Disabling Google Buzz: How to purge your profile(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
Disabling Google Buzz: How to purge your profile
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10451703-2.html
14 comments
What seems to be going on is that Google was never trustworthy and is being considerate enough to finally broadcast that fact. Too bad they have 10 years of query data on me tied to my email account. [EDIT: Capitalization and verb congruence]
Friends don't let friends browse while logged in to google/gmail.
And it's not like they're clever enough to track ip addresses and cookies or anything.
I don't know what, but something's happening. I use POP3 access always. I logged in an hour ago just to check. First, there was no way to log in and NOT activating Buzz. And not only Buzz was activated, but also Chat. WTF?
Wait...you mean 'Turn Off Buzz', doesn't really turn off Buzz!
Aaarrrgh!
That's the last time I 'try out' a Google product. From now on I test their crap on a junk account that I'll create in GMail.
Thanks a lot Google...
No...not really.
Jack@$$es!
Aaarrrgh!
That's the last time I 'try out' a Google product. From now on I test their crap on a junk account that I'll create in GMail.
Thanks a lot Google...
No...not really.
Jack@$$es!
In the future, you can simply wait a few days for feedback/reviews. Not that complicated.
In the future, Google can make a 'Turn Off Buzz' button that actually Turns Off Buzz. Not that complicated.
Actually, I didn't get a choice. On logging into GMail yesterday, it asked me whether I wanted to to try Buzz. I picked 'no' so it went ahead and enabled it anyway. I am not impressed. Now looking at my options for moving away from GMail if they keep messing with it.
Don't let the FUD fool you. It's "active" in that you can see other people's buzz posts and you get a buzz item on the left menu, but until you create a public profile none of your information (such as follower/followee lists) has been made public.
For you (and others like you and I who picked 'no'), clicking 'turn off buzz' does seem to actually turn off the service for all intents and purposes. No info is made public. Sure, some people 'auto-follow' me, but only those who already had your email address. No real harm done.
For you (and others like you and I who picked 'no'), clicking 'turn off buzz' does seem to actually turn off the service for all intents and purposes. No info is made public. Sure, some people 'auto-follow' me, but only those who already had your email address. No real harm done.
It's not FUD. I don't have a Google Profile, but Buzz was automatically activated (even though I clicked the no/cancel/whatever-it-said-because-it-totally-ignored-me-anyway button) when I logged into GMail.
I don't care if it was made public. If I had a profile, and it was made public, that would not have made things better. That would be worse. I should not need to understand the subtle privacy interplay of several different and seemingly unrelated Google products just because I use one of them (Gmail).
I don't care if it was made public. If I had a profile, and it was made public, that would not have made things better. That would be worse. I should not need to understand the subtle privacy interplay of several different and seemingly unrelated Google products just because I use one of them (Gmail).
I should not need to understand the subtle privacy interplay of several different and seemingly unrelated Google products just because I use one of them (Gmail).
I entirely agree with this, although I'll point out that IIRC Google Chat did the same thing in terms of modifying gmail but no-one seemed to really object to that. Buzz seems to be different because of the privacy issues, i.e. Google didn't communicate well what would happen (specifically a public profile that included your follower/followee lists) if you clicked "yes". That there's a new link on the left-hand menu can't really be the main issue, is it?
As far as FUD, I'm specifically referring to comments like this:
There is absolutely no way to opt out of Buzz.
http://twitter.com/etherial/status/9023625277
It IS possible to opt out of Buzz, ~ its just that its counter-intuitive and once you've hit the "Yes" button, somewhat difficult to undo.
I entirely agree with this, although I'll point out that IIRC Google Chat did the same thing in terms of modifying gmail but no-one seemed to really object to that. Buzz seems to be different because of the privacy issues, i.e. Google didn't communicate well what would happen (specifically a public profile that included your follower/followee lists) if you clicked "yes". That there's a new link on the left-hand menu can't really be the main issue, is it?
As far as FUD, I'm specifically referring to comments like this:
There is absolutely no way to opt out of Buzz.
http://twitter.com/etherial/status/9023625277
It IS possible to opt out of Buzz, ~ its just that its counter-intuitive and once you've hit the "Yes" button, somewhat difficult to undo.
I've been wondering the same thing: why does it bother me so much that Buzz auto-follows frequently-emailed contacts, but it doesn't bother me that gchat automatically adds frequently-emailed contacts? I think it might be because having contacts added in gchat doesn't mean I'll actually be communicating with them, whereas auto-follow does mean that some communication will take place... I'm not sure though. Also, I guess that having a strictly professional contact's name sitting in my gchat contacts list is different than that person being notified that I'm following them.
why does it bother me so much that Buzz auto-follows frequently-emailed contacts
Because in combination with the default of having your follow list public, that exposes who you've been emailing to the world.
Because in combination with the default of having your follow list public, that exposes who you've been emailing to the world.
Well, there's always Windows Live and Yahoo.
As a Google fan boy, this pains me to say this. I had to turn it off :( After everyone connected their twitter, blog, google reader feeds it became the same useless jargon as everywhere else. I'll come back around to it after they change things up.
Why not just unfollow people who's content you already get elsewhere? What's the obligation to follow?
(Maybe) he wants to send a clear message to Google: Buzz is crap.
The problem is not that it's crap, but that it's trap.
[ crap = something that just lies there and the reasonably alert can choose to step over ]
[ crap = something that just lies there and the reasonably alert can choose to step over ]
None really. Problem is that some are close friends who I love having discussions with online and wanted Google Buzz to be that forum style of discussion with friends. Becomes difficult when I see everything else they do already a 2nd, 3rd or 4th time.
That's seems to be a strange stance to take. "Everyone" wants to turn on those features, except for you. And you expect them to turn off those features? heh
This Buzz things gives me some insight what it must feel like to be an average user; I have NFI (still!) what my Buzz status is. Is it on or off? Do I have followers? etc
I'm even more confused as I read more, because it's inconsistent with what I'm seeing, and the reports from other people are inconsistent with each other, making me think there's perhaps some A/B testing going on
[Edit: figured it out. Buzz was enabled for both myself and my wife. I'm pretty cross about this. To me it's a flagrant breach of trust. Imagine what would happen if Apple or Microsoft pulled a stunt like this]
I'm even more confused as I read more, because it's inconsistent with what I'm seeing, and the reports from other people are inconsistent with each other, making me think there's perhaps some A/B testing going on
[Edit: figured it out. Buzz was enabled for both myself and my wife. I'm pretty cross about this. To me it's a flagrant breach of trust. Imagine what would happen if Apple or Microsoft pulled a stunt like this]
One good thing came out of this mess. I went through all the various Google products I've used in the past and deleted as much of me as I could.
This whole debacle is completely ridiculous, mainly because it's so confusing. I won't go into all the inconsistencies and weird privacy policy interplay issues that are going on, as others have, but I'll say this:
If I can't pound ten beers in an hour and still understand your privacy policy, it's too complicated.
If I can't pound ten beers in an hour and still understand your privacy policy, it's too complicated.
The smart thing to do would be to save off the pages of your followers, grep out the identifiers and then replay the unfollow action through a fuzzer.
I don't really see what the big deal is.
I'm going to leave it enabled. I'm aware that it's public, and I'll just make sure to treat it as such. It seems unlikely that I'll publish any content other than syndicating my Twitter feed (much like LinkedIn), and all of that information is public already.
My life on the web is open to everyone, and that paradigm isn't going anywhere.
I'm going to leave it enabled. I'm aware that it's public, and I'll just make sure to treat it as such. It seems unlikely that I'll publish any content other than syndicating my Twitter feed (much like LinkedIn), and all of that information is public already.
My life on the web is open to everyone, and that paradigm isn't going anywhere.
My life on the web is open to everyone, and that paradigm isn't going anywhere.
I think the problem that most people are having is that Google is blurring the line between our lives on the web and our lives in our inboxes. Specifically, it seems that auto-follow is particularly offensive because who we frequently email might not be who we want to include in our social networking sites.
I think the problem that most people are having is that Google is blurring the line between our lives on the web and our lives in our inboxes. Specifically, it seems that auto-follow is particularly offensive because who we frequently email might not be who we want to include in our social networking sites.
Thank you, I've been looking for that all day. When they work out their privacy issues maybe I'll turn it back on, but for now I'm good.
Can anyone confirm that blocking everybody like the article advises can be done, erm, subtly? I'd rather not have my mom, sister, and best friend get a message saying I blocked them. OTOH I am supremely annoyed that suddenly I'm part of Google's dumb social network (I am one of those avoid-Facebook-Myspace-etc.-at-all-costs people.)
It might not be obvious but I found that even though my profile is not "public", visitors who stumbled upon my Google Profile page could see who I was following / who was following me.
In the Edit Profile section, looks like "Display the list of people I'm following and people following me" is enabled by default.
In the Edit Profile section, looks like "Display the list of people I'm following and people following me" is enabled by default.
Holy shit. I can't believe Buzz is on for me. I've explicitly declined activating it when asked. Now I'm seeing people following me. WTF, Google, can you take NO for answer?
I won't be disconnecting Google Buzz. I think it's great -- it's all the benefits of FriendFeed + all the users of gmail.
Silly article, IMHO. Main reason: if you are really caught up in the privacy issue, don't use Google (signed in), Facebook, etc. Also, strongly control what cookies you want to allow.
To me it is a value proposition: what are the advantages of a service vs. disadvantages like privacy issues. I choose to use most of Google's services, occasionally use Facebook, and I am sort-of addicted to following people who I consider to be "thought leaders" on Twitter.
Also, my early take on Buzz: it is OK, but I have an attitude that I don't have to read everything that shows up on my Buzz list. Same as Twitter.
I have also started to sometimes do short tweets on Twitter, and maybe following up with something more detailed on Buzz.
To me it is a value proposition: what are the advantages of a service vs. disadvantages like privacy issues. I choose to use most of Google's services, occasionally use Facebook, and I am sort-of addicted to following people who I consider to be "thought leaders" on Twitter.
Also, my early take on Buzz: it is OK, but I have an attitude that I don't have to read everything that shows up on my Buzz list. Same as Twitter.
I have also started to sometimes do short tweets on Twitter, and maybe following up with something more detailed on Buzz.
It really is ridiculous. Seems Facebook is much worse when it comes to doing things you don't ask it to.
There are two things I see people getting frustrated about with Buzz.
1. It makes your name public and therefore allows people to search for you.
2. It's an unnecessary distraction.
If you are bothered by (1), then you are little out of the loop with regards to the state of privacy on the Internet in general. Basically, you need to get used to having your name out there. If you are bothered by (2) then you can turn it off.
There are two things I see people getting frustrated about with Buzz.
1. It makes your name public and therefore allows people to search for you.
2. It's an unnecessary distraction.
If you are bothered by (1), then you are little out of the loop with regards to the state of privacy on the Internet in general. Basically, you need to get used to having your name out there. If you are bothered by (2) then you can turn it off.
How about:
1) It is opt-out rather than opt-in.
2) It automatically decides to auto-follow people for you.
3) Many people are complaining about privacy settings not 'sticking' (i.e. disabling things only for the to end up as re-enabled later)
Personally, if I use Gmail as my email client, why am I all of the sudden forced to be a member of Buzz?
The worst part? Google is touting that 'millions of people have signed into Buzz' as some sort of 'See? People like the service!' response to the criticisms. But THE SERVICE IS OPT-OUT! So when I sign into Gmail and it prompts me with "Learn more about Buzz/No thanks, go to inbox," neither of those options disables Buzz. So Google has forced millions of people to log into Buzz, then used the fact that millions of people have logged into Buzz as validation for forcing them to log into Buzz.
{edit} I don't usually post 'people are excusing X company' crap, but in this case I really feel that people are excusing Google from this behavior. It's the same crap that people rail against Microsoft for: leveraging your current userbase to gain a foothold in another market. What is the difference between forcing all Gmail users to become GoogleBuzz members/users and forcing all Windows users to become Internet Explorer users?
It just seems like there are a lot of people saying, "Hey! I find this interesting, so I'll ignore anything negative associated with it!"
1) It is opt-out rather than opt-in.
2) It automatically decides to auto-follow people for you.
3) Many people are complaining about privacy settings not 'sticking' (i.e. disabling things only for the to end up as re-enabled later)
Personally, if I use Gmail as my email client, why am I all of the sudden forced to be a member of Buzz?
The worst part? Google is touting that 'millions of people have signed into Buzz' as some sort of 'See? People like the service!' response to the criticisms. But THE SERVICE IS OPT-OUT! So when I sign into Gmail and it prompts me with "Learn more about Buzz/No thanks, go to inbox," neither of those options disables Buzz. So Google has forced millions of people to log into Buzz, then used the fact that millions of people have logged into Buzz as validation for forcing them to log into Buzz.
{edit} I don't usually post 'people are excusing X company' crap, but in this case I really feel that people are excusing Google from this behavior. It's the same crap that people rail against Microsoft for: leveraging your current userbase to gain a foothold in another market. What is the difference between forcing all Gmail users to become GoogleBuzz members/users and forcing all Windows users to become Internet Explorer users?
It just seems like there are a lot of people saying, "Hey! I find this interesting, so I'll ignore anything negative associated with it!"
You totally disregarded the main points I made.
1. It makes your name public and therefore allows people to search for you.
It only appears to make your name public if you have a public profile. I logged into my other gmail account and tried to search for my main one from buzz and couldn't find myself, because I don't have profiles set up for either accounts.
It only appears to make your name public if you have a public profile. I logged into my other gmail account and tried to search for my main one from buzz and couldn't find myself, because I don't have profiles set up for either accounts.
On a side note, as I was purging my lists today, I found that Picasa had magically been re-added to the list of my shared sites after I explicitly removed it yesterday morning. What is going on here?