Slashdot Mirror
The Google+ Name Game Continues
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."
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.
Buy an Android phone and you have to make an account. AFAIK, you don't need a .me account to use an iPhone. At least, you didn't when I had one.
So, you create a Google account just for the phone, separate from the main one. PITA.
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...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
some people would rather not use their real names for things... i am sure skarecrow77 is not your real name.
Well, that went out with political correctness thirty years ago. We no longer have the right to offend anyone, unless that person is a non-rich white male.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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 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.
To all newcomers - people here are very close-minded and can't handle complaints about Linux. Keep this in mind.
Yet odds are it is the most searched name among the daleks and cybermen.
Again. You are not Google's customer. You are what they sell to their customers.
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
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.
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.
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.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Even if you are forced to create a g+ account, just delete the damn thing after its created. Google actually makes it easy... http://support.google.com/plus/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1044503&rd=1
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 strange foreign ones.
Names are actually just the original bureaucratic way of designating and cataloging people, before they thought of ID numbers and databases. It's not surprising that Google wants to impose its own rules on them.
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.
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.
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
Deleted
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).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
You're deliberately and intentionally taking a literal interpretation of a statement that you know is not meant to be taken at literal face value, and you are presenting that interpretation as the real position, even though you know it isn't.
Therefore, you are willfully misrepresenting your opponent's position as one that is easier to debunk than the one he actually put forth.
That is absolutely a strawman.
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 everyone to pretend to be someone else. If you want to be anonymous or pseudonymous, use something else then. But having *one* option to have an account that is *provable* yours and a way to mail and write things that are *provable* written by you: What is so bad about having this option? Come on, what is bad about this? You don't have to use it. But if you want it or need it, it's there. Why should every social network work the same way? Why would we need more than one if all worked the same way?
Nothing against using an assumed name (as you see I'm not using my real name here), but some people are *insisting* in *nobody* ever using their real name in a way that is nearly manic. There are sometimes reasons to be identifiable and to be able to sign things you write and to have a way of being able to prove your identity. Really. Having one network to support and even enforce that is good. It's just one option. Having no way to do it is not more freedom, it is less freedom.
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.
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 that they were counting Google+ members who accessed any of their services at least daily/weekly, not just ones who visited Google+ daily/weekly.
What exactly is Google trying to accomplish with their "real name" policy, anyway? I don't see what they hope to gain that's even worth the trouble of enforcing it, not even considering the ill will they're piling up.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
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.
With Google+ they are building a google into a CRM system basically. The strict control over how you can identify yourself and your friends can identify themselves increases the value of the overall system of contact information and creates higher ad values. Which is of course why I quit using google as much as possible. It was all just good clean fun until they became the Death Star.
if your life is such a big joke then why should I care?
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.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
All the more reason not to use it on a public profile.
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.
Dilbert RSS feed
What about Jesus Christ?
Dilbert RSS feed
"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 ^^
Yay another shill..
So what costs does switching from Google Ads to other incur on you? Did they start demanding to provide all ads in WebP format and destroy the original?
The cost of switching from Google Ads to something else = FAILED ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN.
Translation for retards like you: Google owns a huge portion of the online advertising business. There is no way to bypass them if you want to advertise your product. Thats the lock-in. Their customers are businesses who are unable to go anywhere else and are locked into google's advertising services. They have to accept google's arm twisting agrreements and ridiculous costs because there is nowhere else to go.
On the other hand, switching from Windows+MS Office to Linux+OpenOffice incurs some overhead as, for example, Outlook exports mailboxes to a closed proprietary .pst format.
Nonsense. There are dozens of documented ways to migrate from exchange.
Yes. That is exactly the point.
Don't quote me on this.
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.
Don't quote me on this.
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'm surprised to say that - I'm not just being "look at me, look how reslient and progressive I am" - I just genuinely don't miss all the bullshit that comes with it. I don't need more of it with G+
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.
This guy might have some trouble getting a G+ account: Asda worker Greg Lewis changes his name to Dr Pasty-Smasher Omelette
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.