Google+ Account Suspended? You Won't Find Out Why 341
jfruh writes "Dan Tynan is a tech writer and blogger who discovered, while trying to post links to his writing on his Google+ profile, that his account had been suspended. This despite the fact that he used his real name and didn't violate the terms of service in any other way. Upon appeal his account was reinstated, just as mysteriously as it was shut down, but along the way he discovered a rash of people with suspended Google+ accounts who can't figure out what they did to anger the Google gods."
I have an easy guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Even Google has bugs!
the die hard versions of - 1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
the short, fun version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ymyWS82NsY [youtube.com]
The long, serious version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hATC_2I1wZE [youtube.com]
The original, analog version
http://www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Classics-George-Orwell/dp/0451524934 [amazon.com]
Re:Just Like Slashdot's Moderation System (Score:5, Insightful)
"Mysterious and known moderations (mostly by editors) can't get you comment banned here and for some unknown length of time. As well as mod points given and taken away."
Have you read the TOS for moderators? ( http://tech.slashdot.org/moderation.shtml [slashdot.org] ) I'm not going into rant mode but go look at /. a little harder and you might see it for what it's for.
It sounds to me you are ungrateful.
this is what we're asking for (Score:3, Insightful)
By shifting our online communication to a few proprietary services like Facebook, Twitter, and G+, this is exactly what we're begging for: censored tweets, data-mining of everything we say for advertisement purposes, EULAs that grant ownership of our pictures and videos to those services, and more.
Collectively, internet users are *begging* for this kind of world, where we can only communicate at someone else's whim.
Re:I have an easy guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Never attribute to malice what could be attributed to incompetence... Google does go by the model of 'eventual consistency' with search, so perhaps some of that ethos spilled over into the G+ data handling.
Considering leaving Google's services (Score:5, Insightful)
Centralized systems (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another example of how centralized systems are bad.
Social networks, torrent indexes, search engines, you name it. All of them censored and/or unreliable.
We need decentralization.
Re:Just like the no-fly list? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice self reference article (Score:2, Insightful)
Step 1. Post links sure to get your self banned on G+
2. Don't actually attempt to contact anyone at G+ about your account; simply click "recheck link on profile"
3. Post on Slashdot notice of your banning - make sure to state you didn't break the rules ever, except for those times you did.
4. Tell visitors you didn't miss G+; but you still feel its worth wasting their time by having them read about your lack of missingness of G+
Yes, I just coined the term "missingness" when items aren't simply missing; but they are so unfindable they have a high missingness rating.
Problem of Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shenanigans (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not an "honest question" at all.
It's an accusation without a shred of evidence to support it, clumsily disguised as a question to excuse said lack of evidence.
Despite what Glenn Beck may have told you, putting a question mark at the end of your lie does not make you less of a liar.
Re:Oh, Google. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Using Google+ is too dangerous (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit and you know it. If your G+ account is suspended, you only loose G+. You still have access to email, drive, calendar and all the other services.
Google has accounts? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would you have an account on Google? Their search works fine without it. Their video streaming works fine without it. If your ISP has an IMAP server and maybe some form of webmail for emergencies, that takes care of mail. None of their other services are worth much.
Re:Just like the no-fly list? (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is not apparent reason that anger the Google gods, the other thing that came to mind is that there is always a dumbass that deleted the wrong accounts by mistake. ..wait...wait... the conspiracy theories are always more fun.
That sure happens. Just today I had to find a new auto insurance company because Geico mistakenly sent a letter to the state DMV stating that I had canceled my car insurance. They kept insisting that it was no big deal because I was still covered. They could not understand that if I get pulled over and the cops think my car is uninsured, they impound my car. No big deal to them, big, big, deal to me.
Re:Just like the no-fly list? (Score:2, Insightful)
Over the years, the far more likely scenario that Ive seen is that people do something they KNOW is a violation of some ToS or another, and then claim innocence to the broader community in some vain hope of getting their account back. This happens ALL the time in gaming communities, where a botter / hacker claims "it must have been my G15 keyboard" or "it must have been my use of Wine"-- until everyone finds out that no, you really are just a dirty cheater.
I mean, heres the mental calculus I use. There is basically no incentive that I can fathom for Google to go around randomly banning accounts on a struggling social network. If, on the other hand, the vocal plaintiffs DID do something grossly violating the ToS, they have a HUGE incentive to cause a stink about it in an attempt to get their account back. Not only that, history validates this as exceptionally likely.
Im not saying that Google ISNT randomly banning accounts-- but before I would believe it, Id need a rationale for WHY they would do so.