Slashdot Mirror


Is Twitter Rendered Obsolete By Google+?

suraj.sun writes with a ComputerWorld piece predicting the end of Twitter, at least in its current form. From the article: "It's only a matter of time before Twitter becomes a ghost town. While Google+ will soon do all the things Twitter does, Twitter can't support a long list of the things Google+ supports. Also on Google+, you can post pictures and videos directly in posts, launch immediately into a video chat, send your posts to nonmembers and even present all your posts marked 'Public' as a blog available to anyone with an Internet."

61 of 456 comments (clear)

  1. What is an Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can I get "an Internet"? How do you quantify one?

    1. Re:What is an Internet? by cshark · · Score: 2

      You're missing out. My internet is huge!

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    2. Re:What is an Internet? by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 4, Funny

      An Internet is the currency used on The Internet.

    3. Re:What is an Internet? by MattW · · Score: 4, Funny

      Back in 1995, I did dialup support. (Mercifully briefly.)

      Working for Netcom, afaik the first ISP to offer unlimited connectivity straight to the internet.

      "Hi, I just bought the Internet."

      "Hi, I just bought your Internet."

      Were the two most common lines from customers as they began to tell me their problem. (One particular brand of modem with no UART chip was the biggest pest...)

    4. Re:What is an Internet? by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Funny

      An Internet is the currency used on The Internet.

      On the internet's black market, Lulz are widely accepted alternate currency.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:What is an Internet? by m2vq · · Score: 2

      It's 160 characters, not 150.

    6. Re:What is an Internet? by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 5, Funny

      There is only one internet, it lives atop Big Ben. Occasionally the elders will let you borrow it, if you are able to sufficiently impress them.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    7. Re:What is an Internet? by ryanov · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure it's 140. SMS is 160.

    8. Re:What is an Internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good maybe we can go a whole 10 minutes without hearing about fucking Twitter.

      No one wants to fuck a whale. Least not one that fails.

    9. Re:What is an Internet? by Antarius · · Score: 2

      A lot of duplication on it though, it seems. ;)

    10. Re:What is an Internet? by vgerclover · · Score: 2

      US Robotics modems, the only Three Laws compliant 56K modems.

  2. Long answer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No.

    1. Re:Long answer? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 2

      Twitter was rendered obsolete by the marketing departments who overused it for advertising, and users who insist on notifying everyone of every mundane aspect of their lives.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
  3. Long Live Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But on Twitter I can use any name I wish ...

  4. Twitter exists to do less by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If were about "doing more," people would still just be using email (and email lists) over twitter. It's all the restrictions of twitter that prevent it from being a nuisance that made it stick.

    1. Re:Twitter exists to do less by ManTaboo · · Score: 2

      Here is why geeks and nerds are smarter though... They put bread in their toasters. I don't like burnt toast no matter how much you scrape it nor how much butter an jelly you put on it.

    2. Re:Twitter exists to do less by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Twitter is about a uni-directional attention-whore self-absorbed broadcasting medium. Let me broadcast as much inanity and bullshit about my life to tens of thousands of people who are hanging on my every word, because I have a podcast, a tech blog, an album, or a pair of tits. Twitter is about catering to attention-whores and their sycophants and as a result, there will always be a place for *any* utility that facilitates the experience of said attention-whore the broadest and easiest.

    3. Re:Twitter exists to do less by Lennie · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't bet on Twitter remaining for long either. They are operating at a loss and venture capital is the only thing keeping it going right now. For years they literally said they didn't know if they even had a business model.

      Is Twitter is to big to fail ? After all it is 4 times as big as MySpace (and supposedly it failed).

      The people that invested in Skype did get their money back, Microsoft probably won't directly. Maybe indirectly, we don't know.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    4. Re:Twitter exists to do less by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Yes, because seeing 10,000 140 character posts about people buying shoes and going to the bathroom every day is certainly not a nuisance.

      If you read 10,000 posts about people buying shoes and going to the bathroom every day, there is something wrong with you, not the posters.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. Re:Twitter + by MrMarket · · Score: 2

    People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. -Steve Jobs

  6. But... by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...will Google lock me out of Gmail and other services if they decide my Twitter account violated the TOS?

    No? Well in that case I'll keep using Twitter and they can keep Google Plus.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      See the answer straight from the horse's mouth: https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU.

    2. Re:But... by ThorGod · · Score: 2

      Sounds like a good reason to not use google+...

      I'll avoid any name conventions by sticking with gmail, thx

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    3. Re:But... by swillden · · Score: 2

      people NEED the freedom to pick aliases.

      If you read the link at the top of the linked post, you'll see that Google says they will support pseudonyms. Not right now, but eventually.

      People who NEED pseudonyms now should not use Google+. When it meets their needs, then they can hop on, if they like. I think Google is doing the right thing in not trying to support every use case right out of the starting gate.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:But... by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Read article, still scares me. If I get reported for something, they will shutdown not just my G+ account, but could possibly block all linked accounts?

      Which article did you read? The one at the top of the subthread specifically points out that that is not the case. If you get all linked accounts blocked, it's because you were doing something that would always get all linked accounts blocked.

      When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products that donâ(TM)t require a Google+ profile are not removed. Please help get the word out: if your Google+ Profile is suspended for not using a common name, you won't be able to use Google services that require a Google+ Profile, but you'll still be able to use Gmail, Docs, Calendar, Blogger, and so on. (Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension.)

      NB: I don't trust Google any further than I can throw a Quantum Fireball underwater, but there are plenty of legitimate issues to worry about without clouding the issue with bogus ones.

      What started that, anyway? The only mass-block I heard about (admittedly, I'm not following it closely) was that twelve-year-old kid who didn't lie about his age and got blocked because the TOS of all google services says you have to be 13. Is that where this came from?

    5. Re:But... by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      who is google to tell me what my name should be? I'll put whatever I want in there.. their policy is asinine, quit defending it.

    6. Re:But... by FrootLoops · · Score: 2
      Did you even read the post? It says

      We’ve noticed that many violations of the Google+ common name policy were in fact well-intentioned and inadvertent and for these users our process can be frustrating and disappointing. So we’re currently making a number of improvements to this process

      If that's not an admission that they made mistakes, what is?

    7. Re:But... by realityimpaired · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And what about those of us who share names with celebrities, or things like that? The case of "Mike" Bolton from Office Space does actually happen in real life (case in point, if you google my name, you either come up with stories about somebody in Arizona who pissed off a Dell tech support agent, or you come up with somebody who's working as a model in the UK).

      And that's to say nothing of people who've legally changed their names in protest, or because it's funny. I had a prof in University who changed his last name to Strangelove when he got his PhD. There's also been a fairly well publicized incident last year in Canada because somebody who had changed his last name to Nobody was arrested during the G20 protests, and got abused by cops who thought he was lying about his name.... What's going to happen when somebody with a name like that signs up to Google+?

      I, for one, do *not* want to have to send them a copy of my driver's license just to prove that I am who I say I am. Frankly, it's not their fucking job to police anonymity on the Internet. I could sign up saying that I'm the Queen of Sheba, and they have no business asking me to prove that, because it's just an Internet site. If I was applying for a job, or wanting to run for public office, I could see the requirement for some proof of identity, but it's just a social network, and if they can't see the difference then I don't want to have anything to do with their stupidity.

    8. Re:But... by Kidbro · · Score: 2

      If you get all linked accounts blocked, it's because you were doing something that would always get all linked accounts blocked.

      Well, that's OP's point, isn't it? His twitter account and his gmail accounts are not linked, thus violating TOS of one of the services will not get the other locked. The reply from Google, linked a few parents up, only discusses the trivial naming policy violation, which I guess is an extremely small subset of possible violations.

  7. OMG, it's a superior product! by aiken_d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That means it's sure to win. This reminds of of when OS/2 mopped the floor with Windows because it had superior multitasking and memory management!

    --
    If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    1. Re:OMG, it's a superior product! by osu-neko · · Score: 3

      That means it's sure to win. This reminds of of when OS/2 mopped the floor with Windows because it had superior multitasking and memory management!

      If only they'd had a superior product... or at least a decent UI. Lacking that, all the wonderful multitasking and memory management in the world was pretty useless.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:OMG, it's a superior product! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Well, for its time, OS/2 Warp 3 had a wonderful GUI. Yes, they had that single message queue problem, but at least for me, it has never been a big problem. Of course, by today's standards, the GUI would be seriously lacking (although it had some features which I still miss at current systems -- but then I have to admit they were sometimes a bit buggy). But you have to remember, at that time Windows was at 3.11.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:OMG, it's a superior product! by rainhill · · Score: 2

      That means it's sure to win. This reminds of of when OS/2 mopped the floor with Windows because it had superior multitasking and memory management!

      well, actually windows won because it had better user experience overall, which rendered os2's various under-the-hood features less relevant.

    4. Re:OMG, it's a superior product! by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Or when the Amiga mopped the floor with MS-DOS when it offered multi-tasking, no 640k limit, no segments, system support for stereo sound, graphics, and printing.
      Actually Google+ has become less useful because of Googles removing of some users. What makes Twitter useful to me are a few "users". Breaking News, BBC, NASA, and some other news sources. The tech bloggers that I follow on twitter I also follow on Plus but those news services are the ones that I want back.
      But then I have mostly left Facebook years ago. I show up once a week or so and almost all my posts are just my Twitter posts.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  8. Twitter's Business Model Anyhow by rueger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where Twitter loses is in monetizing traffic. In other words, Google knows how to use your traffic to feed you ads that sooner or later you click on. They do it well enough to make a lot of money.

    This works for Google because all of their products draw you into their web space, and you can't avoid being presented with Google Ads.

    The weakness of Twitter is that in many ways it's easier to use from a phone, Hootsuite, or some other client - even Google Plus with an add-on. There's never any need to actually visit the Twitter web site.

    Consequently they're stuck with those idiotic "Promoted Tweets" - which in my experience are so far removed from anything that interests me that I really think they're using chimpanzees instead of algorithms to place them.

  9. Twitter works because its not a full socialnetwork by nzac · · Score: 2

    I kind of look at twitter as an rrs hosting service (for personal use) that put a web interface on the top and made a purpose built manager and search engine. Its main success was that the account was secondary to the "tweets" (so you did not need to share personal information, and you knew what you were sharing) and that they got media endorsement. The limitations lowered the barrier for the general public to use it.

  10. RFC 1918: Address Allocation for Private Internets by tepples · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can I get "an Internet"?

    RFC 1918 explains how to set up your own internet.

  11. It's IM all over again by williamhb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Remember when because some of your colleagues were on ICQ or AOL but some were on Yahoo Messenger but some were on MSN but some had started to move to Skype etc you ended up having to have accounts with all of them because you don't control which account the person you need to speak to likes to use? And the techies amongst us started wanting tools like Kopete to deal with our plurality of accounts? That's the direction I see social networks going in. Already there are people who are Facebook friends whose Facebook status updates come from their Twitter app. Meanwhile many Twitter posts are there to point me to blog articles on blogs that I could also individually follow using RSS. And all those social communities hasn't, for instance, stopped me doing the old fashioned form of community of visiting and commenting on sites I like, like Slashdot. One more social network does not necessarily mean death to the rest. I don't see Twitter and Facebook following Bebo and MySpace into insignificance. It means yet another system I'll need to have an account on because people I need/want to follow/talk to use it. It does not mean I have a new single account that I consider to be my identity -- "me on the web" -- it means I'll have (well, if someone sends me an invite) an additional personally identifiable account on the Web. I think interoperability between social networks is going to be the next big battleground.

  12. Yes, for now by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

    If you look at Google+ and Twitter as APIs, then you can implement Twitter using the Google+ API but not the reverse. That doesn't mean things can't change, but I bet a few Twitter project managers have been sleepless lately.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  13. Re:Twitter + by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 3, Funny

    >Actually, it's really not that hard.

  14. Hulu will kill both by retroworks · · Score: 2

    The hypno-toad always wins.

    --
    Gently reply
  15. Re:Totally agree by petman · · Score: 2

    Forget red bull, use Brawndo - It's got electrolytes!

  16. Re:RFC 1918: Address Allocation for Private Intern by SQLGuru · · Score: 2

    +1 Internets for you (because I'm all out of mod points)

  17. Re:Nein! by NuShrike · · Score: 2

    Yes, the issue of "real names" will keep Twitter more relevant. Twitter is what the Internet is about.

    Google+ Circles is just hypocrisy. Real Name v pseudonym is just different Circles. Begs the question of Circles existence.

    The lacking ability to filter on the receiving end (for the main Stream) doesn't help either.

  18. Not until Google+ allows pseudonyms by grumbel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really can't see Google+ replacing Twitter anytime soon, as Google+ has a strict requirement for real names and will even close accounts based on it. Twitter on the other side is fine with pseudonyms and gets used a lot with them, not only from people that want to keep their real names private, but also organizations and companies that use it as their news feed or just from fake personalities for commedy purposes.

    Google+ seems to have some plans to allow business use in the future, but right now they doesn't and it's not clear if they only allow that for money or also for the average make-shift organization (i.e. Anonymous, Wikileaks, Free Software stuff, etc.).

    As far as I see it, with it's requirement for real names Google has essentially taken a first real step to being evil, while Twitter on the other side seems to be a much more open platform that is used by a lot of people that don't want their real names to be known for one reason or another.

    1. Re:Not until Google+ allows pseudonyms by Radiophobic · · Score: 2

      As far as I see it, with it's requirement for real names Google has essentially taken a first real step to being evil, while Twitter on the other side seems to be a much more open platform that is used by a lot of people that don't want their real names to be known for one reason or another.

      How do you come up with that conclusion? That's like a child saying their parents are evil for making them go to bed at a reasonable hour. If you look at all the other social networks, a lot of griefing and spam comes out of people using fake accounts and psuedonyms. Its not impossible to do either of those on google+, but its certainly going to make people less likely to do it. I think griefing and spam is evil. I think that google is perfectly justified to prohibit the use of pseudonyms. Especially since its still in the beta phase, and they are still trying to work with a limited user base.

    2. Re:Not until Google+ allows pseudonyms by grumbel · · Score: 2

      The problem with that logic is that we are dealing with Google here, they have enormous market power and are shoving their G+ right into every bodies face right on their main search page. So while it is totally optional right now, its a closed beta after all, it could become far less optional in the not so distant future and then we essentially have an email replacement that only allows real names. You really don't want something that could become a central part of the Internet infrastructure be dominated by nanny state policy.

      Most people who use social networks use their real name anyway.

      Well, if you force them to use their real name, sure, no big surprise that only those are left who use a real name (or a faked real looking one).

  19. SMS ... by MacTO · · Score: 2

    I use Twitter because of SMS, and it doesn't cost me a dime (since my plan has unlimited SMS whether I use it or not). So until Google offers SMS services, Twitter style, anyone going from Twitter to Google+ will be limiting their market. Then again, maybe I'm special.

  20. If you ask me by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

    Twitter was obsolete when it only allowed 140 characters.

  21. Is Twitter Rendered Obsolete By Google+? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

    Not if Google keep banning years-old email accounts for stupid little problems associated with Google+. I wanted to join when my sister sent me an invite (not because it looked that great, but because my sister asked me to join), but I resisted because it was too new and too closely linked to other Google services. I'm glad I did, since Gmail has been my main email provider for several years, including for work, and my Google/Gmail name is not 100% accurate. I'd hate to lose years of email due to some dumb little infringement of an unrealistic TOS agreement. Maybe eventually, but for now there are too many kinks to work out.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  22. Gonna take 'no' for $200, Alex by Bieeanda · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, this is 'Will Wave Eat E-Mail' all over again. No. It has long strings attached. It has plenty of bells and whistles, but this is comparing apples and fruit baskets, or a can opener with a Swiss army knife. Sometimes all you want is an apple for your teacher, and sure you can cut meat, whittle wood, read fine print, tweeze splinters and even open cans with your knife, but it'll be faster and cheaper if you just go out to the kitchen and use the tool that was designed for that and nothing else.

  23. Is there a "digest" form of Twitter? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Or maybe an edited version?

    For those of us who have never used twitter, is there an edited, "best of" to convince us to use it?

    I googled "best of twitter", but it appears to be an reductio ad absurdum situation - all the top links seem to want me to follow some twitter account...

    Is there compelling twitter content I am missing?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Is there a "digest" form of Twitter? by Homburg · · Score: 2

      Is there a "best of email," or a "best of websites"? Neither of these make much sense, because the point of web sites is to read the ones your interested in, and the point of email is to communicate with the people you know. Likewise, the point of Twitter is to follow people you are interested in and/or know. If you don't know of anyone who is of interest to you who uses Twitter, there's not much point in you using it, just as it would be pointless to use email if you didn't know anyone else who used email.

  24. I actually use it... by Gooba42 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm actually on G+ and I use it kind of a lot. I thought the discussion might benefit from somebody who's actually actively using the service rather than having sampled it and written it off as "I hate social networking and this is social networking". I'm enjoying it a good bit because it's more interactive and engaging than Twitter and with a lot more obvious and up-front control over everything than on Facebook.

    The integration with Picasa is excellent and I'm looking forward to the (optional) integration with the other services. I'll really be happy with it when Gmail and Voice filters can use my Circles to do useful work, i.e. let family and friends through, dump the other crap.

    I'm still using Twitter, mostly because I'm still following #FuckYouWashington, but less and less. G+ easily occupies the same space as Twitter and with a little tweaking will easily replace Facebook for me.

    As for the supposed privacy issues, I haven't run into anything that concerns me. When I share something Public, I take for granted that means Public. When I post to a smaller Circle, I trust it go to that smaller Circle. If they want a more accurate profile of me to present ads which I might conceivably be interested in while I'm doing my friends-and-family socializing, that works fine by me. I've dismissed about a million Zynga ads on Facebook and their ad-bot code can't take a hint so more accurate ad profiling works in my favor by being less irritating by several orders of magnitude.

    Moreover, I can use any pseudonym I like as long as I don't use it on G+ which seems a reasonable trade-off. If your concern is that the CIA might get grandma's cookie recipe, then you're screwed if your family is contacting you through G+ but hopefully you're bright enough to do anything truly nefarious on a more secure channel.

    I follow a couple of Googlers, a couple of celebrities I was already following on Twitter and that's just about it for now until invites are opened a little wider. In all it's low-key and fosters a more interesting kind of correspondence. Open discourse seems to pop up a lot more often and it's a lot more coherent than either a Twitter discussion or a Facebook comment thread not to mention a lot easier to join a public thread.

    In all, I like it a lot and I'm looking forward to the improvements.

    --
    I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
  25. Seriously? by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2

    This is like asking whether nose-picking is going to obsolete butt-scratching. I mean, sure, there's an answer ("probably not"), but even if it does, the only discernible effect will be the usual six-month lag before TV journalists catch up to whatever bit of jargon replaces "tweet".

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  26. Re:Is Twitter Rendered Obsolete By Google+? by KikassAssassin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't lose access to Gmail (or Docs, Calendar, Blogger, or any other Google service that doesn't require Google+) if you're banned from Google+. The only way you can get a full Google-wide ban is if you're caught breaking a Google-wide policy such as spamming or illegal activity. They've also changed their policy so they give you fair warning to change your username before they lock your account, and there's an appeals process in place to get your account back if you do get banned for using a fake username.

    They also won't ban you just because your name doesn't match your birth certificate. They're only locking accounts for people who are using obviously fake names.

    There's a long blog post from a Google VP that goes into a lot of detail on the issue here: https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU

  27. Why does everyone want Twitter gone? by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 3, Funny

    For my part, I don’t see the problem with Twitter. I mean, 140 characters is more than enough to develop a fully formed and well articulated

  28. Re:The Question Is Absurd by he-sk · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Friending" on Facebook is different from "Following" on Twitter. On Facebook it's symmetrical -- I can't friend you, unless you also friend me. On Twitter it's asymmetrical -- you can follow me, without me following you back.

    This difference alone is why Facebook will never kill Twitter. (And I'm not even talking about the horrible UI mess that is Facebook, or it's atrocious privacy reputation.)

    Google+ follows Twitter's following philosophy and in that way is much more like to Twitter than Facebook is. OTOH, Twitter allows anonymity which Google+ sadly doesn't.

    --
    Free Manning, jail Obama.
  29. Re:Is Twitter Rendered Obsolete By Google+? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're only locking accounts for people who are using obviously fake names.

    The entire point of the internet is pseudo-anonymity. This is how Twitter became a central news source to the political dissent surrounding the Arab spring.

    Google+ is something designed by and for valley dwelling, prius driving, aspergers-suffering dullards. Google+ may even be perfect for the inane, self-absorbed and narcissistic. It's never going to be as important as or a replacement for Twitter unless it allows user to hide behind aliases.

  30. 3 year cycle by dasherjan · · Score: 2

    If the other social networking sites are any indication. Something better will come along in about 3 - 4 years to replace google+

  31. Google+ has a ways to go by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    Right now, Twitter has some advantages that Google+ doesn't have. They aren't insurmountable, but Google+ as it stands now won't replace Twitter.

    - SMS Updates: Right now, I can text 40404 with a tweet and it'll appear on my Twitter stream. Google is apparently testing this in India. No news on when/if this will appear in America and other countries.

    - API/Third Party Tools: Right now, I can run Seesmic Desktop to check my tweets. I can have my blog tweet for me. I can program my own application to interact with Twitter. Twitter lets me do all this thanks to their open APIs. Google+ currently doesn't have any APIs. Once they get an API-set, then people can develop tools to let me access Google+ without actually having to go to Google's website. Until then, they'll lag behind.

    - Names: I use a pseudonym on my blog and Twitter. I don't use my real name (unlike on Slashdot, but this account was from years back when I didn't care about privacy as much). Google+, however, demands that I use my real name. I don't want everyone I tweet/blog to to know my real name. I'd rather show them the pseudonym and let certain circles see my real name. If Google+ would let me choose who gets to see my real name and who doesn't, they would solve this problem. (They could require you input your real name but then have you set which circles see which names/nicknames.)

    I'll keep an eye on Google+, but until they fix the above items I'm not abandoning Twitter for it.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.