Profile

Cover photo
Edward Morbius
1,462,764 views
AboutPostsCollections

Stream

Edward Morbius

Shared publicly  - 
 
For the Kremlinologists Plusologists out there

TL;DR:  0.2% - 0.3% of G+ accounts have posted something other than a YouTube comment in 2015 (the past 18 days) -- about 4-7 million people publicly using G+ for posts (the estimate varies as data comes in).

There are about 2.2 billion G+ profiles.

Of these, about 9% have any publicly-posted content.

Of those, about 37% have as their most recent activity are comments on YouTube videos, another 8% are profile photo changes.

Only 6% of active profiles have any post activity in 2015 (18 days so far).

Only about half of those, 3% of active profiles, are not YouTube posts.

That is, 0.2% - 0.3% of all G+ profiles, about 4-6 million users, have made public post in 2015.  That's 244,000 users posting daily.

More than "hundreds", but not by all that much.

This doesn't include non-public posts or comments, but its' a pretty clear indication of the level of activity on G+.


See also:  follow-up analysis of "inactive" accounts (those with no public shares visible):
https://plus.google.com/u/0/104092656004159577193/posts/RhnKkfTNPKR



How do we get this?

A rough sense of G+ size in terms of profiles can come from the sitemap files.

If my rough counts are right, 50,000 sitemap files of 45,429 entries gives around 2.2 billion profile pages.

Search for blank profiles turns up a count far lower than mentioned in the article (~20k).  I suspect funny bidness.

See below.  A crawl of an arbitrarily selected sitemap (2820 entries so far) shows about 9.2% of Profiles have any public activity.  That gives us 202 million users with any activity on G+ at any time.  Let's see if I can't find a most recent post date for those that are active.

37 of 100 most recent posts are comments to YouTube videos.  That's 37%.

OK, of 283 profiles checked so far with comments, 34.6% have as their most recent comment a YouTube video comment -- literally "commented on a video on YouTube".

Another fairly commonly occurring pattern is "changed * profile photo"  That's another 8.1% of posts.

So, of 283 profiles with posts, what's the most recent post date?  Only 245 of 283 have a "Shared publicly" line.

By year:

      4 2011
     23 2012
     62 2013
    139 2014
     17 2015

This isn't posts by year, but most recent public account activity by year. Over 30% of profiles with any activity at all have no activity since 2013.

And, 17/283, or six percent of active profiles have left any content in the first 18 days of 2015.

Of those 17 posts, 8 are comments on YouTube videos -- that is, this is the payoff of the #Anschluss :  it's doubled the apparent traffic on G+.

But this leaves us only 3% of active profiles as active in 2015 -- that's 3% of 9%, or 0.2% of all G+ accounts are active.  Roughly 4.4 million people.

That's actually far lower than I'd been allowing for previously (30 - 100 million posts).

(I've updated estimates with additional data, though the trends are generally holding.)



More on methods

OK, let's crawl G+.

I've picked a single sitemap file and am crawling the profile pages on it with the following script:

i=0; time zcat sitemap-25007-of-50000.gz | while read URL; do i=$(( i + 1 )); echo -e "$i: \c"; lynx -dump $URL | grep "hasn't shared anything" || echo "Not found"; done | tee log

This produced output similar to:


1:    Jenilee hasn't shared anything with you.
2:    Brian hasn't shared anything with you.
3:    Gene hasn't shared anything with you.
4:    kishor hasn't shared anything with you.
5:    Daniel hasn't shared anything with you.
6:    aping hasn't shared anything with you.
7:    Corey hasn't shared anything with you.
8: Not found
9:    Ohh hasn't shared anything with you.
10:    kinyo2006 hasn't shared anything with you.
11:    patrik hasn't shared anything with you.
12:    Melina hasn't shared anything with you.
13: Not found
14:    Akihito hasn't shared anything with you.
15:    Paul hasn't shared anything with you.
16:    Pamela hasn't shared anything with you.
17:    Eddie hasn't shared anything with you.
18:    bekzat hasn't shared anything with you.
19:    H hasn't shared anything with you.
20:    Calm hasn't shared anything with you.

("Page" profiles create dupe output that's filtered out in the analysis above).  The logfile creates the data source I've used for further analysis above.  I can use the record number to identify the profile queried for the result.


With 214 profiles crawled (there are 45,000+ in the file, this'll take a while or I'll be blocked), I see 9% rate of profiles with content on their pages.  That's 20 of 214 pages.

I'll posit this is close to a random sampling, though other sitemap pages can be compared as well, and others can replicate the method here.

And yes, I could parallelize the process but suspect that I'm in danger of triggering abuse blocks as it is.

Going through the list and looking at most-recently-posted dates would also be interesting.

Note that those who are using G+ for only non-public, or Community discussions won't appear here.

But it's pretty clear that the rate of participation is about 8-12% of all created accounts.

Now at 623 queries:  55/623 => 8.83%.  Percentage is actually trending down.

1,195 queries, 9.4%.
6,569 queries, 8.91%




Ping:  +Russell Davison +Alex Schleber +Woozle Hypertwin +paul beard +Max Huijgen +CircleCount +Eileen O'Duffy +Gideon Rosenblatt +Robert Llewellyn +Robert Scoble +David Brin +Dave Besbris +Yonatan Zunger +Andreas Schou 



http://www.labnol.org/internet/google-plus-users/21035/
What is total number of users that are on Google Plus. An updated sitemap file for Google Plus profiles hosted on Google.com reveals that number.
37
12
Lee Zhen Hong's profile photoJürgen Christoffel's profile photo謝予穎's profile photoJeff Sullivan's profile photo
131 comments
 
+Mike Allton an apples to apples comparison would be a fantastic thing!

Edward Morbius

Shared publicly  - 
 
Humor lubricates truth

Humor doesn't have to be insightful (there's a lot that's little more than crass), but it frequently is.

John Cleese has a great bit on this. Part of it (he argues, and I tend to agree) has to do with how our brains and reward systems are wired. Most things humorous involve something surprising or unexpected. In a way, it's both a mode that lowers your defenses against information that doesn't fit, and rewards you for making a new connection between previously unassociated facts.

Good comics get this. Geniuses exploit it: Andy Kaufman, Lenny Bruce, Woody Allen, Monty Python generally,George Carlin, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver. The Marx Brothers and Charlie Chaplin earlier as well, and previously satirists such as Jonathan Swift.

But there's also a difference between the satirical comics (1950s / 1960s onward) and the older school of punch-line, rapid delivery comics of earlier who tended to be more anodyne.

The list of people Bruce influenced is pretty telling;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Bruce


Otherwise, what Rachel said.
 
Once more, cracked.com knocks it out of the park. They write really amazing articles on a lot of things.

If you've ever wondered why people are "SJWs", and why people who care about social justice are always picking on white, hetero males even though quite a few of them don't have easy lives either, this would be a good article to read.

Helping to rectify that situation is one of the many, many things you're tasked with due to having been born in a fairly high place in the world. It's not "fair," but that's a meaningless word when referencing things you have no control over. You didn't ask to be born half-way up a mountain, but you were, and I need you to look down and realize that mountain is really a pile of bones.
What I am finding as time goes on is that we are all secretly Billy Joel.
5 comments on original post
6
2
Edward Morbius's profile photoPeter da Silva's profile photoSteve S's profile photoBrad Fonseca's profile photo
13 comments
 
That's kind of a really messed up interpretation of Billy Joel's song. Seriously. It's almost like the author thought that history began with his own birth, and everything before that all happened at the same time.

Edward Morbius

Shared publicly  - 
 
Site metrics and FP Top 100 Global Thinkers

+Eric Enge and I have been continuing our occasional exchange on how to measure discussion site activity, he and I having both made our own semi-infamous stabs at measuring activity on G+ to the extent possible.

Among other points raised was this: I'm increasingly inclined to believe that the group of Truly Interesting People online is rather more finite than we tend to estimate -- that the combination of intelligence, communications skills, and sheer interest in engaging with hoi polloi and all the frustrations that entails. The notable mark of the elder blogger / online commentator is in large part their absence from any communications.

E.g., Clay Shirky hasn't just stopped posting at Ello, he hardly posts anywhere any more, and hasn't much for years. Likewise for numerous others.

Further discussion expanding on those reasons. On which one point I'd like to reiterate: the Great Hope of finding untapped outside the developed / OECD world strikes me as both 1) unlikely and 2) not useful. Unlikely not because there's no native brilliance there (though environmental factors such as crushing poverty, malnurishment, and high levels of childhood stress almost certainly don't help), but because such genius often (though not always) finds a way out.

We've even got a term for that: Brain Drain.

As to the "not useful", it has more to do with diminishing returns to technology and innovation, and applies equally to OECD-native genius.


But that did raise the question of who compiles the official list of public intellectuals. Turns out that's a task assumed by Foreign Policy magazine, and its FP Top 100 Global Thinkers list.

As with all such things, it's not perfect and I see signs of political motivation and possible ballot stuffing (Bjørn Lomborg, SRSLY? Barak Obama and Ron Paul's brief 2010 appearances, and Thomas Friedman (well, he's public), off the top). A few others I can think of, say, Richard M. Stallman, are excluded. But as things go, it's not a bad list.

The top ten 2014 entries:

 1. Noam Chomsky
 2. Ashraf Ghani
 3. Richard Dawkins
 4. Václav Havel
 5. Christopher Hitchens
 6. Paul Krugman
 7. Jürgen Habermas
 8. Amartya Sen
 9. Jared Diamond
10. Salman Rushdie

(Other than Habermas, I've at least heard of all, read or listened to several.)

Rounding out the tail:

 90. Gordon Conway
 91. Pavol Demes
 92. Elaine Scarry
 93. Robert Cooper
 94. Harold Varmus
 95. Pramoedya Ananta Toer
 96. Zheng Bijian
 97. Kenichi Ohmae
 98. Wang Jisi
 99. Kishore Mahbubani
100. Shintaro Ishihara

(None of whom is immediately known to me.)


It might also be interesting to pair it with an anti-intellectual global 100 (sadly, queries for that phrase show no discerningly compiled tabulations....). The Karadashians, Deepak Chopra, and Rupert Sheldrake, as well as the whole of Fox News, come to mind. If mention of the FP Top 100 are positives, then the latter would deduct from the score. And painfully so. Might be the final push to finally see widespread adoption of the W3C <irony> tag.

So here's one proposal for a club whose willingness to have someone like me as a member might not be an instant disqualification: that it have some participation from the likes of those mentioned above.

(Worth mention is that Clay Shriky himself weighs in at #67 for 2010.)

That might be either direct participation (preferable) or discussion of.

And yes, it could be added to by other generally inspirational types (someone you'd want to sit closer to at a party, but to overhear more than to gaze upon). Authors, possibly a few scientists. A very few politicians (most generally don't make the cut).

And yeah, measurement of this sort of thing especially on the basis of content is difficult and painful at best, don't get me started. "Lunch pix" and vague one-liners seem a poor candidate for inclusion. Someone like +David Brin or +Yonatan Zunger who actually wade into comments and engage, (neither make the cut, get your votes in, Geeple), far better.

It also helps tremendously if those who really have an interest in engaging get the chance to do so. Much as I enjoy Reddit, one of the disappointments of its AMAs is that they're frequently flooded with not-particularly-interesting questions. Running a good Q&A at scale is difficult (I've had experiences running relatively small ones in front of largely well-behaved crowds and even that was a challenge).

And no, I'm not saying that all discussion has to be lead by or about this list. But if none is, or worse, the clue flees rapidly then you've got problems.

A criticism of mine of Ello is that it did have a fairly hefty crowd of interesting people who I was really happy to be able to follow online. Sadly, all but a couple are now silent for many months. A standing challenge to the Ello crew from me is to figure out how to win them back. Similar criticisms could be made of G+ as well.

https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/qNaGY6s0tStDkT5eaubaLg


So, that leaves us with "where are the top 100 global thinkers posting online?"

I strongly suspect that many have a Facebook presence. How much that's used is another question. Some (sampling from the top ten) are found on G+, in some form, but don't appear active.

My earlier metric of counting search results from various domains might prove interesting, though that would measure discussion, not necessarily presence, and be subject to numerous other biases. But, as with the earlier public posts metric, it is accessible.


Curious what thoughts +Yonatan Zunger might have as to applications of this to general relevance and/or credibility scoring this might have.
5
2
Jon Henry's profile photoEdward Morbius's profile photoWyatt Brown's profile photoWilliam Rutiser's profile photo
19 comments
 
+Jon Henry As I said, my understanding. I did notice the discrepancies.

Edward Morbius

Shared publicly  - 
 
Quotidian just isn't one of those words you run into every day.
17
Brendan Bassett's profile photoT. Pascal's profile photoHugh Messenger's profile photoEdward Morbius's profile photo
11 comments
 
+T. Pascal As +Nate McD noted (re-share), "quotidian" is also applied to the primary infectious version of malaria, which he found curious -- a deadly disease isn't exactly an "every-day" thing.

But it is.

I'd seen reference to "quotidian fever" among definitions/etymologies, while posting this bit. Nate's comment made me curious as to what the situation with malaria was. Turns out, a principle symptom is a recurring fever. Not necessarily daily -- the range is 1-4 days depending on the particular strain. But yes, "daily fever", hence use in the description of malaria. And more generally in medicine.

Edward Morbius

Shared publicly  - 
 
Bob Hopgood SVG animation demo

From @ddaily at Ello: "It may take a minute to load in your browser (use Chrome -- Bob writes: "There is a very unobvious green square bottom right that you have to click to start it."), but this is what people do with SVG:"

G+ doesn't like the SVG links themselves, so Bob's page is the anchor for this post, but try the following in tabs:

http://www.iw3c2.org/svg_animation/svg_animation/WWW2013/play.svg  and http://www.bahfrah.org.uk/florence/playviewbox.xml

Bob has done the graphics for the opening welcome at the International WWW Conference for the past umpty years, perhaps since CERN hosted the first one. They are meeting right now (today) in Florence.

https://ello.co/ddailey/post/9HJhzeQ_gf_QyenXlNYd7w

via @ddailey at Ello:


David frequently shares his own and others' experiments with SVG, particularly animation and other effects, I highly recommend his posts.
https://ello.co/ddailey
Eurographics. The European Association for Computer Graphics
3
Jean Egan's profile photoEdward Morbius's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Jean Egan It does some really amazing things. Looks like a strong candidate to replace much of Flash, for example.

But if there's no way to disable animation I will seek blood.

(Or block a lot of SVG.)

Edward Morbius

Shared publicly  - 
11
2
William Rutiser's profile photoKevin C. (KevinC)'s profile photo
 
That data is income per household, not per capita, through a time period with major changes in household structure. Not that it really changes the overall picture much, but a common objection I hear from right-leaning economists.

I think looking at the timing of the changes in spread are interesting though...

Edward Morbius

Shared publicly  - 
 
Caught with their pants down: "Hacked Adult FriendFinder database reveals extramarital affairs of millions"

Casual adult dating website FriendFinder has been hacked with details of millions of users leaked online, according to a report from British broadcaster Channel 4 News.  The website, which lists over 63 million global users, is one of the largest dating and casual hook-up platforms online – Tinder trails the service with an estimated 50 million users worldwide...

The breached data includes information on the users’ sexual preferences, email addresses, sexual orientation, dates of birth, addresses, usernames, and whether the member is seeking extramarital relationships – all of which paints an extremely clear picture of the victim and is potentially highly sensitive and embarrassing.


And ... certain perceptions of dating sites are confirmed:

[A]lmost no women [were] found to be using the so-called “thriving sex community.” “Among the 26,939 users with a UK email address,” technology producer Geoff White explains that there were, “just 1,596 who identified as female: a ratio of one woman to every 16 men.”



More information:

"Leaked database of Adult Friend Finder still online"
http://www.cio.com/article/2925874/leaked-database-of-adult-friend-finder-still-online.html

Adult Friend Finder, one of the largest online dating sites, may have been breached more than two months ago, and the sensitive files—include names, ages, email addresses, zip codes and more—are apparently still online....

Bev Robb, who does malware and dark Web research, came across the Adult Friend Finder files in March. She said she held off on publicizing the information for a few weeks before contacting two security experts.


Possibly an extortion / non-payment issue:

"Hacked! How safe is your data on Adult Sites?"  
https://teksecurityblog.com/blog/2015/04/13/hacked-how-safe-is-your-data-on-adult-social-sites/

During a fit of rage, a pissed off hacker (going by the handle ROR[RG]) posted 15 downloadable spreadsheets (in zipped file format with credit card data stripped) to a week-old Darknet forum stating that he had rooted the adult site database. Why? Because they owed his guy approximately $248,000 USD. He bragged that the company and law enforcement could not touch him because he was based in Thailand. His ransom demand was set at $100,000 (50G to begin and 50G to end).


Via HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587566

http://thestack.com/hacked-adult-friend-finder-database-extramarital-affairs-millions-220515


Adult FriendFinder hacked over two months ago and highly sensitive member data leaked online
12
4
Paul Gray's profile photoRenatho Siqueira's profile photoSatyr Icon's profile photo謝予穎's profile photo
25 comments
 
BTW, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Trite, but accurate.

Edward Morbius

Shared publicly  - 
 
Hacked Adult FriendFinder database reveals extramarital affairs of millions

Casual adult dating website FriendFinder has been hacked with details of millions of users leaked online, according to a report from British broadcaster Channel 4 News.  The website, which lists over 63 million global users, is one of the largest dating and casual hook-up platforms online – Tinder trails the service with an estimated 50 million users worldwide....

The breached data includes information on the users’ sexual preferences, email addresses, sexual orientation, dates of birth, addresses, usernames, and whether the member is seeking extramarital relationships – all of which paints an extremely clear picture of the victim and is potentially highly sensitive and embarrassing....

And certain ... perceptions of dating sites are confirmed:

"[A]lmost no women [were] found to be using the so-called “thriving sex community.  Among the 26,939 users with a UK email address,” technology producer Geoff White explains that there were, “just 1,596 who identified as female: a ratio of one woman to every 16 men.”

More information:

http://www.cio.com/article/2925874/leaked-database-of-adult-friend-finder-still-online.html

Adult Friend Finder, one of the largest online dating sites, may have been breached more than two months ago, and the sensitive files—include names, ages, email addresses, zip codes and more—are apparently still online....

Bev Robb, who does malware and dark Web research, came across the Adult Friend Finder files in March. She said she held off on publicizing the information for a few weeks before contacting two security experts.


Possibly an extortion / non-payment issue:

https://teksecurityblog.com/blog/2015/04/13/hacked-how-safe-is-your-data-on-adult-social-sites/

During a fit of rage, a pissed off hacker (going by the handle ROR[RG]) posted 15 downloadable spreadsheets (in zipped file format with credit card data stripped) to a week-old Darknet forum stating that he had rooted the adult site database. Why? Because they owed his guy approximately $248,000 USD. He bragged that the company and law enforcement could not touch him because he was based in Thailand. His ransom demand was set at $100,000 (50G to begin and 50G to end).



Via HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587566

http://thestack.com/hacked-adult-friend-finder-database-extramarital-affairs-millions-220515
Adult FriendFinder hacked over two months ago and highly sensitive member data leaked online
2
2
Jake Weisz's profile photoMark Kosmowski's profile photo

Edward Morbius

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
Caption: A flock of robot scavengers picking at the husk of a dead automobile, probably killed by unsurvivable changes to the economic climate and the scarcity of fossil fuel.
14 comments on original post
10
4
Dawn Hardin's profile photoAndres Soolo's profile photoMichelle Winther's profile photoRich Bodo's profile photo
 
Somewhere, the metric for ionicity of collection names is railing the graph at Google. 

Edward Morbius

Shared publicly  - 
 
Comments to original.
 
The Meaning of Life

This post is a spin-off of a discussion +Yonatan Zunger kicked off by linking to an article about a Pew survey on religion in America. It's worth reading: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+YonatanZunger/posts/bNsus2kxxwL

The graph from the survey showed, among other things, how various sects denied evolution. This led to an exchange, which I'll extract and show here.

PLS (some religious asshole): They can accept an evolution of a species but never evolution as the Why of Life.

SS (me): There is, of course, no "why" to life. Or, if there is, it's up to us to both discover and create it. Those who are holding out for a "why" are putting themselves out of touch with reality.

PLS: I would tend to agree with you but the "Why" of Life is one of humankind's most enduring question. Most people I know will concede, in intimate moments, that there MUST be a reason for what we experience. Even those I have met who have indulged their every desire and fantasy find fault. It is the unanswered which keeps Spirituality alive.

SS: Then let's fix this by killing spirituality.

My comment did not go over well with this fellow. In fact, it went over so poorly that he will not be joining us here. He is unwelcome. I'm also not going to bother copying his further comments, although you're free to see for yourself, if you care.

+Edward Morbius joined in with:
"""
For values of "why", there actually is a growing pretty solid understanding of fundamental directives.

Jeremy England, Howard T. Odum, Alfred Lotka, Leslie White, and ultimately Darwin. Maximizing power throughput, exploiting entropic gradients.

Possibly not the answer you were looking for.

https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/5l_8MqtVwLLvX_DabPjY-g """

SS responded:
"""
That's not the sort of "why" that the spiritual are seeking. For them, it's just more "how".

I realize that I've pissed off PLS and I'm probably annoying Yonatan, but there's not much I can do about that at this point.

The best I can offer is to give the topic another home, but I have no reason to believe anyone would follow. As such, I might as well just drop it.
"""

EM:
"""
I'll grant that the point's arguable, and it may not answer "what is the meaning of life?". But for "what is the purpose?" it's compellingly insightful to me.
"""

SS:
"""
The problem is that there's more than one purpose. From the POV of my DNA, my purpose is to pass on my DNA. From the POV of my parents, my purpose is to help them when they're old or to provide a spare kidney for my older sister. I could toss out a bunch of POV's, each with their own purpose for me. None of them are my purpose for me, though, and that's what matters to me.
"""

EM:
"""
There's a root-level thermodymic directive underlying those. Look up England's work.

DNA, zygote, gamate, genome, parents, sibs, are all dependent that level of function.
"""

SS: Again, that's not my purpose for me.

EM:
"""
Perhaps. But you'd not be here to ponder and formulate purposes without it. I'll drop the thread here but you're welcome to explore further if you wish from sources mentioned. Or not.
"""

At this point, +Matt Schofield added:
"""
I'm pretty sure Buddhists would be fine with you killing spirituality, just like any other interim idol on the path to enlightenment. But most of the other sects on this chart aren't going to be thrilled by the suggestion because it is an important part of their lives. Any particular reason you need to suggest it in reference to this analysis of how religious belief correlates to other scientific positions? Or should it be a separate thread?
"""

So here we are. Life. Death. Meaning. Purpose. Spirituality. Science.

Wade in.
104 comments on original post
5
1
Wyatt Brown's profile photo

Edward Morbius

Shared publicly  - 
 
There's an old computer science saying that a computer should never ask you a question that it should be able to work out the answer to

But "may I share this information with another" is a question which should always be asked. With an absolutely valid response being "no, never, not under any circumstances".


Hoisted from another discussion where the old saying was prefaced with: "a smartphone knows much more than a PC did...", discussing mobile vs. desktop Web.
11
Jeff Green's profile photoEdward Morbius's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Jeff Green Not entirely following that.

Edward Morbius

Shared publicly  - 
 
Logjam Attacks on TLS and SSH connections

 The Logjam attack allows a man-in-the-middle attacker to downgrade vulnerable TLS connections to 512-bit export-grade cryptography. This allows the attacker to read and modify any data passed over the connection.... The attack affects any server that supports DHE_EXPORT ciphers, and affects all modern web browsers. 8.4% of the Top 1 Million domains were initially vulnerable....

Millions of HTTPS, SSH, and VPN servers all use the same prime numbers for Diffie-Hellman key exchange. Practitioners believed this was safe as long as new key exchange messages were generated for every connection. However, the first step in the number field sieve—the most efficient algorithm for breaking a Diffie-Hellman connection—is dependent only on this prime. After this first step, an attacker can quickly break individual connections.

https://weakdh.org/
10
6
Steve S's profile photoAlexander Bochmann's profile photoTony Sidaway's profile photoAngel Rafael Alejos Duran's profile photo
6 comments
 
Tag +Panah Rad who may be interested in seeing this as well.
Edward's Collections
Story
Tagline
Technological Archaeologist
Introduction
I'm strongly reconsidering participation in G+ following the YouTube Anschluss, November 2013.  Content subject to deletion at any time.

Comments privileges on my posts are limited.  Email me if you cannot comment and would like to be added.

Google have time and again violated several key principles:

Respect.  Of my time, my attention, my expressly stated desires, and most of all, my intelligence by repeating these and other insults time and again.

Trust. I will share very limited slices of me online.  Time and again Google reached for more, and time and again I had to push back.  This last violation (which, had I not already gone fully pseudonymous would have fully outed me as it did others) was one step too far.  I extend trust once, not twice.

Privacy.  This is the immediate concern here, and I've tried to create a walled space within which I can act.  I no longer feel safe to act there.

This incident again has made painfully clear that Google don't understand the fundamental nature of privacy, of social norms, and of spaces.  Of the desire for individuals to keep different aspects of their life and online activity, even within a single pseudonymous identity, separate.  Yes, there are some smart people at the Plex, but socially, you're collectively beyond retarded.  And I no longer care.

I'm actively looking for alternative platforms to use.  
For the time being I'm retaining the Gmail account associated with this ID (dredmorbius@gmail.com) though I'll be migrating that as well (and am accepting recommendations).  Correspondents are strongly encouraged to use my GPG key:  C210 9883 FFB4 3AC1 DEBF  9A2C AC6F 1E84 420A B7BD

I may be found:

As "dredmoribus" on Reddit:  http://reddit.com/u/dredmorbius  

Primary content and engagement on "the dreddit", a/k/a Dr. Edward Morbius's lair of the Id.

On the subreddit   My primary publishing point for now.


Blogging on DreamWidth:  http://dredmorbius.dreamwidth.org/ (presently inactive)


All of which is subject to change, of course (though Reddit's likely to be a good contact).

RSS/Atom feeds for the above are:
Feel free to drop those in your newsreader of choice.  It's a bit clunky, but notably less so than G+ itself is.

I do plan on leaving a tombstone account on G+ with forwarding information and last details, though I'll be removing most or all of my content eventually.

G+ was to an extent an experiment to see if I could participate on terms I was comfortable with in a large commercial social networking space.  The answer to that question has been found, and it is "no".

░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄              Bob is building an army
   ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂             ☻/  against Google Plus
Il███████████████████].      /▌    Copy and Paste this all over 
  ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤..     / \    Youtube if you are with us!

_____________________________________________________________

I don't do IM / Google Chat / Hangouts.
They're horribly intrusive and annoying.

I've blocked them in the G+ UI.  I don't check them. 
I've disabled all access / invite privileges.  
I'm not ignoring you, I simply don't see you.

If you want to reach me directly, either send a private G+ post, or email me (dredmorbius@gmail.com).
I may respond to one or the other of those.
_____________________________________________________________

I thought I had a comments moderation policy here.  Apparently I don't.  Apologies for the oversight.

 See my /r/dredmorbius subreddit policy for the general parameters.

In particular, if you're requested to provide references, or context for naked links (particularly multimedia Audio / Video), do so.

I don't mind opposing viewpoints.  Viewpoints must be substantiated on request.  Failure to substantiate, or engaging in disruptive tactics, is grounds for deletion and/or banning.

The arbitration policy for moderation disputes is:  Moderation battles are short and boring: the moderator wins.

_____________________________________________________________


"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."  
 - Cardinal Richelieu (a/k/a  Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu et de Fronsac)

E pluribus unum

----

You can #Quack that:  http://www.duckduckgo.com

Nature abhors a maximum.
 - William Ophuls

"Pseudonyms and anonymity are also an established part of many cultures -- for  good reason."
  - Alma Whitten, former Director of Privacy, Product and Engineering, Google

I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use.

Somewhere, there are two kids in a garage building a company whose motto will be "Don't be Google".
Bragging rights
I don't exist. I'm not here.
Basic Information
Other names
Prospero