The Google+ Name Game Continues 171
theodp writes "'Sticks and stones will break my bones,' the old nursery rhyme goes, 'but names will never hurt me.' Unless, of course, you're on Google+. While touting what it calls a move toward a more inclusive naming policy for Google+, the search giant's Name Policy would still make Sister Aloysius Beauvier smile. Names like 'Doctor Stan Livingston,' 'Bill Smithwick DDS,' and 'Rev. Jim Copley, S. P.' are cited as examples of violations that could cost you your Google+ privileges. And since new Google account users are reportedly now forced to join Google+, one wonders if the Name Policy might even preclude one from establishing one of those adorable dear.sophie.lee or dear.hollie accounts."
Google Inflating User Amount (Score:1, Interesting)
So not only is Google inflating the number of users on their social network so they can boast millions of users, they are forcing everyone to make a profile that is public by default. How can you take Google's number of users seriously when you know they are only what they are because Google pulls tricks like this? And surely this is a seriously evil thing to do, too.
I hope your torches and pitchforks aren't nearby, because Google — the Company That Claims It Does No Evil — is doing something that might make you want to reach for 'em. Apparently the search engine giant is now forcing new Google account users to join Google+ and Gmail.
Until now, creating a Google account was quite simple. You could either use an existing email address or create a Gmail account.
The newly redesigned sign-up process for Google accounts now includes fields which ask for your name, gender (required, thanks to Google+) and mobile phone number (optional). Once you've got those fields filled out, you're led to a page which asks you to create your Google profile — better known as your Google+ account.
There is no option to skip this step and avoid the creation of a Google+ account (and a Gmail account), which is something you might want to do if you're interested in using only some other Google services.
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Insightful)
Just let the market correct itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not as activist as I used to be, though. If Google does force me to participate in Google+ using my real info, I'll migrate all my mail and data out and change my name Gaygle R. McFaggots, with a picture of Larry and Sergay as my profile pic.
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, goodness, they must be terrified. You must have been some activist.
Re: (Score:2)
If Google does force me to participate in Google+ using my real info, I'll migrate all my mail and data out and change my name Gaygle R. McFaggots, with a picture of Larry and Sergay as my profile pic.
lol, you used your real name for your google/gmail account? silly rabbit. :)
No, I hear you. Even though nothing attached to my gmail or google account(s) actually bears my name or any true demographic data about me at all (I'm not a very trusting person), I'll be watching for something less invasive to hop onto in case this is retroactively enacted. Hotmail chased me away with similar shenanigans years ago, it's a shame that google's trying the same tricks on for size...
Re: (Score:2)
I used to use my real name on my gmail account, but they yanked the account without telling me why. BTW, mcgrew is my real name. Been using it for six decades now, why should I change? Cowardly kids! Sheesh...
Re: (Score:2)
I used to use my real name on my gmail account, but they yanked the account without telling me why. BTW, mcgrew is my real name. Been using it for six decades now, why should I change? Cowardly kids! Sheesh...
Hey! How did you know what the extra 'c' stands for!?! You bin following me around, or sumpt'in? :p
Props for keeping it real though, sir (or madam). I'm thinking the online environment has changed somewhat in the last couple of those decades, no? It sure feels like it has to me...when I first went online, I was much less squeamish about mixing online with IRL data. Now, however...nope. Too much unfocused anger and chaos abounding, and all it takes is one asswipe script kiddy with a grudge to make ones
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking the online environment has changed somewhat in the last couple of those decades, no?
It sure has! I was on Compuserve's walled garden in 1982, and it was pretty much useless. BBSes in the late '80s and early '90s were very useful, especially to someone into computer gaming as I was. But IMO the golden age of the internet was just before and after the century's turn, when almost all content was user generated and there was almost no commercial activity. Banner ads here and there, and people compl
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone, anyone and soon I hope. Seriously, Youtube is a hellhole. HTML5 support is crappy and seems to be getting worse, video not loading or sound out of sync,etc. That's when Youtube has deigned to actually create a h264 version. The flash isn't much better, I even get "plugin errors" on Chrome while loading video. Then there's the fact anyone can just send a threat to Youtube and they'll roll over and delete a video, or mute it or block it in countries seemingly at random. I'm really getting sick of the
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But can you have it both ways? Google was oh-so-great when it was the underdog and was able to wreak havoc on M$ (kind of). Now that they are big enough to do product tie-ins here and there, people are to complain of their unfair practices (ie monopolistic advantages)?
Can the argument be made that using Youtube monopoly is akin to M$ using Win monopoly to unseat Netscape with IE ? You are in no way forced to use Youtube. An entire ecosystem of (web) apps d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You did? I use a local homepage with the following HTML snippet in it.. just type what I want in the box and get a search with safe=off appended. There might be a better way I'm not an expert..
<form method="GET" action="http://www.google.com/search">
Google Search <input type="text" name="q"></input>
<input type="hidden" name="hl" value="en"></input>
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Informative)
We all care; If Bing has to try to beat Google by getting better then there is hope of better things. If Google loses to Bing by getting worse then Microsoft won't feel any need to work to improve things.
Remember that Netscape, once they realised that Microsoft had found a way to destroy them with illegal market manipulation, panicked and started to rewrite their whole product which meant that, even if the US justice department had intervened earlier, there would have been little left to save.
I just went through the Google registration process. The whole article is a lie, of course; as you would expect from any Microsoft associated publication; your Google+ account is only activated later on by explicitly signing up. Unfortunately even I, who have done Google registration quite a few times, didn't realise that until after I had signed up for Google+ with my new account. I have verified that even if you make the same mistake as I did you can trivially delete your Google+ features from your Google account.
Summary: as usual recently the first post is someone who manages to get Microsoft sponsored lies into place. Unfortunately Google opened themselves up for this by having an unclear registration process.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but I would not be surprised if they did this. I used to have a youtube account. At a point, i was forced to get a google account as youtube was purchased by google. I dont consent to anything google does, but you need a google account to have access to ANY of their servi
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between "New Google account users forced to join Google+" and "New users tricked into joining Google+ but they can leave immediately if they want to". It's not a big difference; in a sense it's a totally stupid thing to be arguing about and you could easily have spun it for your side (try "the delete account option is hidden behind one mouse click and might be confusing to my cat"). It ends up, though, giving away the game. This is not about some people coming to tell us the news that Google has gone evil. This is about desperate people who are trying to make it seem as if Google is as evil as they are.
The thing about this is, that any serious news organisation would have contacted Google and got someone there to explain this. There explanation would have been lax; even pathetic, but it would have meant that instead of publishing a lie, you could publish a misrepresentation which could never be proven as a lie. What is with the mad rush to be evil? Even Satan knows that by holding off a bit you can get more evil for your money.
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Insightful)
Just let the market correct itself.
No.
No.
No.
I'm sick of hearing this idiotic philosophy. The market does not correct itself. If 1% of your faith in 'the market' were of any merit, then people would have been leaving Facebook in droves due to all the privacy gaffes they've had. Let's face it - people are stupid, nobody cares about their own privacy, and living by some stupid appeal to the majority will only make that the de facto standard.
Why is this a problem? Because if everyone uses Facebook/G+/whatever, then everybody else has to start abiding by their idiotic terms, because eventually, all the employers/social groups/universities/etc. start using these abusive services too and make it so that you have no choice. Some groups choose to conduct all their business on Facebook - to me, they might as well not exist as nothing will ever make me sign up for that piece of shit. So don't talk about letting the market correct itself - the market is pretty much always wrong, and it has terrible consequences.
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the market did work, it would do so by:
Telling people not to complain as the market will take care of it, basically advocates skipping the step which would make the market take care of it. It really makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Google should change its name to Microsoft. They are acting increasingly evil (forcing people to open google+ and youtube accounts they don't want).
>>>"Just let the market correct itself."
Just let the consumers dump Google and pick another search engine.
That's a better way of putting it. We free market proponents need to be more careful how we phrase things, because there are idiots like Thom Hartmann who say we believe in fairies and "invisible magic hands".
It's not an invisible hand. It'
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Informative)
There is a way to avoid creating a google+ account when signing up. Just go to https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Use a Google Apps for Domains account. You need your own domain name, but most people on Slashdot probably already have one. Once you have your apps account set up and working with your domain, go to the Google Apps Dashboard, Organization and Users, click the services link then scroll down and turn off Google+. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the benefit/drawback of Google Apps vs. the regular Google accounts?
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we're jumping the gun here if we assume Google is going to count all users as active users, especially since they haven't actually done this yet. If they do do this that's another story, but they could just as easily use a more fair criteria for counting users, such as perhaps only counting users who have visited Google+ specifically N times over the past month or have shared content over Google+, etc.
Other than that issue anyway there really is no big deal about forcing Gmail and Google+ account creations. If the new user never uses them they won't even know they exist (though the public profile bit does trouble me some), so it seems to me Google is just trying to streamline the account creation process.
Re: (Score:3)
They already have (Score:3)
In Google's earning call 5 days ago they claimed that 60% of Google+ members "engaged" daily and 80% weekly. After being pressed on the issue they confirmed [arstechnica.com] that they were counting Google+ members who accessed any of their services at least daily/weekly, not just ones who visited Google+ daily/weekly.
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Interesting)
Going to invalidate my mod points (I already modded you informative) just to give a clarification:
I tested this out myself, and it's true that it takes you to a page to create your google plus account, and does not give you the option to skip. This is terrible design.
However, if you just leave the bloody page, you have a google account without g+.
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Informative)
Account settings -> Delete profile and remove associated Google+ features, select "Delete your entire Google profile", check box labeled "I understand that deleting this service can't be undone and the data I delete can't be restored", press "Remove Selected Services", done. Five steps in total.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See? Informative.
Poorly formatted, but nonetheless informative.
I hope you're modded into the heavens.
Still (and I'm not necessarily addressing you, just commenting in passing), it's disingenuous to say "It's ok, because you can delete your G+ stuff after it's automatically and unavoidably created for you", but also say "those dirty rat-bastards in [evil company du jour] making us opt out of their privacy-invading services."
As far as I can tell, the only difference between those positions is that one is Goog
Re: (Score:2)
G+ is no more privacy invading than other Google services. They use all you give them. If you don't want G+ to have information about you, don't put it there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely. How many young people today use email as we know it. Now it's texting and wall posts to communicate with each other. It makes sense for a corporation to herd their users in the direction the majority are moving. Yes, some will get upset and jump ship, but it's more cost effective to focus efforts than to try and please everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just created yet another google account. For gender, you can choose other. I used a fake name, a fake birthdate, a fake country, and a fake gender.
I could use all this info to set up yet another slashdot account, however 1 account is fine for me. How about you?
So, can someone explain to me how this is bad?
cheers,
Re: (Score:2)
The T&C stipulate you must not provide false information.
"So what?" you say.
It means they can then in the future remove your online identity at a whim.
Fine you can then create another, but what about all the info you have on/in the account? If there was nothing of value in the account there would be no point in having that account.
Re: (Score:2)
Tracking across all services (Score:2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboNE_b [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:5, Informative)
That is bullshit. Not only is there a clearly visible skip button in the image on that story, but I just created my fourth google account (via IGoogle) and never even saw that screen.
If I go to http://www.google.com/accounts [google.com] to create one, I am indeed forced to get GMail, but I can still skip the Google profile by unchecking the "personalization" checkbox on step one.
Furthermore, once you have a Google account with Gmail it is possible to delete the Gmail account while keeping the rest of the account (you must supply a non-Google email address, which will become you new sign-in email address.)
Re: (Score:2)
So not only is Google inflating the number of users on their social network so they can boast millions of users, they are forcing everyone to make a profile that is public by default.
Great point. I just +1'd your post.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't believe in your psychic powers to know what user account is a puppet of another user.
Fuck, even if it is a shill, it could be a different shill. It's not just you, lately I have seen lots of these post claiming to know the original account of another account, mostly (defending Google products incidentally, but I'm not about accusing them of astroturfing).
Bullshit I don't believe in the supernatural.
Re: (Score:3)
Then your pattern recognition sucks. It's entirely possible to recognize who made a post after reading a few lines without actually looking at the name. In this case, it's made a bit more difficult because the person keeps signing up for a new accounts, but because the posting style is so unique, it's actually only a minimal hurdle.
Re:Google Inflating User Amount (Score:4, Informative)
Well, check all those accounts supernatural psychic ability to know without subsciption when the article gets published, which allows them supernatural first post with same timestamp as article.
That's sure a lot of a) freshly registered, b) subscribers, c) all clicking "No karma bonus" so their subscriber status doesn't show in postings, d) all hating Google and loving MS, e) sharing similar writing style. Or just a single puppeteer with a new sockpuppet every day. You decide!
Re: (Score:2)
Problem? (Score:2)
I'm a little unclear on the failure mode here. If I am forced to create a G+ page using my real name that I won't use, then, um... well, uh...
Re: (Score:2)
It's the fact that you have to specify your real name and gender. You didn't have to in order to have a Google or GMail account before.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to specify something that looks like a real name, and select a gender, you mean. They don't run a background check on you or require a notarized sig. ... so they know my name, or at least they think they do... um... whatever?
The other problem is we're back to
Mandatory G+ signup clarification (Score:3)
Not quite. There are ways to create a Google account without Google+ being tacked on.
For example, if you go to http://mail.google.com/mail/signup [google.com] and create a Gmail account, it will automatically make a Google account as part of the process (of course). However using the above link does NOT automatically create a Google+ account. I know this because I did so yesterday, as I specifically wanted to make a new Google account without G+.
Of course, you need to know this either through research or someone telling you beforehand. All other ways of creating a Google account seem to force G+ unfortunately. Google sucks sometimes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All of which is moot - I just tried the same thing, and in order to create the gmail account, it wanted a real-world phone number.
As a practical
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Australia (thank God)
(2) Nope. I cleared all cookies/cache before doing this.
You just went full Google (Score:2)
I know people are going to be beating the 'is google evil?' dead horse once again, but let me point out the more obvious reason for Google's name idiocy - they're a full blown beuracracorp now, so they have no need for quaint notions like 'flexibility' or 'individuality'.
There's no reason for Google to take into account the complexities and strangeness of life, when they can just make people fit their views, like the immigration officers at Ellis Island who would substitute 'normal' American names for stran
Just don't use Google+ (Score:5, Insightful)
Till they stop acting like Schmidt-heads. Really, this grudging half-assed crap is hardly better than the Real Name Policy, it just makes it easier policy-wise for them to make exceptions for celebrities.
Allow it both ways (Score:4, Interesting)
They SHOULD allow titles. But it would make sense to appropriately tag the title apart from the name. There should be a place to enter a prefix title and a suffix title. Then in places where it is appropriate to display a name without title, it can be omitted, and where it is appropriate to display a name with title, it can be included. Searches can be matched both with and without (I know Google knows how to do that).
Re: (Score:2)
They SHOULD allow titles.
They SHOULDN'T allow titles. There, I just won my argument by using all caps.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? (Score:2)
Google should just turn that into a feature by gifting a S/MIME certificate to every user with an authenticated real name and of course support this with Gmail. This way you could finally have encrypted and/or signed email for free and would have a social network account you can use for everything you want to have published provable by you.
I will never understand what's wrong with having a social network that insists in real names. There are more than enough offers for services and networks that just allow
Re: (Score:2)
There are more than enough offers for services and networks that just allow everyone to pretend to be someone else. If you want to be anonymous or pseudonymous, use something else then.
What a coincidence. Over on my social network, they ask that I use my real name. They say that if I want to pretend to be someone else, use Google+ for that.
What are they after? (Score:3)
I still don't trust it. (Score:2)
My "google services" are already too easy to tie together, I'm under the impression whatever my google+ account name is set to, applies to all my google services.
I don't want my blogger / youtube / gmail / god knows what else I have all tied together.
I know they are now, yes and in some ways, it's really convienient but damn I wish I had seperated some of the accounts or used a different name at times. I don't need them closer tied.
Facebook is / was a time sink, I gave it up and genuinely don't miss it, I'
Re: (Score:2)
My android phone uses my main account, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there (unless you're just saying that you wanted an account on your phone not tied to you). And my girlfriend just got an iphone, and you absolutely do have to have an apple account to use it (at least we couldn't find a way around it).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do not need a gmail account to use an Android Phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A google account is not private, whereas an AppleID is. If you have to create a google account for an android phone, that means you have to have an account with some of your information made public [eg: your name]. An AppleID is private - it is used solely for billing purposes though you can expand it to include iCloud [a private-that-can-be-public service], and it can also be used for GameCenter, a public service. But by default an AppleID is private and no online profile of you is made, unlike what happen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like your jealous of a degree someone got. You can't just throw some money at one. You still have to work to earn one. And I don't see a reason why that shouldn't be a source of pride for someone.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Jesus Christ [breitbart.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still 100% perfectly fine with google+ name policy.
Your name almost certainly isn't "Doctor" (well, unless your parents had really really high expectations from you at birth). Stop being pretentious.
You make a lot of cultural assumptions there. Whereas "doctor" is quite rare, but not unheard of as a name in Arfica, other titles like Lord, Queen, Princess, and Dame are quite common in some subcultures.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:still fine (Score:4, Funny)
Who says I have a business? I spent 3 weeks getting my doctorates online, and I'm damn well going to use them. At every opportunity.
---Dr. A. Coward PhD DDS MD DIM
Re:still fine (Score:5, Insightful)
no, it isn't. although I've been using Skarecrow/skarecrow77 for so long, about 18 years now, that it is essentially an extra name so associated with me that you can identify things I wrote on the web ages ago using it. it's me.
That aside, in insecure settings where you can't control who sees things you post, and you risk running afoul of juvenile (or juvenile-minded) internet delinquents who want nothing more than to fuck up your day, there is a need for some middle-layer of semi-anonymity. With Google+, on the other hand, so far as I know you have the ability to decide -exactly- who can see anything you post, so presumably you can limit your exposure to the internet delinquents to virtually nil.
There are any number of internet forums where fake people can talk to fake people. Google+ appears to be a place where real people talk to real people. I kind of like having at least one or two outlets like that. People are much more civilized. I can (and do) visit the less restrained corners of the internet when I want to witness the John Gabrial greater internet fuckwad theory at work, but the entire internet doesn't necessarily have to be like that.
The thing I don't understand is, if Google has set the ground rules saying "this is what Google+ is going to be like", why are the people who dislike what google+ is about so eager to join with their fake names?
It's like going to an NRA meeting when you hate guns, and being upset that people there are packing. Why did you want to go in the first place? And if you're really that set on going for some reason, you should at least realize you have to play by their ground rules while at their party.
Re: (Score:2)
no, it isn't. although I've been using Skarecrow/skarecrow77 for so long, about 18 years now, that it is essentially an extra name so associated with me that you can identify things I wrote on the web ages ago using it. it's me.
Nah, it just means everything you say is a strawman argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How strange (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh, I wish this meme would die. They don't sell people, they sell ad space. I realize that all the cool kids are into accusing Google of slavery, but let's at least try to maintain one tiny iota of accuracy.
Re:How strange (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not a strawman. The claim that the GGP made was that Google was selling people. Reductio ad Absurdem is hardly a logical fallacy in this case. Slavery is a binary operation either one is a slave or one isn't a slave and if Google is selling people and slaves are defined as people who are owned by other people then the logical conclusion is that the GGP is claiming that Google is engaging in slavery.
Now, if you take a more reasonable position than people being Google's product then it doesn't apply at all.
Don't whine to me because the original description is horribly inept and poorly considered.
Re: (Score:2)
"people" is short for "eyeballs", which is correct - and understood by just about anyone except you. so spend less time hoping for the "meme" to die, and more time understanding what it actually means ^^
Re: (Score:2)
right. because the only reason one would be against nazis is because one is a commie, and vice versa.
invasion? where did all the google and apple fanboys come from? I don't care about allegiance, I care about the fucking stupidity of it. all of you, just jump into a pit and die already.
Re: (Score:2)
What Google is selling is the attention of its users.
So are the TV and radio channels, newspapers, billboard owners, race cars owners, bus companies, football clubs, professional athletes, people holding signs and Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That is exactly the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you create a GMail (mail) account and you have also a Google+ (social network) forced-account...
And what's different from creating a Hotmail (mail) account and also having a Messenger (social network) forced-one? 'Cause I remember not being able to untie them...
Huh... Devil walks amonst us!!
Nothing to see, move along...
Fortunately I was in on the ground floor with both (actually I haven't been back in my Hotmail account for about 10 years... but I bet it still there.
I signed up for G+ from an existing gmail account and it didn't bother me about reality identification .. then they wanted it .. now they don't .. next week on The Hokey Pokey ...
The worst thing so far was giving out an email address to Facebook, who just can't shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
Messenger is not a social network, its an instant messaging service. And also, last I checked, they dont require real names when you sign up.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, they could make it even easier by not forcing you to make a Googlebook account, couldn't they?
Google really has gone downhill in the last couple of years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would my "legal name" matter? For what it's worth, without having a court order or other proceedings that forced me to reveal my legal name, how on Earth do you know it is not "BigPeniz249"?
Besides, I could claim my name is John Smith and you'd be none the wiser. Enforcing real names in an online service is simply impractical and downright idiotic.