Google Quietly Nixes Mandatory G+ Integration With Gmail

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Quietly Nixes Mandatory G+ Integration With Gmail

Posted by timothy on Tuesday September 23, 2014 @04:23AM from the maybe-now-I'll-like-it-better dept.

An anonymous reader writes Back in 2012, Google had made it mandatory for new Gmail users to simultaneously create Google+ (G+) accounts. This is no longer so. Following the departure of G+ founder Vic Gundotra in April 2014, Google has been quietly decoupling its social media site from its other services. First, YouTube was freed, then Google+ Photos. Now, anyone who wants to create a new Gmail account unencumbered with a G+ profile can also do so.

139 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Does it matter? by misosoup7 · 2014-09-23 04:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

Even if you had a Google+ account, if you didn't use it, what did it matter?
1. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  ^ Part of the problem ^
2. Re:Does it matter? by spire3661 · 2014-09-23 04:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It was an annoying insert between me and the services i want to use. I want to see my pictures on PICASA, where i put them, not integrated into G+
  
  --
  Good-bye
3. Re:Does it matter? by petermgreen · 2014-09-23 04:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Some examples
  One was the real names policy, previously youtube had been happy with psuedononymous commenters. With google+ they tried hard to push people into using their real names on google+ (though they eventually dropped that policy) and they also tried hard to push youtube users to sign up for google+ and use their google+ name (which was likely their real name) on youtube. It was possible to avoid it but they tried pretty hard to push people into it.
  Another was that gmail users were appearing in google+ searches. Some people don't want it to be easy to search out their email accounts.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
4. Re:Does it matter? by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-09-23 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  I fail to understand how they don't just have a Google account and then you go into some kind of 'setup' or 'preferences' panel and check/uncheck boxes for 'enable: Picassa, YouTube, GMail, Plus, Reader (oops), Wallet', etc. If that's too complex it can be automatically enabled if you go to the relevant service and try to use it (upload a picture, post an update, etc.).
  I don't believe that Google is irrational, but by making their services as hard to use as possible (I know, don't read the YouTube commments...) they limit page views to some extent, which much affect their advertising stream - but I haven't seen the wisdom of why they want to do that.
  Is it just that disk space is expensive and the consumption stream size's increase is only proportional to the creation stream's size on a diminishing returns scale? I could possibly buy that - I have a hundred videos in my Watch Later queue on YouTube, so they won't make any more money on my views than they would if they made it easier to upload, edit, and share videos.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
5. Re:Does it matter? by gstoddart · 2014-09-23 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, there was the whole real name policy. And not giving a damn about G+.
  It was getting to the point that almost everything you did on any Google service was getting the nag messages of "hey, wanna use this thing?"
  In all honesty, I have no real idea of what G+ was, is, or WTF I'd want it for. I just know I've spent the last few years having to say "no, I don't care" to avoid having it foisted on me.
  On Android, Google has been steadily making it harder and harder to avoid ... and in a few cases when trying to log into my gmail account from a web browser, I'm confronted with authenticating with YouTube. I'm not using YouTube, I'm using gmail. Leave YouTube out of this.
  Google+ for me has always been something I don't want which was increasingly difficult to avoid. So, I welcome this news.
  Because, really, it was fast becoming the pushy salesman of technology.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
6. Re:Does it matter? by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-09-23 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  ^ more interested in being smug than being part of the solution ^
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
7. Re:Does it matter? by misosoup7 · 2014-09-23 04:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Fair point regarding the Google+ search results. I guess I never really thought about that. I guess it's good that they reversed the result huh?
  
  Not sure if I follow the real name policy argument. Personally, I understand that people want privacy and there was a huge outcry when Blizzard also required real names as part of their RealID row out. But at the same time I think the issue that both Blizzard and Google wanted to address was cyber-bullying by hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. I think everyone else just got caught in the crossfire because of a few bad actors. In all seriousness, neither Google nor Blizzard really benefits by having your real name. It's not like the earn money by knowing your name, they earn money by knowing your interests. Your name just doesn't give them that. And for them to require real names, there must be something else there. But then again that's just my 2 cents, take what you will.
8. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  Can you confirm whether as of this most recent change you can now send/share photos directly through hangouts without a G+ profile? I can't find any information on the articles that clarify this point and i noticed the below page hasn't removed the '(Requires a Google+ profile)' part under the 'Send photo messages' feature.
  https://support.google.com/a/answer/4564211
9. Re:Does it matter? by The_PS4_Will_Fail · 2014-09-23 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  ^ disparages Anonymous Coward, our friend and hero ^
  
  --
  lik-sang.com
10. Re: Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  You can't get to a solution without first identifying the problem(s).
11. Re:Does it matter? by cayenne8 · 2014-09-23 05:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  One was the real names policy, previously youtube had been happy with psuedononymous commenters. With google+ they tried hard to push people into using their real names on google+ (though they eventually dropped that policy) and they also tried hard to push youtube users to sign up for google+ and use their google+ name (which was likely their real name) on youtube. It was possible to avoid it but they tried pretty hard to push people into it.
  I never converted my pre-Google YouTube account to G+. I still am no longer able to comment on my or others' videos.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
12. Re:Does it matter? by X0563511 · 2014-09-23 05:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Personally the issue wasn't that Google knew my name (I'm sure they know a lot more than that) but that they made that information available to everyone who cared to look.
  That left a bad taste in my mouth and I have since refused to touch G+ because of it, even though they did back out from that particular stance quite quickly.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
13. Re:Does it matter? by gbcox · 2014-09-23 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  You know, I really don't understand the hate out there about #GooglePlus. It reminds me of all the right wing attacks (which are still going on btw) about the ACA. You were never forced to use #G +. No one seems to be foaming at the mouth about the ubiquitous "sign on with Facebook" feature many sites have which FORCE you to have a Facebook account in order to use their service. I believe it is all "feigned" outrage generated by the marketing teams of #Facebook , Apple and Microsoft and their associated media outlets to just spread #FUD . I'm somewhat surprised that people bought it hook, line and sinker.
14. Re:Does it matter? by Mal-2 · 2014-09-23 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  No one seems to be foaming at the mouth about the ubiquitous "sign on with Facebook" feature many sites have which FORCE you to have a Facebook account in order to use their service.
  That would be because people can live without the ability to comment on those sites. It's harder (not impossible, but harder) to live without the ability to comment on Google-owned sites.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
15. Re:Does it matter? by ian_po · 2014-09-23 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  Mod Parent up. This is true. Google still force you to agree to "Google+ Pages" Terms of Service in order to have a pseudonymic voice on YouTube.
16. Re:Does it matter? by cayenne8 · 2014-09-23 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Mod Parent up. This is true. Google still force you to agree to "Google+ Pages" Terms of Service in order to have a pseudonymic voice on YouTube.
  Yep, I just tried to comment on a friends' video...it had me sign in, which I did, but then started saying this name would be on a new G+ site on my channel, etc.
  So, G+ isn't gone for good, it still is quite an intrusive requirement if you want to post on YouTube currently.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
17. Re:Does it matter? by gbcox · 2014-09-23 06:03 · Score: 2
  
  No one seems to be foaming at the mouth about the ubiquitous "sign on with Facebook" feature many sites have which FORCE you to have a Facebook account in order to use their service.
  That would be because people can live without the ability to comment on those sites. It's harder (not impossible, but harder) to live without the ability to comment on Google-owned sites.
  A bunch of sites are requiring you to have a Facebook account to take advantage of their services. You dismiss it by saying those sites aren't important anyway? Regarding commenting on Google sites, they use a unified comment engine tied to your Google Account. None of those comments have to be pushed to G+...it's voluntary. You aren't forced to do it - whereas, you are being FORCED to signup with Facebook. Again, pure and simple this is just FUD.
18. Re:Does it matter? by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-23 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The reason is that "a single source for services" wasn't their plan. Their plan was "Steal users from facebook, by going absolutely nuts pushing G+".
19. Re:Does it matter? by Pope · 2014-09-23 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Strange. I've been able to keep my old YT account separate, though it used to keep asking to "switch" over to my G+ profile. Try logging out of every Google account you have, then log in to YT. May or may not work. it's hard to tell with Google's strange account settings.
  
  --
  It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
20. Re:Does it matter? by eulernet · 2014-09-23 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's because it adds more value to your profile, which is the source of Google's revenue.
  Google would like to create its own ecosystem where you use only Google's web applications, an Internet à la Google, where they track every little action that you do.
  Also, since you "subscribe" to all of their services, they can claim that their services are used by millions of people.
21. Re:Does it matter? by Anrego · 2014-09-23 06:19 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly.
  The vast majority of google+ accounts are probably empty shells created so youtube would stop prompting, which kinda makes the service look like a barren wasteland.
22. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 06:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Cyber bullying is the reason I don't want my real name attached to everything so a bully can follow me from one website to the next.
23. Re:Does it matter? by Jason+Levine · 2014-09-23 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  In my case, Slashdot is one of the few places that I use my real name. (Mainly because I set up my Slashdot account a LONG time ago, can't change the username, and don't want to ditch this account in favor of a new one.) Everywhere else, I use the same pseudonym. It's partly a brand thing (easier than "Jason Levine" which is very generic) and part of it is keeping semi-anonymous. (I've run into cyber-stalkers and the fact that the person couldn't immediately tell where I really lived and what my employer's name is was VERY nice.) Could someone who was determined extract that information? Sure. (It honestly wouldn't even take uber-hacker skills - just knowing where to search and what to search for.) Still, I didn't want my name inextricably linked with my pseudonym.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
24. Re:Does it matter? by Jason+Levine · 2014-09-23 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't know why they couldn't keep their real name policy but modify it so that you supplied them with a real name and then entered a pseudonym that the world would see. So Google might know that I'm "Jason Levine", but everyone else would see my posts/comments/etc as coming from "UserX". You could make this a Google-services-wide default with some application-level exceptions. (For example, you might want your e-mails to display a different name.)
  Insisting on "give us a real name that we'll show to the world" was just unreasonable.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
25. Re:Does it matter? by RDW · 2014-09-23 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
26. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  > But at the same time I think the issue that both Blizzard and **Google** wanted to address was cyber-bullying by hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.
  Bullshit. Blizzard's foray into real names showed that it had no effect on "cyber bullying." By the time Google flung this shit at YouTube, it was known by anyone with half a brain that this wouldn't do anything. Shock and surprise! It hasn't!
  > In all seriousness, neither Google nor Blizzard really benefits by having your real name.
  Google does. It's one more piece of data to tie into the all seeing eye and try to add more to your profile. Found a John Smith on a dating site? Same age/birthday? Link into profile and learn yet more about this person.
27. Re:Does it matter? by osu-neko · 2014-09-23 07:46 · Score: 2
  
  Not sure if I follow the real name policy argument. Personally, I understand that people want privacy and there was a huge outcry when Blizzard also required real names as part of their RealID row out. But at the same time I think the issue that both Blizzard and Google wanted to address was cyber-bullying by hiding behind the anonymity of the internet.
  You can tell people at a company are speaking from a place of privilege when they assert that using real names will reduce bullying/make people safer/etc. For many of us, using real names pretty much guarantees bullying and danger, and quite possibly even threatens our lives. From Blizzard, it really takes the cake. Like I'm going to put my life in jeopardy for the sake of a video game. And even if the threats aren't serious, many people would just rather avoid the hate and abuse to begin with, even if it's "only" verbal/emotional abuse. Some people use anonymity as a weapon, but most of us use it as a shield. Congrats for those lucky enough to not need it, but understand we're not all so lucky. Removing it just further marginalizes those who aren't privileged enough to be safe without it.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
28. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  That's a cute strawman, but no. I hated the constant badgering to use google+. Not just once, but a popup nearly every time I logged in via. the web to any number of services. It was a strong-arm attempt. Eventually, I was signed up for google+ against my will when my wife logged in and accidentally accepted it. She was used to SO many popups at the log-in of the google account, everything from 3 step authentication to wallet to google+, that she clicked through it in a hurry.
  I've since deleted that account, but google STILL has my real name popping up in places I don't want it, with no way to remove it. At least in the past Google was unconciously intrusive. Now it's right in your face, and it's pissing a lot of people off.
  While we're on the topic though, I find it amazing that you somehow assume that because YOU don't think it's a big deal it must all be a shill attack. Sounds more to me like you're a google shill trying to divert attention from a really crappy product.
29. Re:Does it matter? by Opportunist · 2014-09-23 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's probably the reason just why they disconnected them. Consider for a moment how you felt if you were looking around a social network only to notice that every profile you hit is empty. Would you want to stay?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
30. Re:Does it matter? by nobuddy · 2014-09-23 08:23 · Score: 2
  
  Makes you wonder if they notice Google+ accounts named "Fuck off, no means no!"
31. Re:Does it matter? by cayenne8 · 2014-09-23 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Strange. I've been able to keep my old YT account separate, though it used to keep asking to "switch" over to my G+ profile. Try logging out of every Google account you have, then log in to YT. May or may not work. it's hard to tell with Google's strange account settings.
  I've kept the YT account separate too all these years, however....I cannot comment from it.
  I can post videos, do channel work, etc...but I cannot seem to comment on my videos or others' unless I covert it to a G+ account.
  :(
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
32. Re:Does it matter? by Opportunist · 2014-09-23 08:26 · Score: 2
  
  Because you're not their user, you're their product. The idea wasn't to be comfortable for you, the idea was to get as much information out of you as possible. What they did was basically a rip-off of the MS tactics: Use their most powerful, most successful product to muscle into another market they were late for, that was already taken by someone else and that they wanted. What Windows was for MS in their attempt to wedge into the browser business, YouTube was for Google in their attempt to squeeze themselves into social networking.
  Google's disadvantage here is that social networks have one huge drawback (for a company) compared to operating systems: They allow people to, well, network. And tell each other how to show a company the finger that tries to force you to do something you don't want to do. People talked. People told each other not only how to circumvent Google's plans (that would have been a minor nuisance that could have eventually been patched) but, worse, that there are alternatives that are by no means more complicated or different to use. And THAT WAS a huge problem for Google. Other than making people switch away from Windows to a different OS, switching to another mail provider, another video platform or another $service_google_offers is rather painless. There ain't no incompatibilities to deal with or a learning curve for a new OS.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
33. Re:Does it matter? by Opportunist · 2014-09-23 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  The main difference for me is maybe that I don't want to use anything coming out of the Facebook corner of the planet and hence I have no beef with them. If a page insists in only allowing me in if I have a Facebook account, it's usually trivial for me to simply do without said page.
  It's kinda different with Google. Google offers a fair lot of services, some of them even very useful. And them constantly trying to shove some useless services of theirs up my rear is kinda annoying when all I want to do is use one of their useful ones. Part of this is due to them buying up a few of the more useful and/or entertaining platforms of the internet.
  Facebook only did that so far with a select few, and (since I don't use any of them anymore, I can't really vouch for that) as far as I know, they don't use them to shove "oh, and hey, here, use that $craptastic_other_garbage_of_ours or you can't use $what_you_actually_want_to_use anymore" in your face.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
34. Re:Does it matter? by DerekLyons · 2014-09-23 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  The reason is that "a single source for services" wasn't their plan. Their plan was "to greatly boost their numbers to make it look like they were winning versus Facebook, by cooking the books and padding the numbers by going absolutely nuts pushing G+".
  TFTFY.
  
  Seriously, Google was very late to the party, screwed up their implementation, screwed up the launch, and was desperate to make it look like G+ was *huge* and growing exponentially. Pretty much their only even remotely legitimate option was to force everyone who used a Google service (or later an Android product) to sign up for Facebook. Sadly, pretty numbers didn't equate to user engagement and G+ was soon a dying wasteland.
35. Re: Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  Your reply is sufficiently dramatic but just not true. People just want to bash Google and give Facebook a pass.
36. Re: Does it matter? by gbcox · 2014-09-23 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  So you're saying for you the difference is you find Google services more valuable than Facebook and how dare they try to encourage anyone to try a new service. There are many sites now that REQUIRE you to have a facebook account. Some businesses REQUIRE a Facebook account to enter contests. Again no one gets rabid about that. It's just silly.
37. Re: Does it matter? by FatdogHaiku · 2014-09-23 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes there really is no problem...
  but there's always someone wanting to foist a solution...
  and that can be a problem...
  OK, wait a sec...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
38. Re:Does it matter? by cheesybagel · 2014-09-23 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Thank god they stopped the bundling of services I do not want. Especially more spyware.
39. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  I just tried it and you still cannot send photo in hangout without G+
  I am not on G+ and never will be. Consequently I do not hang out in hangouts either
40. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  Holy fuck yes!
  Best treatment of the anonymity debates I've seen - well done.
  CAPTCHA is creeper ... nice.
41. Re: Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 14:23 · Score: 0
  
  I don't use Facebook. I'm judging Google on their own merits and business practices. I've been a gmail user since Beta (switched from MyRealBox before they went away). Google's G+ integration was intrusive and annoying. Their use of popups that you can't set to ever go away is irritating as well.
  I don't really care what Facebook is doing. Your 'bashing google' is my pointing out a declination in quality of service.
  Fanboi much?
42. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  You probably can comment on my videos as my account has the old commenting system. When you start typing a box comes up to login but if your quick enough to paste in the box and submit then it works.
  I never enabled G+ on my Google Apps account, it also breaks being able to set a channel background now.
  Now the only comments I get are "wtf how is the comment system still working?"
43. Re:Does it matter? by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-23 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  Your name was only searchable if you made your profile public, which was not the default. The exception is that people you had already emailed yourself get offered to connect with you by default as they are considered to have some kind of relationship to you.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
44. Re: Does it matter? by Opportunist · 2014-09-23 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  So they have to do without my business. Just like I refused to accept Google's attempt to cram their shit down my throat so I could use the services I wanted to use. It's annoying, but in the end I and only I decide whether or not I accept your terms of business. You cannot force me.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
45. Re:Does it matter? by arglebargle_xiv · 2014-09-23 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  On Android, Google has been steadily making it harder and harder to avoid ... and in a few cases when trying to log into my gmail account from a web browser, I'm confronted with authenticating with YouTube. I'm not using YouTube, I'm using gmail. Leave YouTube out of this.
  Yep, I've been noticing that too. If you have a stock Android phone (as 99.9% of users do, figure freely pulled out of my ass) then you pretty much need to sign up for Google Everything in order to use any of it. Even if you specifically avoid the endless prompts to hand your soul to Google on initialisation, you quickly find that nothing much works (you can't install apps, can't get mail, etc) unless you let Google into your life, and then a week later you're off taking a dump and your phone bongs and it's a notification from Google that based on their tracking of your movements you need more fibre in your diet...
46. Re: Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-24 00:34 · Score: 0
  
  Also sinks having 3 g+ accounts in your name because of the real name policy, and having 3 gmail accounts...
  (Fam/friend/bills account, web form/website/spam account, game account)
47. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-24 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  4thdended.
  Same here. Had a YT account much pre google and still can't comment without being forced into some other bullcrap.
48. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-24 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Yes you can.
  Few years back it was very hard to source .apks
  These days you can source most stuff externally, making the google app thingy mostly useless.
  For me I have never had a google account on android phs, even borrowing a new zoppo z98 with the 4.4something on it. Most phones get CMd but have not touched this and got apps on it fine.
  They are making it slightly harder to turn on dev mode though.
49. Re:Does it matter? by Cinnamon+Beige · 2014-09-24 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Cyber bullying is the reason I don't want my real name attached to everything so a bully can follow me from one website to the next.
  Yep. I could see having a real-name-hidden-always policy (with no option to reveal, and a complete inverse of Facebook's policies of refusing to respect your desire for privacy & silent changes so you are better of sharing as little info with them as possible) for when somebody says that they think they have a bully doing that, simply so there's a chance to confirm it is the same person. (And if it's not clearly a name, you're still down a bully.)
  IANAL, but following somebody 'from one website to the next' sounds like it crosses the line from cyber bullying into stalking.
50. Re:Does it matter? by BasilBrush · 2014-09-24 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  Your name is one of the elements where they track you across the internet, building an ever bigger picture. For sure your real name doesn't identify you, but put it together with a few more attributes, and it becomes pretty good as a unique ID. Classic big data technique.
  THIS is why Google wanted your real name. It had nothing to do with cyber bullying.
51. Re:Does it matter? by Mal-2 · 2014-09-25 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'm saying I've seen such sites, and NOT ONE of them has been sufficiently compelling that I said "gee I'll go sign up for Facebook so I can comment here". I have a Disqus account. I'm willing to make single-serving accounts. If one of those two doesn't cover the situation, then tough shit, I don't need to participate in your site.
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
52. Re:Does it matter? by Grishnakh · 2014-10-03 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL, but following somebody 'from one website to the next' sounds like it crosses the line from cyber bullying into stalking.
  What are you gonna do, sue them? You have thousands of dollars sitting around to give to an attorney as a retainer so you can sue some guy on the internet?
53. Re:Does it matter? by Cinnamon+Beige · 2014-10-03 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL, but following somebody 'from one website to the next' sounds like it crosses the line from cyber bullying into stalking.
  What are you gonna do, sue them? You have thousands of dollars sitting around to give to an attorney as a retainer so you can sue some guy on the internet?
  There is thing thing called cyberstalking legislation. I may not be a lawyer, but I do make some effort to know what isn't legal.
  I also was looking at it from the perspective of owning the site, or at least being legally responsible for it. It seems only one of the places explicitly protects you from liability, which suggests that it would be possible to sue the service itself for its role. Being able to say that the moment the victim complained to you, you checked your records and with the other site(s) & since your ToS say it's a reason for account termination you did so? Is a CYA measure.
  Also, it'd be utterly stupid to tell the person who is making the complaint the name: ask for evidence, ask for the account name here, ask for the account name and other site. Tell them only what the result is: "It is not the same person" or "It is the same person and their account has been terminated for violating ToS." Only people who would be told are law enforcement with warrant & other sites. It might even be possible to use a hash exchange to do the check to see if it's the same person, so the real name doesn't need to be used unless all parties already know it and you can reduce it completely to "Law enforcement with proper warrant" who can get the real name.
  As for suing anybody? Well, notice what I mentioned about the service providers' rears being not covered...
They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

> Now, anyone who wants to create a new Gmail account unencumbered with a G+ profile can also do so.
The main value G+ gave to google was a way to unify all of their services so that they could track you across all of them.
But nowadays it is basically impossible to create a new account with any of google's services without giving up a phone number that they will use to "authenticate" you by sending a text or a robo-call with a number you have to type back into your browser.
That lets google track you by phone number because, 99% of the population can't be bothered to get a new phone number for each sign-up. So it really doesn't matter that you aren't using G+ to explicitly unify your google accounts, they've figured out how to implicitly do it. So the end result is the same for them, while you get a false sense of compartmentalizing your life.
1. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by wiredog · 2014-09-23 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  It's called "two factor authentication" and it's only mandatory if you care about security.
  
  --
  
  Best Slashdot Co
2. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Spy+Handler · 2014-09-23 04:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, the main value of G+ was that Google was losing social networking to Facebook big time and Sergei Brin decided Google cannot be left behind. So they tried to leverage gmail and youtube and all their other services into forcing you to make a G+ account to give it a big boost. (Google could already track you every way to Sunday before G+ was ever dreamed up)
  The fact that they're not forcing G+ on you anymore means that after 5 years of trying, they gave up trying to beat Facebook and decided not to piss off their core users any further.
3. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  AC is referring to something else, 'dog.
  http://i.imgur.com/qaXrjDn.png
4. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by gstoddart · 2014-09-23 05:10 · Score: 2
  
  The fact that they're not forcing G+ on you anymore means that after 5 years of trying, they gave up trying to beat Facebook and decided not to piss off their core users any further.
  I'm really hoping this is signalling a shift that, yes, social media exists ... but it's not the be-all and end-all of technology.
  Because I've seen way too many corporate presentations saying how everything was going to be done in social media, and "OMG! Teh Social!".
  And, at the end of the day, these tools don't always pan out, don't actually help you get your work done in some cases, and leave people thinking that somehow getting a badge in the company social media site was anything of value.
  I like the idea of Google going back to giving me really awesome services which provide the information I need, without the supposition that I'm going to go all social on everything I see and blog about it to my friends. If I want to do that, I'll send them an email or text them.
  And, yes, I know ... I am nowhere near the core market for social media ... I'm old and fat ... get off my lawn and all that ... but the over-hyping of social media has made me have to actively avoid it in some cases. And in a few cases, I get forced to use it so that the "visionary" who foisted this on the company can pretend he was onto something. And then over time they stop getting used as people realize that it's not actually adding anything to they job.
  Social media exists, it will continue to exist. But not all things are social media, nor should they be. But once it became the latest craze, that's what everybody treated it as, then it became the defacto "if we don't have social media we're falling behind".
  But, like the self tweeting toilet ... some things don't really add value to people, and don't reflect how they use the service.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by cayenne8 · 2014-09-23 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's called "two factor authentication" and it's only mandatory if you care about security.
  Well, if it is a matter of 2 factor and giving my phone number to Google vs less secure and keeping my phone numbers to myself, I'm afraid I have to err on the side of less secure, sadly.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
6. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  It's called a "strong selector." Yahoo and Google now both want you to "verify" your identity for new accounts. See https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/63950?hl=en
  I think you can still sign up phonelessly to whatever Microsoft is calling HoTMaiL nowadays that's where I set up my most recent disposable account.
7. Re: They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, I've been locked out of my Hotmail for months because they won't let you proceed without a phone # or 2nd email anymore. By contrast, I could create a new GMail without those, and could even skip the G+ creation by simply closing the tab when it got to that last step. In that sense, G+ only *looked* mandatory during account creation, and wasn't enforced in practice.
8. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Darinbob · 2014-09-23 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's annoying to be reminded each month to set this up. I do not want to use my phone for this. I will never answer it from an unknown caller, and texting is blocked, so it's useless for this purpose. If someone steals my G+ account, nothing much terrible will happen. It's not something that needs high security, I don't keep anything of value there (it's not a bank, not a cloud service, it's just some social media).
9. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Darinbob · 2014-09-23 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand the "core" users part. What does Google have other than G+ that people want, besides Youtube, which was acquired after G+ I thought. Do people really use picasa, which was the only thing G+ was trying to make me use.
10. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Besides...Facistbook's doing a damned good job all on it's own of driving people to consider G+ and Diaspora* as a place to go. Why piss people off more than they need to in order to "force" the issue?
11. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by irq-1 · 2014-09-23 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that they're not forcing G+ on you anymore means that after 5 years of trying, they gave up trying to beat Facebook and decided not to piss off their core users any further.
  Which is not the same as trying to regain the trust of their users: Google tried to leverage us, to use it's dominant position to push us into an unwanted social network, and did so in sleazy ways ("Ok, We'll ask you again later").
  Google owes us an apology. It's not enough to cancel G+ and try to quietly undo it.
12. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by bickerdyke · 2014-09-23 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  something else, but not unrelated. Even if you don't use 2-factor auth, giving a phone number is a 2nd way of communications for restoring your password. And it is not connected to a 2nd maila ccount that may also be compromised.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
13. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  >> The main value G+ gave to google was a way to unify all of their services so that they could track you across all of them.
  >
  > No, the main value of G+ was that Google was losing social networking to Facebook big time ...
  That's orthogonal to the original the point about what G+ was designed for.
  You are actually confused about what G+ is. It isn't social networking, it is unification.
  They've finally given up on the frontal-assault approach to unification, they are now using the back-door instead.
14. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  Woohoo, both things use a phone number so they are totally related!
  Simpleton.
15. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  It's called "two factor authentication" and it's only mandatory if you care about security.
  Well, if it is a matter of 2 factor and giving my phone number to Google vs less secure and keeping my phone numbers to myself, I'm afraid I have to err on the side of less secure, sadly.
  I agree, but this is soooo moot. You really think you have never signed into email ONCE from your leaky Android phone? Worse, you probably are like me, and use the official Gmail APP anyway. We forget that preinstalled app permissions don't give us much chance to think that our new phone + a google / app store login = "phone identity" permissions get transmitted to google, along with your number.
  Even if you never, ever touch the mandatory appstore on the new phone, google can geolocate your phone's identity and correlate it to your usage patterns. If you use wifi, it's game over. That shared router access point name and/or IP are just more data points. Sure, they're happy when you're doing the confirmation willingly, but it still makes me uncomfortable when I see different computers where I have used my google login show me specific ethnicity-targetted *dating* ads even on my *ahem* clean work devices. If that's not confidence in identity, then I don't know what is.
16. Re: They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed, I was more concerned about them eventually making it mandatory for everybody.
  But, that was quite a while ago and clearly the momentum is in the opposite direction. G+ had some really nice features, but they bungled things massively when they failed to consider starting with those of us that refuse to have a FB or Twitter account. Then they would have had some users that they could have expanded to include more people. FB didn't start out massive, but it did feed on the people that weren't happy with MySpace and the other ones that were around at the time.
17. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 17:15 · Score: 0
  
  some sites force that phone number (mobile one at that) required up your ass til you cough one up.. google is one that tries very hard.. hotmail too, but it is yahoo that absolutely requires it for at least yahoo.com/flickr.com. facebook too, if you are (or try to be) a girl and want an account.
18. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by cayenne8 · 2014-09-24 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  You really think you have never signed into email ONCE from your leaky Android phone?
  No...I don't own an android phone.
  :)
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
19. Re:They Don't Need G+ To Track You Anymore by Cinnamon+Beige · 2014-09-24 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Google, it seems, is convinced my phone is being used somewhere in Brazil going by the version of their site they keep redirecting me to. Apparently I moved from Florida to Mexico to there? Except I've never been any of those places.
  Just because they have my IP doesn't mean it does much.
What about Android? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:30 · Score: 0

I need to have a G+ profile to auto-backup photos from an Android phone. Why can't I just use the Drive service?
1. Re:What about Android? by spire3661 · 2014-09-23 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  There are other vendors that offer auto-photo backup. Hell even Plex does.
  
  --
  Good-bye
2. Re:What about Android? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  literally every cloud account has this feature for android pick any alternative even owncloud which is a self hosted opensource app can do this
3. Re:What about Android? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2014-09-23 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ownCloud does a pretty good job of it. Granted I'm one of those fortunate United Statsians that has a 50/5 connection, but a homemade microserver combined with docker and a slew of other applications hasn't let me down yet.
  
  --
  "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
4. Re:What about Android? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  I need to have a G+ profile to auto-backup photos from an Android phone. Why can't I just use the Drive service?
  Photos used to go to Picasa. Then Picasa got partially unified with G+ and G+ was used for the syncing. Looks like that's being undone again because it was probably a bad idea.
  You can sync to Drive, Dropbox, Flickr, or anything else if you like with third party apps, so any of those choices Google makes are really just about defaults.
5. Re:What about Android? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't "United Statists" be more accurate than "United Statesians"?
Good move by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:30 · Score: 0

Useful for anyone still creating GMail accounts, I guess. A reversal on their policy "one account, one person". Youtube comments next, please.
1. Re:Good move by jonwil · 2014-09-23 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yes please, I would comment on so many videos if I didn't need to go G+ to do it.
2. Re:Good move by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 16:10 · Score: 0
  
  Useful for anyone still creating GMail accounts, I guess. A reversal on their policy "one account, one person". Youtube comments next, please.
  It's worth noting that G+ has never actually been mandatory to sign up for a gmail account; Google just went out of its way to make it appear that way to scam people into doing it.
  After you set up the other parts and it lists the G+ setup step, you just close the tab. After that, you can reopen mail.google.com (or accounts.google.com) and log in just fine, and you'll find you don't have G+.
  It's worked for as long as they've tried the tactic, and I most recently had to set up an account like this ~2 months ago. The negative of this is that they harass you constantly about G+ afterward, of course... The whole thing has been scummy.
Hopefully next (and first post suckers) by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:33 · Score: 0

They drop the G+ integration in Android. They keep replacing good apps like the offline photos one with ones that sync with or integrate with G+. Same with messaging (replaced by hangouts) and god knows what else.
1. Re:Hopefully next (and first post suckers) by will.perdikakis · 2014-09-23 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  How about dropping the G+ requirement for adding photos to a Hangouts conversation next? This is completely nonsense as well. I end up having to GMAIL images to the very same contact.
  
  --
  -Will P.
2. Re:Hopefully next (and first post suckers) by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't that the same as Apple having iMessage and FaceTime? It's the exactly the same. They're just calling it a different name, no difference functionality-wise.
Good move... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

Thank god... This was a TOP google annoyance. You had to be careful when signing up for the forced Google+ that you didn't inadvertently leave your permissions for sharing, +1's etc wide open to the public.
Not everyone wants every video they've marked to watch later tied back to their email address, tied back to their name on a public profile!
I never really understood it, it was so anti-customer and I actually reduced my usage of Google+ because of it. Google+'s initial appeal for me was what I felt like a more controlled sharing circles world. But then everything (Picasa web albums and photos, youtube activity) started to link into the profile. UGH! I've never posted a Google+ update since, even though I liked the way they handled photo's.
1. Re:Good move... by Copid · 2014-09-23 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly this. I want to keep Google, the company that knows everything about me and then some, totally separate from social media, a thing whose default beahvior seems to be to share whatever it knows about me with anybody I've ever met. Kept separate, both of those things have value. But let's be honest--Google has my email, records of most of my purchases, my web search history, and everything on my smart phone including GPS location stamps and call records. Why would I ever want to connect all that shit to a public data spew with constantly changing policies and behaviors? No good can come of it.
  
  --
  An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Who wants to bet... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:33 · Score: 1

.. that Google+'s days are numbered?
1. Re:Who wants to bet... by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-09-23 04:36 · Score: 2
  
  You mean Google+ is finally coming out of beta?
G+ What's that? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:37 · Score: 0

Lol, I would say google plus is a failure at this point. Nobody even recognizes the nickname "G+". They're trying too hard, and they're not quite hip. (Yes, Offspring)
I think the real problem is people aren't going to use google for their networks. At the very least, call it something else, and don't tether it with the "Google" brand name. I don't want some tethered offshoot. I want something new. Different than an extension of my email account. A new network.
Youtube was freed? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:37 · Score: 0

WOW, the most important news in a long time. I'm gonna run to it now.
OK, a little less trolling for a few days..
1. Re:Youtube was freed? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit youtube was freed. Why does it STILL keep telling me I have to set up a profile just to comment?
A step in the right direction by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 04:39 · Score: 0

The one I'm waiting for is the decoupling of Gmail from Google Play.
I have probably 3 Google accounts, but no Gmail account. That's not changing.
Do you still have to give phone # to YouTube? by istartedi · 2014-09-23 04:57 · Score: 1

Let me know when I don't have to give my phone number to YouTube. I became strictly a passive viewer when that happened.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Gaining new users' trust by tepples · 2014-09-23 04:59 · Score: 1

Perhaps the thinking is that if a service knows and presents the real names of existing users, new users are more likely to trust the service enough to provide their own real names and interests. One of the draws of Facebook, for example, is that users will see real names far more often.
1. Re:Gaining new users' trust by cayenne8 · 2014-09-23 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps the thinking is that if a service knows and presents the real names of existing users, new users are more likely to trust the service enough to provide their own real names and interests. One of the draws of Facebook, for example, is that users will see real names far more often.
  Yet another reason not to be on Facebook.
  ;)
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Can _I_ decouple? by dmatos · 2014-09-23 05:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

The real question, here, is whether or not I'll be able to decouple my gmail from the unused google+ profile that I had to create. I hate that I cannot have my real name on my email without having it spread all over the internet simultaneously.

--

It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
1. Re:Can _I_ decouple? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Last time I checked, there was a way to delete your G+ account, and still be able to use GMail, etc....I know of a few people that had done just that for various reasons...
2. Re:Can _I_ decouple? by SternisheFan · 2014-09-23 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  How to Delete Your Google+ Account http://lifehacker.com/how-to-d...
3. Re:Can _I_ decouple? by dmatos · 2014-09-23 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks! Done and done.
  Now I can change my gmail "display name" to be something other than my stupid, mandated Google+ name!
  
  --
  
  It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
  --Scott Adams
But will the Google Account bullshit remain? by Misagon · 2014-09-23 05:05 · Score: 2

When Google forced the Google+/Google account integration on the users, it wasn't just Google's "Social Network" that was forced upon us. The first hazzle I noticed was that I could not be logged in into Youtube and Gmail at the same time using the two different accounts that I had.
When I was logged into Youtube and wanted to check my mail, instead of a login prompt, I was prompted with a page offering me to "upgrade" the account, and vice versa.
I don't want the confidential correspondence I have with my doctor to be at the same security box as my list of favourite cat videos on Youtube. Youtube is used casually, while GMail is used seriously.
I still use Youtube and GMail a lot, but for a while now I use GMail exclusively in Private Browsing windows in Chromium, so that my credentials are kept separate. But I think that shouldn't be necessary.

--
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
YouTube and G+ by martiniturbide · 2014-09-23 05:09 · Score: 1

I don't think that Google+ is gone. For example I noticed that you can switch you identity on YouTube according to your "Pages" on Google+. I think that was a cool feature to allow your "Organization" to have a YouTube identity.
Play no longer appears to require Gmail by tepples · 2014-09-23 05:13 · Score: 1

The one I'm waiting for is the decoupling of Gmail from Google Play.
That happened when Android Market became Google Play. In the Android Market days, logging in to Android Market with a non-Gmail Google account sent the user to the Gmail registration process: "tepples@example.com does not use Gmail. Add Gmail to your Google Account." But around the time it became Google Play Store, and certainly by the release of the first-generation Nexus 7 tablet in mid-2012, Google started letting non-Gmail Google Account holders sign in to Google Play.
1. Re:Play no longer appears to require Gmail by aaron4801 · 2014-09-23 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  App ratings are still linked to G+. I'd like to contribute to the community by pointing out pros and cons in some apps, but it's just not worth the hassle.
2. Re:Play no longer appears to require Gmail by Kazymyr · 2014-09-23 06:44 · Score: 2
  
  Precisely. You can't rate or comment on an app without a G+ account. Which is why I haven't commented or rated any apps for the past 2 years.
  
  --
  I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
3. Re:Play no longer appears to require Gmail by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 10:06 · Score: 0
  
  My phone came with Android Market. How can I change it to Google Play without a Gmail account?
4. Re:Play no longer appears to require Gmail by tepples · 2014-09-23 12:24 · Score: 1
  On one device, when I opened Android Market after the name changed, it triggered an automatic update to Google Play Store. I don't know whether receiving this update requires first entering Gmail credentials because I was logged in at the time. I'm just guessing, but you could try these in order:
  
  Just try logging in. After the transition, it might let you in even without Gmail. If it still gives you the "does not use Gmail" error, try the following steps.
  Perhaps you could find one of your friends who has a Gmail account, have him or her log in, wait for the device to download and install the update, remove the Gmail credentials from the phone, and enter your own non-Gmail Google Account credentials.
  Buy a new phone. The Google Play transition happened in March 2012, between Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich" and Android 4.1 "Jelly Bean 1", and you should be ready for a new contract by now.
5. Re:Play no longer appears to require Gmail by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 20:18 · Score: 0
  
  This is a big problem. Nowadays the ratings are mostly given by "users" who are paid to do it, which has inflated the whole rating system. Not so many people think it is worth the trouble of creating a G+ account and give their personal information to Google just to be able to rate apps. And Google seems to have noticed this, as they are now trying to force new annoyance, "Google play games", which will open new dialog asking for G+ account each time I open certain games. If this will not stop soon, I'll just uninstall the games that do this.
What do they mean YouTube Freed? by cayenne8 · 2014-09-23 05:13 · Score: 3, Informative

What do they mean

First, YouTube was freed
???
I had an account on there from before YT was purchased by Google. Since the G+ requirement, which I resisted...I've not been able to comment on other videos, not even reply to comments on MY videos because it keeps popping up saying I need to associate it with a G+ account in order to post comments to YouTube.
I've not seen a change there. Is there a secret Mickey Mouse handshake one needs to know to fix this? I miss replying to people commenting on videos I post.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
1. Re:What do they mean YouTube Freed? by VGPowerlord · 2014-09-23 05:36 · Score: 2
  
  I don't know about if you've never had a Google+ profile, but I deleted mine earlier today and can still comment on my own videos... haven't tried replying to someone else, though.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
2. Re:What do they mean YouTube Freed? by NatasRevol · 2014-09-23 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  How do you delete your google+ profile?!?!?!
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
3. Re:What do they mean YouTube Freed? by VGPowerlord · 2014-09-23 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  I had to search every area of my Google+ profile's accounts section until I finally ran across the button to do so. I don't think their help pages even tell you the correct location for it, and now that my profile is deleted, I can't go back and tell where it was (it just prompts me to create a Google+ Profile when I do).
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
4. Re:What do they mean YouTube Freed? by Apotekaren · 2014-09-23 06:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Top left corner, Profile->Settings, scroll all the way down and find: Disable Google+
  Ah, the smell of freedom from that useless putrid thing!
  
  --
  She: Hey, are you a traitor? Me: No, I'm atheist.
5. Re:What do they mean YouTube Freed? by uncqual · 2014-09-23 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Try this (at your own risk of course): https://plus.google.com/downgrade/
  You may have to login.
  Read everything carefully - there appears to be no Undo and Goggle+'s spiky tentacles can reach far and wide in the Google environs.
  
  --
  Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
6. Re:What do they mean YouTube Freed? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 17:24 · Score: 0
  
  Try clearing your cache and cookies. -- make sure you have only a BLANK browser window open at the time. This can help sometimes if you are in some weird OAuth bug re-direct loop.
7. Re:What do they mean YouTube Freed? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-24 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  This.
  Been with YT since before google was anything beyond a decent search engine.
  It still wants me to update/change/channel or something my damn page or whatever to comment, so I refuse to.
  No traditional YT, no comments from me. Simple!
8. Re:What do they mean YouTube Freed? by NatasRevol · 2014-09-24 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, found it.
  Now comments won't load on youtube. Not that that's a huge loss, but...
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
9. Re:What do they mean YouTube Freed? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-24 21:51 · Score: 0
  
  freeeeeeedommmmmmmmmm
  thanks for the tip
Well all I got to say is the day im forced by Stan92057 · 2014-09-23 05:14 · Score: 1

Well all I got to say is the day im forced to become a G+ member will be the day I drop gmail. I don't want to be a social member, I don't want to share anything I do with anyone other then who I want too. Its the reason im not a fartbook member, its the reason I never had a myspace account. I even bet the assholes at google are proud they have to force people to become g+ members. Google CEOs.. see how many new members we got this month HEHEHEHEHEHEHHE. kinda like signing out of my yahoo email account, it forces me to go to there yahoo.com site. fake numbers to make themselves feel better.

--
Jack of all trades,master of none
1. Re:Well all I got to say is the day im forced by Darinbob · 2014-09-23 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  I joined G+ because it was not Facebook. You can decide exactly who you share with, and you can follow other people without them also following you (ie, no pretending that the b-list celebrity is your friend).
  I don't necessarily think Google is proud of Google+ or care about the numbers, Google treats G+ like a stray dog at the door, same as Google treats all its services.
Event Scheduling by Scottingham · 2014-09-23 05:18 · Score: 1

The only legit reason I continue to use Facebook is that it is good for keeping track of upcoming events (parties, concerts, etc). G+ did not have any comparable feature. If it did, and did so cleanly without all the other FB-esque trash that went along with it, I'm sure many (of at least my)people would have dumped FB.
1. Re:Event Scheduling by ArtDent · 2014-09-23 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  G+ didn't have it at launch, but they added Events about a year in. It's awesome, with Google Calendar integration and even auto-backup photo sharing.
  The problem, as always, is that most people don't use G+ and everyone uses Facebook.
Stop bundling. by ledow · 2014-09-23 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have a social networking account already, thanks.
I have an email account already, thanks
I have a cloud storage account already, thanks.
I have a search engine already, thanks.
I have an instant messenger already, thanks.
When you try to do EVERYTHING, you believe that all your customers will drop everything they have years invested in and run to you. Doesn't work out that way. And if you get over-precious and try to force them to do it, well, that doesn't go down well either.
So run them as separate, independent services that I *can* join together if I want to (it's handy to be able to sign into Google Drive with my old GMail account, for example, but don't FORCE that upon me).
In the same way that if you sell me TV, phone, Internet, water, gas, electricity, burglar alarm and music lessons - and then try to "punish" me for not using one of them, or force me to use one in order to get another - chances are that I won't use any of them. Whereas if you just ran them all as separate services, I might well decide to lump in TV, phone and Internet into a single package for convenience. But you have to think about what happens when I'm perfectly happy with my Internet provider and DO NOT want to change. If your offerings are that inflexible that you won't let me use one without the others - even if the others are useless to me - then I'm likely to find yet-another-company that will do, say, my email without requiring me to sign up to their social network too.
This is exactly how I viewed things. I was one of the first GMail accounts, back when they were invite-only and nobody knew they existed. It took over from my Hotmail (primarily because my Hotmail account was trying to tie into my Windows Live account, and into my Microsoft account, etc. etc. etc.). And when G+ came along, I looked and deliberately decided against it. The more the pushed, to more I ignored.
It never got to the point where it became a hassle to opt-out, even when it did become annoying, so I'm still on GMail but not G+. Hence, it's not a shock to me that probably a lot of other people did exactly the same.
Just because you offer "your" Facebook, doesn't mean I'll immediately move everything off my Facebook to change to you. No matter how good you are.
1. Re:Stop bundling. by dysmal · 2014-09-23 06:11 · Score: 2
  
  I completely agree. This "bundle" mentality is frustrating. Not everyone wants the entire package. I don't like having all of my eggs in one basket because then i'm at the mercy of the whims of the company i'm dealing with. Technology is constantly changing. Products are always changing. I may not necessarily WANT to use your product in 6 months after you ram the latest update down my throat (Gnome, FireFox, Facebook, Windows 8, etc).
2. Re:Stop bundling. by Darinbob · 2014-09-23 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'm personally tired of the google+ bashing. Everyone feels like google+ is being forced on them as the one and only undesirable google service. Look at it from the other side, google+ users are sick and tired of having google forced on them, or getting automatic youtube accounts, or having it linked to our android phones. We just want a nice social media site that is maintained and improved and that is not facebook.
3. Re:Stop bundling. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  This, this so much.
  If I WANTED to actually make a Google account to link everything together, then I should be allowed to do that.
  But if I don't want any of those services to share any information between each other, I should be able to do that as well.
  It's not like they won't be able to "link them together" on their end for advertising anyway, for the average user, which is who the mainly aim for.
  Personally I like the integrated account, but I can see why so many people would hate it immensely.
  Youtube + gmail is a very common hatred, being unable to sign in to 2 separate accounts, say if someone had a personal youtube account, and a business email address. Now they need to use incognito window, or a separate profile window if the browser supports it, or even another browser entirely.
  I have multiple emails myself, junk, backup (recovery really), regular, work, super-secure (financial stuff only) and public.
  I tend to just incognito when and if I need them. I'm rarely needing more than 2 accounts at any one time.
G+ is an utter failure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 05:56 · Score: 0

The next step is for Google to kill G+ like it killed its other failed social site Orkut.
1. Re:G+ is an utter failure by dysmal · 2014-09-23 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Nah. They'll just duct tape it onto Youtube.
still loving my g+ account by Gnaythan1 · 2014-09-23 06:22 · Score: 2

Had it a couple years now, and still using it daily. made a lot of friends on there, and I've had some fantastic debates. I still post two or three times a day to g+ and I've got around 14000 followers.
1. Re:still loving my g+ account by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  WUT. You're claiming that G+ has 14,000 users. How is that possible, when everybody knows that there are less than 14 actual G+ users? :P
2. Re:still loving my g+ account by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Had it a couple years now, and still using it daily. made a lot of friends on there, and I've had some fantastic debates. I still post two or three times a day to g+ and I've got around 14000 followers.
  Obvious shill.
the core problem by epine · 2014-09-23 08:09 · Score: 1

The core problem is not Google+ (pustulent imposition that it was) but that Google does not provide clean answers about anything it does. Google's motto has long ceased being "don't be evil" and morphed into "that's for us to know, and users to divine".
My view is that happiness in life is directly proportional to eliminating all forms of "X behind a curtain" where X is man, woman, beast, tyrant, saint, priest, missionary, Smallpox vector, committee, club, association, organization, governmental body, natural, supernatural, mythical, legendary, or outright fabrication.
Google as presently configured is not a conduit of happiness in this world.
Re:/. BETA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 12:19 · Score: 0

I am still dreaming of the day when the fucking beta will also 'quietly' be put to rest.
Perhaps we need to say it loudly and proudly: FUCK the FUCKING BETA
Can you hear me now?
Re:Yahoo and Google now both want you to "verify" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-23 12:37 · Score: 0

Interestingly, Evernote (a cloud based note synchronizing program for pcs and phones) was asking for my phone number for "password recovery purposes" just last week. I declined their offer.
I don't even have a phone by HalAtWork · 2014-09-23 15:43 · Score: 1

What do they expect me to do? I don't even have a phone! I'm glad I created my account before this crap.

--
Twinstiq, game news