon the biggest "Frictionless sharing" machine?
+Robert Scoble Your article is missing the angle that I think is most important. I like the "frictionless discovery" portion of this new paradigm, where the songs my friends are listening to, the articles they read, etc are automagically surfaced. That's awesome.

The part that's awful is that I now get prompted, every single time I want to see that stuff, to install yet-another-app on Facebook. The interstitial page completely interrupts the sharing, and actually adds more friction to the so-called "frictionless sharing".
This is all an issue of control. This information exists, I did listen to that song, or I did read that article, but my question is who do I want to know about it. What happens when I read a Job Ad, I might not want certain people to know about that, (if I'm looking at leaving), but If I'm reading into how to word an Ad for a new job we are advertising I might want it shared.

What is needed is a central "sharing" dashboard type thing in FB where I can see all of the things shared on my behalf, and simple controls to set which groups different sharing goes to. Music --> Public, Flickr --> Family, Instragram --> Friends, etc..
+William Morgan Endorsement is the key isn't it. Just because I read something or listen to it doesn't mean I endorse it, and the current share methodology is anchored around "like", there is an implicit like on a share, and by removing the ability for me to decide if I share it, it will only degrade the quality of my stream.
If, or should I say when, we get to the point that everywhere I walk, and everything I look at will be published on FB immediately, FB will not only have crossed my line, it will also be pretty useless to all of my friends/followers. Imagine having 200 Scobles in your timeline, or 200 Zuck's for that matter. You will not no where to look, if you still want to. Where do YOU draw the line, mr. Scoble? When your heart beat is being published, along with your blood pressure, etc. so everyone can always see the state you're in? At least people can drop the (internet) dating, because the Zuck will have your perfect match right up there in the ad section ;-)
Choosing to share is one thing. Auto share is another. Facebook crossed the line long ago for me. It’s rediculous to think that everyone is interested in everything I do. Facebook is like walking into a room with hundreds of people yelling "I like pizza".
this is the real consumer o/s. its why windows8 doesnt matter. everything is in the cloud.
I don't care if people want to enable "frictionless sharing," although sharing everything someone does is somewhere close to the opposite of what we had - sharing what people think is worthy of sharing. We've gone from curated to non-curated. This enables bad content to quickly go viral just because a few connectors clicked on it, "Free Public Wifi" style.

What I do care about is that I have to enable these apps and identify myself to WP, Y!, etc. just so I can CONSUME what people share. I for one won't do it. These links are broken and might as well be behind a paywall. At best I can google the title of an article and find it another way.
"Frictionless sharing" as a marketing term is wonderful. It means what it does. You don't have to do anything to share what has been described by many as useless information. But if they put in some "friction", like if you listened to 5 tracks from the same band, then ask you if you want to add the band to your Info tab. Once its on your info tab it will then automatically share with your friends anytime you listen to songs by that band. I think adding that minor bit of friction will make this info all the more valuable to both my friends and FB.

Sharing news articles you read automatically might be a first step but is not that useful or fun. People read multiple articles a day not because they like it, but because the headline attracted them to the story. We might find the article lacking, bias, or just simply disagree with it. Frictionlessly sharing a story that you don't like with your friends is adding noise, not value to what your friends see.

I would rather see a DVR that shares what I'm watching, what I chose to record or select a season pass on. I would like to see Fandango share with my friends the movie that I just brought tickets to. I would like to see Yelp share with my friends what restaurant I'm reading about because I might be interested in going (or to go pass the freaky line, what restaurant I reserved on OpenTable, including when I'm going). But I only want this frictionless sharing to occur after I agree to share it (just once, but I should be occasionally reminded that I'm sharing this info in case I change my mind later).
Google+ is a gentleman, Facebook is censuring every link to Google+
As someone who lives in this social world and makes it his business, Robert has the time and hte patience to change settings for each app or each set of new feature. I niether have the time nor the patience to keep on adjusting the settings. While I understand experimentation, this experimentation is being done while making my experience extremely bad. I value good "content"—media is a bad term. ButI enjoy excellent curated content. Curation comes when my friends choose to share something andnot when apps automatically share. I believe that people follow me because I curate links and content and not share every single thing I do. Similarly, I follow others because they provide valuable content to me. When this value no longer exists, the value of the social network no longer exists; it's a time waste.
+Robert Scoble , I don't really care about Facebook but I definitely did not take you for someone who might like Skrillex! Interesting.
Frictionless sharing doesn't convey the reason or the circumstance the media was consumed.
Did I read/listen/watched because I was:
- curious
- amazed
- disgusted
- angry
- accidental clicks (opps!)
- disagreeing (have to keep an open mind and check out other point of views right?)

Unfortunately, we are being judged by what we share. And with frictionless sharing, we do not have a chance to explain ourselves. Unless:
1. we proactively comment on everything we do
2. we select what we do (like +Robert Scoble who stop listening to Lady Gaga on Spotify )
1 is too tiring, too much work. 2 - do we really want to change our real life behavior around our web persona? Really, what's wrong with a little bubblegum cutesy pop once in a while ;) I want to enjoy, and not being judged, for my choices.

Yes, there are advantages, but I feel the disadvantages outweighs the advantages. I am complex, there are many sides to me, and it doesn't make sense to try and put all into one front.

As for discovering new medias, do we really one site to do it all?
For music, I used to love audiogalaxy (the old p2p one) and found many wonderful new genres from there.
For photography, there is flickr, G+ and clubsnap.
For news, there is reddit, hacker news, techmeme, google news.

For keeping up with friends, I use facebook, and I hope they keep what they share on it personalized; Important to them, or thought provoking/interesting stuff, not just mundane read/watched/listened/played.
Chrome has something called "The incognito window"...use it!!
irish d
My worry is that FB's tracking me beyond their site. Does that FB disconnect really work?

Anyway, not everyone's a public figure and it is that 90% that social networks should cater to. Influentials like +Robert Scoble are good for FB and G+ but we are more important than you just because there are more of us (do you disagree?). We care about our privacy and a regular person simply doesnt have the time to check FB, twitter and G+ half of the day, then worry about a timeline sharing reporting our every move. maybe they can do that but give me a PAUSE button at least. Even reality TV stars gets a break from the camera when they want it. i also want a STOP button.

Content discovery can be overwhelming. I'm fine with how g+ does it coz here i get to categorize my interests and the content coming at me. Its search feature is also excellent. FB is not equipped with such features. It's equivalent to G+'s main stream, a mishmash. G+ can also categorize my level of relationships. i'm sorry but FB simply sucks. And the crazy thing is that I can't get out of the system even when i kill my FB account. All they have to do is connect to one of my family members and they'll still get pictures of what's going on with me, who I am with, etc. I will not however make the mistake of connecting any 3rd party account to FB (spotify, youtube, etc). I even hate that I have to sometimes use their social plug in just to comment on some blogs coz there's no other choice.

Let me be clear: I hate FB and its take on privacy. I hope they don't win this war. It may be in the best interests of bloggers, but not the many private individuals like me.
And in terms of music, I scrobble everything to, and that pulls music I listen to from a variety of music services. If I really want to, it'll me tweet or share the top 3 artists I've listened to in a week. I feel that's more than enough to convey the trend of what I'm currently liking and listening to, and maybe Spotify should look to do something similar.
Sounds like FB is building the attention engine I long dreamed of turning FeedDemon into but never could because I didn't have the resources.

FB's big problem is their approach. They're gathering - and exposing - all this attention data in way that's going to scare an awful lot of people and invite government investigation. That's going to backfire on them in a big way.

I don't think FB really understands why people see frictionless sharing as a privacy violation, and I'm sure that's partly due to the insular culture both at FB and in Silicon Valley in general.

FB's other big problem is that they think your friends really want to see so much stuff about you. There needs to be much better separation between stuff you post directly (statuses, photos, etc.) and stuff you post indirectly (songs you've listened to, articles you've clicked, etc.). All your indirect sharing should be used to recommend other stuff to you rather than used to spam your friends' newsfeeds.
I'm more concerned with how these apps function affect what we share. It's troubling that Spotify and the WP Social Reader shares whatever you click, and not just for privacy reasons like +Robert Scoble mentioned. It means that we just see what our friends click, and not what our friends actually are, which is what Facebook should really be about. I'm looking at my News Feed right now and I see that a friend recently listened to some Maroon 5. Without a comment or any sort of voice on her part, I'm not getting a clearer picture of who she is. It adds confusion. Facebook should be about maintaining relationships with friends, not having everyone serve as proxies for companies. If I want new music, I'll leave Facebook and boot up Pandora. I'm at Facebook to see who my friends are and what they're up to.

It's probably to soon for this, but I'd be really interested in just how much new information users are actually getting and learning through services like Spotify or the WP Social Reader, or if it's all just an echo chamber. I would suspect it's the latter, but I could be wrong. But that's a separate discussion all together.
Thanks for sharing this Robert!
I have already gotten to a point where I try not to include facebook with whatever I am doing online. I am not too keen on people knowing what I am watching on Netflix, listening to on MOG, etc.
I think the elephant in the room is the impact on people's employment prospects. People look into Facebook accounts now to evaluate employees. Taking this opens up peoples media consumption habits, this can create its own type of friction, the real world type. While this information may be useful for marketers, it may be harmful on an individual level taking the high level of exposure and data collection in the facebook system. I think this type of sharing only makes sense if the user can enable and disable it easily.

I tend to like the Google approach to music and media better, where sharing is easy and highly integrated across their platform, but it is also takes an intentional act to share. To me sharing without intent is pretty meaningless though. Semantic information without context also creates problems. Right now with frictionless sharing there is absolutely no context to the information being shared, the information is just noise.
Nothing in your argument Robert explains rationale why Facebook needs to report this information out to my friends. Items in the timeline such as "a friend just started listening to blah blah blah" or "Several of your friends have read interesting story A"

Let me see my own data, sure. Let me view it in Timeline and see all my own patterns. That's a useful service, without going over the edge. But giving it to all my friends haphazardly is too much.

(for the friend connect moments, such as "You and Joe are listening the same song! So cool!", Facebook could even do prompts and only reveal the song and person if both parties agree they want to share it.)
Freaky line? no that doesn't get to the heart of it. My response isn't like seeing an oddly shaped tree, it's a deep concern that we keep getting tricked into letting companies mine information about our habits, and interests so they can sell it to advertising.

Most people don't realize that when they click a link for a new article and are told to sign up for the app to read it they are agreeing to sharing (without checks) everything publicly from that point on.

to echo a few people above. What is i am completely uninteresting in sharing my blow by blow use the internet to everyone i know. Perhaps is there was circle type (a la G+) articecture to sharing I might enjoy letting this group, or that group know what I'm reading, or listening to. Everyone? no friggin way. who does that in real life? we all manage images between different groups, FB decided that thats not ok.

seriously I'm not that guy, but please friends switch to G+ so I don't have to use facebook
Mr. +Robert Scoble , I think you can disable apps sharing from the account settings==>app settings, add app activity to your timeline and from app activity privacy. That works, I hope to let me know whether this info. is useful or not.
Friction is underrated - I like friction (or should that be 'I +1 friction'?)
It definitely confused me when I realized every time I comment a picture or "like" one. It ends up on my friends newsfeed. What they really should do is just give you all your friends passwords so you can log into their accounts and get it over with.
And more and more, Facebook continues to make new features that I have to disable, block, and prevent it from showing to me.

I actively blocked Spotify and Yahoo and the Washington Post apps on FB, because, and this is important, I don't care what you're listening to, reading, or watching.

I might care about what you say, and I might be interested in your opinions if you have any. But I don't care about what you passively consume. That's nonsense sharing.

Facebook is crossing the freaky line all right, but it's that freaky line between relevance and irrelevance. More and more people stop using Facebook every day because it's become nothing but useless spam.
Even the most social person in the world has things that don't want it to be shared. But it seems that Facebook deems appropriate that I have to share every breath I take. This is just plain wrong. People love their products as long as the users are in control of their products not the other way around. I closed my account some time ago.
zuck just wants to have some silly moore's law thingie named after him... it doesn't work because people won't be able to handle 10x more noise every year. quite the opposite: we are getting burnt out!

how about a frictionless "opt out of all oversharing stuff" button somewhere?
I don't mind sharing my likes, dislikes, songs, or products I use with others. I just want control of it. I don't like the idea of Facebook—or any other app for that matter—making those decisions for me.

I'm a total space cadet. Which means after sharing something on Facebook, I'll most likely forget they're watching me and then go off surfing the web all the while Facebook—and whatever other apps—are recording my every move. That's just eerie. Very big brother.

Here's a question. Can this information be used against you if you happen to end up in court?

I first joined Facebook to share parts of my life and keep up with friends and family. It was enjoyable. Now, I'm spending more time worrying about Facebook and how they're watching my every move. It's no longer enjoyable. Which is why I deleted my account.

I also don't want to spend my time going through preferences in order to keep my privacy. Nor do I want to continually find out through friends that Facebook has done yet something else to encroach on my privacy.
I hope Mark doesn't unintentionally make himself go insane by all this. I pray that users know how to turn technology off and pick up a book (not a kindle, a book) and learn to go outside once in a while... :/
+drew bannister only to post my g+ link
Facebook, Google, Apple or any other large or small company is going to find ways to profit, find value for its user base, from the data it can collect. The question that still has to be answered IMO, does giving Facebook access to this type data benefit anyone, but Facebook. If the compensation justifies the action it will succeed. if not, it will become a wasteland of lead gen.
I got here from a FB link and logged into my brand new G+ account. FAIL on not just frictionless sharing, but on believing that the sheep will continue to be so easily herded. My 12-year-old (shut up, I know) already thinks FB is a drag and prefers her Tumblr. Both of us are choosing places to spend time where we have a teensy bit more control if not as many cousins and aunts on the network yet. Google docs morphed instantly into a de facto social network, too. Her class has shared docs for chats, dating, party invites. Give them a skeleton, they'll bring the skin to put it in. Be very afraid of the young ones FB.
"Users will turn off apps, or change their behavior (I already have, for instance, I don’t listen to Lady Gaga on Spotify, I only listen to bands on Spotify that I want you to see)." - That's sad. It's a kind of deadening conformity by algorithm instead of peer group.
Tell me +Robert Scoble, if sharing is so great, why can I read your post and all the comments in G+ without signing in, but to do so in Facebook, I have to sign in.

As far as your view of sharing, you are not a normal person, so please stop pushing your view on everyone as we "don't get it". You want to be an internet celebrity and you have the time to do so. I'm assuming the great majority of us have jobs that do not allow us to be posting and updating all day long. Not that it's a bad thing but maybe some of us don't have the desire to do so either. Maybe we just enjoy reading others's posts and occasionally post something for others to read.

I find no reason to show the world everything I do except that I would want attention and some of us don't necessarily need it.

Now, it's always been my philosophy that if I don't like something, I don't have to use it. That's why I don't use Facebook. Why other people can't do that, just boggles my mind.
Really good article and I think you've expressed the future of Facebook as well as anyone.

I don't like it personally but if Facebook becomes a place where there's lots of noise caused by this then I'll just remove myself. I've deleted my account once already so doing it again will be no hardship. Facebook could probably do with half the users giving them 10x the information - that'd be more valuable than the current set-up, I imagine. Although the dampening of the network effect could have longer term implications.

As a researcher type, I do think it raises lots of questions for advertisers and those trying to work out what all these signals mean, however. If you change your behavior so that you only read/watch/listen to only the things you think your friends will be impressed by, then you are the poorer and observing your choices distorts the picture of you that is built up. In turn this alters the advertising you get and the recommendations you get. If you respond to these then you move further away from what you want and into what you think the world wants you to be. Which is weird.
+Tom Yedwab you hit the nail on the head with your comments. The more I learn about the direction of social the more I want to completely reject it altogether. Regarding discovering great bands, I've been doing that long before the Internet was mainstream and will continue to do so without the a$$istance of something like Spotify.
There is something to be said about selling your soul to the Devil. Question is... are you ready? Think about it...
I agree with +Abhilash Kuduvalli. The FREAKY line is crossed when people are changing their consumption behaviors because of the service. Yes, I'm glad that social networking allows me to broadcast what I'm doing if I want to... but when the service does this without getting permission for individual events, it will certainly change my behavior such that only favorable things will be displayed. There have been some articles relating this idea to something called a Panopticon... a psychological prison where you are always being watched. In my opinion, this is exactly what Mark Zuck is turning his service into.
That crosses my freaky line, as well as the thought that UI/UX behaviors up until now have been designed to allow this to happen. The Facebook CEO is deliberately trying to change the psychological and social behaviors of 800 million users.
The problem for me with 'frictionless sharing" isn't that it's particularly freaky, it's that I lose control over the context of what appears on facebook. Context is everything and you mentioned a few good examples in your blog post.

Another example, say I'm a journalist and I spend an hour each day reading radical right wing blogs. I'm doing it because in my job I'm responsible for knowing what people are talking about but the implication is that I agree politically because it happens consistently every day. I don't have a problem with people knowing what I am reading but when you post it yourself you can post it with the proper context. I want people to know who I really am. Random data showing up in my profile is ripe for misunderstanding.

I have no problem presenting myself to the world. I use my real name almost everywhere and most all of my information is full on open to the public. I do have a problem with facebook presenting me to the world. They do not represent me. Only I do.
+Robert Scoble I am all In also. And if they can solve the Noise factor, it's going to be totally worth it. From simple example (bring me new Music my friends Listening to that I MIGHT LIKE), to Financial information I CARE ABOUT and all the way to Business Opportunities. If Facebook will solve it, I am keeping my account - but if it just becomes Crazy Noise (like it's starting to appear), well then....
Robert, if Facebook's goal is to collect information about me so they can provide me with content most relevant to me, why do they need so share everything I do in my public stream by default? If their goal is to collect information they could as easily aggregate the information in a feed private to me, and give me the option to choose which items to share. Why does it need to be public, if the goal is to be "your new media assistant"?
Gopi P
i don't think soo!!!
Facebook is to complicated to handle, and some of the restrictions are a bordom. Can't invite the people you want and do those circle thingies, personaly the chat sucks...and more

Google plus is so much more simple, it's real pleger to network here compared to facebook. You get to expand your networking groups much more easily.
i Cjay
Facebook drools and Google rules. What more is there?
Theres always something going on with FB as well as MSp.  Drama thx for Ur post !!
i don'n know in means what are u do
I am in love with Robert Scoble.Infact, i am a beginner on Google +.How can i go about knowing the areas to meeting the businesses target by having a concrete transactions with Google+?
Add a comment...