Google+: Tools, Names, and Facebook

Several readers submitted stories about Google+ today. CWMike writes in with an article about the lack of developer APIs from Computerworld "Currently, external developers don't have any Google+ APIs or tools to tinker with. A Google spokeswoman said, 'We definitely plan to involve developers and publishers in the Google+ project, but we don't have specific details to share just yet. Please stay tuned.' The spokeswoman declined to say specifically if Google+ will be compatible with the company's OpenSocial set of common APIs for social networking applications." Anita Khanna writes "Facebook is trying real hard to block users migrating to google+. Although the recently announced Google+ social platform is still in private beta, it has generated enough excitement to have Facebook making some preemptive measures. Shortly after the announcement, Facebook made a peculiar change to their TOS that resulted in the ban of popular Chrome extension Facebook Friend Exporter. Over the weekend, another personal data migration tool, Open-Xchange, has also been deactivated." Finally, an anonymous reader notes that Google is requiring real names for profiles, and may have already suspended some users for using aliases.

Comments

Suspending users for not using real names?

[The MAZZTer]

Darn. :(

Re:Suspending users for not using real names?

[yincrash]

There can only be one.

Re:Suspending users for not using real names?

[Inner_Child]

Oh come on, it's not like everyone doesn't already know your real name. Just switch to Anakin Skywalker...

I guess I won't be using it then.

[hedwards]

I was going to check it out, but if they're requiring real names, then I'm not going to use it.

Re:I guess I won't be using it then.

[TheGratefulNet]

I had an invite and put it off trying it out.

until today. created an account and just had a bad feeling about the whole thing. really don't WANT a 'public profile' forced on me. don't want to get too far along and then have something happen to my data.

probably the best thing is a regular old website for a lot of us. social 'networking' is out of control and won't come back to OUR control any day.

google just FEELS wrong, these days. hard to explain, but its the constant watching over me that creeps me out. no, I never joined FB and my 1 day affair with g+ turned me off from the whole thing.

Re:I guess I won't be using it then.

[hedwards]

Not really, I'm a douche in real life, consequently, I go online to be friendly and helpful, if people ever found out that I was helping people and being nice, my life as I know it would be over.

Re:I guess I won't be using it then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Diaspora has a Facebook page. Figure that shit out.

Re:I guess I won't be using it then.

[Jeng]

Also no matter what you do, you will have a self replicating and updating profile. You will have posts in all areas automatically, slashdot, twitter, facebook, all of it. They will also be belivable that you did it, your google+ profile will take on a life of it's own and compete for friends./quote>

Now those are some features that would get me to actually sign up for a social network.

Re:I guess I won't be using it then.

[ehrichweiss]

I was one of the early backers of Diaspora and it is, as far as I can tell, dead in the water. They barely have rudimentary social networking operational, much less something that handles real tasks. The choice to implement on Ruby/Rails was, IMNSHO, retarded since the limitations, like the inability to run more than a single instance of Ruby simultaneously, simply defeat anything that they develop. I think their project would have moved forward a LOT faster if they'd have chosen PHP.

Re:I guess I won't be using it then.

[Tyr07]

Yeah, until this secnario. 'You walk into the washroom, shut the door. Two minutes later your roommates yell out, DUDE, way to much information. You don't need to tweet that! "But I didn't tweet anything!" You yell back. Later you check your tweet. 'In the bathroom, waxing one off' Google knows, google knows /everything/

Re:I guess I won't be using it then.

[RJFerret]

...but if they're requiring real names...

They don't, and haven't as of yet, they want your "common name". Here's their remarkably readable brief policy.

Re:I guess I won't be using it then.

[Hatta]

So says AC...

There are a couple problems with it. Google can still see all your private data. If you used G+ pseudonymously, it would limit the privacy implications giving it all to Google.

You may also want to hide your real identity from those you are networking with. I have certainly interacted with people online who I enjoyed and wanted to keep contact with (e.g. would add them to a social network) but don't necessarily feel comfortable inviting into my real life. Using a pseudonym gives me an extra layer of control.

Re:I guess I won't be using it then.

[hansraj]

Wow, the sheer arrogance in this thread. Just wow.

Re:I guess I won't be using it then.

[0100010001010011]

Diaspora's greatest accomplishment was getting $200,641 out of Kickstarter Users.

Re:I guess I won't be using it then.

[RJFerret]

Am I missing something? What distinction are you making between a "real name" and a "common name"?

Huh?

Yeah, you are missing something apparently. Nobody uses my "real name", most people I associate with in RL don't even know my last name, nor I theirs. Some I only know by their online handles, despite spending weekends with them, hiking, traveling, etc.

I've never been called the name on my driver's license except my my mother, when I was a child, misbehaving. I'm quite sure Google isn't looking for that.

They are suggesting your common name, what most people you want to connect with would put in a search box to find you. What is strongly, uniquely associated with you. For me, that's RJFerret. Nobody would EVER put my real name in a search box to try to find me, as it's shared with a celebrity.

Google Apps

[Scared Rabbit]

it's okay, I can't sign up for an account anyway. Why you ask? It's because my email is hosted with google apps, and google apps doesn't support google profiles, which are required for google+. I'm the admin for the domain, so it's not a case of I haven't flipped a switch for myself and my users, it's a matter of google not offering support for it. I'd love to use google+, but as an adopter of other google services I find I'm left in the cold here. My google apps use is much more important to me than google+ is.

Re:Google Apps

[Necroman]

A Google employee confirmed that support for Google Apps is coming. I think the more interesting point is that it sounds like Google Apps users will be able to send G+ messages to people only within their Apps domain. So it sounds it will be a service sort of like Yammer for Google Apps users.

I like it

[Is0m0rph]

So far I'm digging Google+. The Android app for it is nice too. Hopefully it doesn't get clogged up like Facebook with tons of games, quizzes, etc. I'm using G+ only for people I actually know unlike Facebook.

Editor fail, Anita Khanna blogspam

[OverlordQ]

How about linking to the real source instead of a spam site stealing content.

Re:Testing

[BeardedChimp]

Actually you are not allowed to create fake accounts with facebook, you are supposed to create test accounts. I believe one of their blog posts threatened app and account closure if you were found to be created fake accounts as opposed to test accounts.
Since google+ doesn't have a developer API yet it doesn't really need test accounts. Once the API is released I'm sure they will come.

I Sit Here in Slack-Jawed Amazement

[RobotRunAmok]

The only company I would trust LESS than Facebook with my personal data, the only company with an even more cavalier attitude towards privacy, is Google. I'm more likely to hire Casey Anthony to babysit my daughters.

I find it truly, genuinely, startling that anyone outside of spinster aunts, fourteen year-old girls, and twitchy Marketing Suits whack-a-mole-ing anything and everything termed "social media" are giving this thing a second, un-shuddering glance.

Re:I Sit Here in Slack-Jawed Amazement

[slimjim8094]

I trust Google vastly more than Facebook. I'm still not sure what, exactly, Facebook does with my data. Google on the other hand, tells me up front that they're going to datamine my information to use for advertising.

I'd much rather see ads for things I stand a chance of being interested in, than tampon ads for example. Additionally, Google hasn't had a major privacy issue (Buzz foolishness excluded) in 10 YEARS. Mark Zuckerberg was applying to Harvard 10 years ago, and Facebook has been much less than stellar with regards to personal information privacy.

So Google has a much better track record. This is, I think, difficult to dispute - but I'd be happy to read your argument.

Terrible misquote

[vlm]

Look at this terrible misquoting:

Currently, external developers don't have any Google+ APIs or tools to tinker with

My sources say the actual quote was

Currently, external developers don't have any Google+ APIs or tools to steal private user information under the cover of "gaming" and "surveys" and sell the info to spammers, HR departments, and miscellaneous unregulated data warehousing companies do be used against the end users

I know we're all supposed to be in the "Privacy Stockholm Syndrome Groupthink" so I am very naughty for preferring they continue to not get access. Everyone please face their telescreen, and direct their "Two Minutes Hate" toward me and not poor emmanual goldstein who is too busy recording episodes of "off the hook" for 2600 anyway.

Rowan Thunder?

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Seriously. That guy/girl has issues. If the government hasn't issued you a legal name change, you can't just conduct business with another name. Sure, you can try ... but good luck getting a bank account in your "preferred" name if it's not official.

Why they'd QQ about that is beyond me...

I go by "Gary"...

Re:real names?

[Barbara, not Barbie]

You're also a fool if you don't try to stay pseudonymous

My name, email and home address are all over the net, and have been for years. I'm still alive.

Real Names? Funny..

[Someone Awful]

Wasn't it Google's former CEO who talked about children who are growing up now needing online aliases (having to change their names)? To separate their digital and real lives.

Ignoring the Poll, But...

[rueger]

Now that all of the Usual Suspects have crapped all over G+, Facebook, MySpace and anything more technologically advanced than a BBS running on a Commodore 64 or usenet...

If you hate social networking sites, then ignore them! Millions of people find them pretty damned handy. Like any other tool, there's good and bad, and no shortage of idiots and/or corporations that can make a good experience into a nightmare. Same is true of e-mail, or IRC, or plain old letter mail.

Of course maybe you're the guy who announced that he would never again write a letter or mail a check once he got his first piece of unsolicited junk mail from Publisher's Clearinghouse.

I genuinely am liking G+. It's early days yet, but it seems to do just the minimum that you would want in social networking, but without the layer upon layer of crap that Facebook has added over the years. Less is more!

Do I trust Google more than Facebook? At the end of the day, yeah, I do. I trust Google to archive my e-mail, but I wouldn't for minute give Facebook the same choice. It's not a black and white issue - there are some things that I will trust Google with, and a lot that their servers will never see. Likewise I do have Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter accounts (and possibly an old MySpace account somewhere) but am pretty careful about how much information they can get their hands on. In Facebook's case it's the utter minimum.

But oooh! Privacy! That boat sailed a long time ago. If you think that you can be active on-line and maintain anything more than a limited amount of privacy you're dreaming. You're constantly creating a stream of data transactions on-line. You maybe able to limit those somewhat, but ultimately you're leaving behind a trail that will likely be around for years or decades. Deal with it - that's the reality of the time we live in.

Unless you're the guy who has refused to own a telephone for eighty years because you were pissed off about having your name and address published in the White Pages.

Finally I'll say a word about the G+ app for Android phones - it's one sweet little item, that seems to work flawlessly on my crappy Moto Charm.

Re:real names?

[lennier]

My name, email and home address are all over the net, and have been for years. I'm still alive.

But that's awful! It means just anyone could send you a letter, talk to you about work, or even pick up the phone and send their cootie-filled voice waves to you right in the privacy of your own home! And all your so-called "workmates" and "real life" "friends" could be tracking your reputation and status and fashion sense right now and could treat you horribly if you did something quirky and creative, like turn up naked and dump rancid dogfood on their lawn in the middle of the night. After all, this is America, and it's a man's right to hide from his neighbours and wear a Guy Fawkes mask on his head at all times! Without total anonymity, how could our forefathers have held town hall meetings? Could Barack Obama have ever gotten elected if people knew his real name and face and what his school grades were? Of course not!

Won't somebody please think of the privacies!