4 ms·

Google: If your profile is under review, you will not be able to make full use of Google services that require an active profile such as Google+, Buzz, and some

Google: If your profile is under review, you will not be able to make full use of Google services that require an active profile such as Google+, Buzz, and some social features of Reader and Picasa Web Albums. For example, on Buzz, you can't create content, on Reader you can't share items with other users or follow other users, and on Picasa Web Albums you can't comment on photos. That's funny, I thought Google "explicitly said the no other service of theirs will be affected." [1] and that "Other services aren't affected. Period." [2] Seems like the people who support this G+ policy have just been flat out lying. Period. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2907098 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2907098 [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2907104 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2907104

tmtonight 15y ago
"Do no evil" is now satire
- Rusky 15y ago
  It's "Don't be evil": http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/000936.html http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/...
- kevinh 15y ago
  Is depriving people of social networking features truly evil? It's "Don't be evil," not "Don't do things that people don't like." Now, there may be other cases in which you may be able to correctly accuse Google of being "evil," but I don't think this is one of those.
masklinn 15y ago
> Seems like the people who support this G+ policy have just been flat out lying. Period. Of course they have, Google's goal has long been to coalesce all their services under a single ur-account (hence youtube accounts being dead and the complete mess when you have both "personal" and professional "google apps & shit" accounts), when that account gets restricted/halfbanned how could the restrictions be localized? The more time passes and the more dangerous relying on Google's services gets: if you or they fuck something up, half your online existence suddenly gets unavailable. And since Google has proven twitchy with the ban button and still provides no way to reach anybody unless you can make a major splash across the web, it's like playing russian roulette on your own with 5 chambers full.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ableal 15y ago
  Yesterday Google mail was having conniption fits about "invalid cookies" in one of my machines (personal + business gmail). Trying to get to the settings page only led to the same error page advising clearing browser cache and cookies. Ended up having to clear all cookies - just the obviously googly ones didn't work first time.
rryan 15y ago
So, your evidence is an HN commenter? They have mentioned that social services like Buzz and features of Reader and Picasa would be affected. You could imagine the share feature of any service which will be extended to share to G+ will be impacted -- that doesn't mean the service will be cut off entirely, probably just its social features.
- anon1385 15y ago
  Evidence? Evidence for what? Perhaps it was unclear, but I was suggesting that the people who have been defending Google over this, on HN and elsewhere, have been putting forth a lot of misinformation, so that is what I provided evidence of. I've seen no official statement from Google saying that other services aren't affected, and clearly they are as this latest statement confirms. Yet just a few days ago people who had had their G+ accounts closed were told on this site that they were wrong to spread the "vicious rumour" that other services were affected. I was baffled by the level of aggression shown towards those who were critical of the policy and those who related their personal experiences (words like "obnoxious entitlement" and so on being used). My comment was not about contradictions in Google's public statements (which I'm not aware of, except at a broader policy level, for example their statements about Korea's real-name policy [1]), but about the attitudes of those who defend Google on this site and elsewhere. [1] http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/google_tests_th.php http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/goog...
waitwhat 15y ago
For example, on Buzz, you can't create content, on Reader you can't share items with other users or follow other users, and on Picasa Web Albums you can't comment on photos. Honestly, what did you expect to happen if you try and use social features of Google services when those social features rely on Google+, and your Google+ profile has been suspended? Of course it's not going to work. Or did you really think that they would maintain the pre-Google+ code and functionality indefinitely just so that suspended users can have their own weird eco-system where they only get to interact with each other?

tmtonight 15y ago

"Do no evil" is now satire

Rusky 15y ago
It's "Don't be evil": http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/000936.html http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2011-August/...
kevinh 15y ago
Is depriving people of social networking features truly evil? It's "Don't be evil," not "Don't do things that people don't like." Now, there may be other cases in which you may be able to correctly accuse Google of being "evil," but I don't think this is one of those.

masklinn 15y ago

> Seems like the people who support this G+ policy have just been flat out lying. Period. Of course they have, Google's goal has long been to coalesce all their services under a single ur-account (hence youtube accounts being dead and the complete mess when you have both "personal" and professional "google apps & shit" accounts), when that account gets restricted/halfbanned how could the restrictions be localized? The more time passes and the more dangerous relying on Google's services gets: if you or they fuck something up, half your online existence suddenly gets unavailable. And since Google has proven twitchy with the ban button and still provides no way to reach anybody unless you can make a major splash across the web, it's like playing russian roulette on your own with 5 chambers full.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ableal 15y ago
Yesterday Google mail was having conniption fits about "invalid cookies" in one of my machines (personal + business gmail). Trying to get to the settings page only led to the same error page advising clearing browser cache and cookies. Ended up having to clear all cookies - just the obviously googly ones didn't work first time.

rryan 15y ago

So, your evidence is an HN commenter? They have mentioned that social services like Buzz and features of Reader and Picasa would be affected. You could imagine the share feature of any service which will be extended to share to G+ will be impacted -- that doesn't mean the service will be cut off entirely, probably just its social features.

anon1385 15y ago
Evidence? Evidence for what? Perhaps it was unclear, but I was suggesting that the people who have been defending Google over this, on HN and elsewhere, have been putting forth a lot of misinformation, so that is what I provided evidence of. I've seen no official statement from Google saying that other services aren't affected, and clearly they are as this latest statement confirms. Yet just a few days ago people who had had their G+ accounts closed were told on this site that they were wrong to spread the "vicious rumour" that other services were affected. I was baffled by the level of aggression shown towards those who were critical of the policy and those who related their personal experiences (words like "obnoxious entitlement" and so on being used). My comment was not about contradictions in Google's public statements (which I'm not aware of, except at a broader policy level, for example their statements about Korea's real-name policy [1]), but about the attitudes of those who defend Google on this site and elsewhere. [1] http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/google_tests_th.php http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2009/04/goog...

waitwhat 15y ago

For example, on Buzz, you can't create content, on Reader you can't share items with other users or follow other users, and on Picasa Web Albums you can't comment on photos. Honestly, what did you expect to happen if you try and use social features of Google services when those social features rely on Google+, and your Google+ profile has been suspended? Of course it's not going to work. Or did you really think that they would maintain the pre-Google+ code and functionality indefinitely just so that suspended users can have their own weird eco-system where they only get to interact with each other?