5 ms·

My gmail account isn't under my real name. I imagine Google will kill it at some point despite me having signed up before G+. It's funny, I thought G+ could be

by wnight 15y ago

My gmail account isn't under my real name. I imagine Google will kill it at some point despite me having signed up before G+. It's funny, I thought G+ could be the social network to replace FB and now it looks like I'll probably leave Google to avoid it. Weird.

shithead 15y ago
That creep Zuckerberg must be laughing his ass off. He could not have bought such a dumb move to help keep users on F_c_book.
- shithead 15y ago
  http://uncrunched.com/2011/10/01/brutal-dishonesty/ http://uncrunched.com/2011/10/01/brutal-dishonesty/ : "A method is described for tracking information about the activities of users of a social networking system while on another domain." – Facebook Patent application dated September 22, 2011 Creeps and liars. Google must be shooting for just sincerely creepy. Competitive advantage there.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
jamesaguilar 15y ago
> I imagine Google will kill it at some point This seems fantastically unlikely (one might say FUD-ish) given their numerous public statements to the contrary, e.g. in this article: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/google-revises-google-real-name-management-policy/1278 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/google-revises-google-r...
- tybris 15y ago
  My uncle's Google account was just shut down after they asked his age (for "personalization") and he filled in 1-1-2000, which is under 18. He had to send them a copy of his passport to reopen the account.
  - magicalist 15y ago
    it's more likely because it's under 13, which will get you kicked from a lot of services.
    - gurkendoktor 15y ago
      Then they should make a checkbox for that instead of requiring the exact birthdate.
      - jonknee 15y ago
        Luckily Google has attorneys that they get legal advice from, not hackers: http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm "Ask age information in a neutral manner at the point where you invite visitors to provide personal information or to create their log-in user ID. In designing a neutral age-screening mechanism, you might consider: - Making sure the data entry point allows users to enter their age accurately. An example of a neutral age-screen would be a system that allows a user to freely enter month, day, and year of birth. A site that includes a drop-down menu that only permits users to enter birth years making them 13 or older, would not be considered a neutral age-screening mechanism since children cannot enter their correct age on that site. - Not encouraging children to falsify their age information, for example, by stating that visitors under 13 cannot participate on your website or should ask their parents before participating. In addition, a site that does not ask for neutral date of birth information but rather simply includes a check box stating “I am over 12 years old” would not be considered a neutral age-screening mechanism. - In addition, we recommend using a temporary or a permanent cookie to prevent children from back-buttoning to enter a different age."
        wnight 15y ago
        How horrible. When asking an adult for proof of date-of-birth we clearly say "Because you can't come in and buy beer until you're 21". But kids don't get that respect. There's no worse way to handle this. It teaches kids to lie and there's no reason a less-than-13yo shouldn't have access to email anyways. Yes, it is the law, but it's just wrong.
- wnight 15y ago
  Admittedly they do say "It is a myth your entire Google account will be suspended because of violating the G+ real-name policy". But they do not say, and would have to to make me comfortable, "we will not force any G+/real-name policies on users of other Google services". They're just saying they won't just suspend you over it, not that they won't force a transition at some point. I don't fear for my data with Google like I would with other companies, but the continuity of that address is its value. If I'm forced to change it I won't bother coming back.
danmaz74 15y ago
On gmail there are millions of non-personal addresses. Why would google kill those? Gmail isn't an "identity service"...
- wnight 15y ago
  Sure, but they appear to be moving to single-sign-in for all their services and that single thing is a real-name based identity service. Google has reportedly closed other accounts that predated G+ for G+ problems. I don't know if they'll push that to gmail too but they haven't said they won't. I'm not calling them bastards based on no evidence or anything but I'm not using gmail for anything important because I can't really count on it.
cageface 15y ago
I had exactly the same reaction. G+ woke me up to just how much information one company had about me and how dishonest they were willing to be about the reasons for their policies surrounding that information. Rather than G+ driving me into Google's arms it drove me out.

by wnight 15y ago

shithead 15y ago

That creep Zuckerberg must be laughing his ass off. He could not have bought such a dumb move to help keep users on F_c_book.

shithead 15y ago
http://uncrunched.com/2011/10/01/brutal-dishonesty/ http://uncrunched.com/2011/10/01/brutal-dishonesty/ : "A method is described for tracking information about the activities of users of a social networking system while on another domain." – Facebook Patent application dated September 22, 2011 Creeps and liars. Google must be shooting for just sincerely creepy. Competitive advantage there.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

jamesaguilar 15y ago

> I imagine Google will kill it at some point This seems fantastically unlikely (one might say FUD-ish) given their numerous public statements to the contrary, e.g. in this article: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/google-revises-google-real-name-management-policy/1278 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/google-revises-google-r...

tybris 15y ago
My uncle's Google account was just shut down after they asked his age (for "personalization") and he filled in 1-1-2000, which is under 18. He had to send them a copy of his passport to reopen the account.
- magicalist 15y ago
  it's more likely because it's under 13, which will get you kicked from a lot of services.
  - gurkendoktor 15y ago
    Then they should make a checkbox for that instead of requiring the exact birthdate.
    - jonknee 15y ago
      Luckily Google has attorneys that they get legal advice from, not hackers: http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm "Ask age information in a neutral manner at the point where you invite visitors to provide personal information or to create their log-in user ID. In designing a neutral age-screening mechanism, you might consider: - Making sure the data entry point allows users to enter their age accurately. An example of a neutral age-screen would be a system that allows a user to freely enter month, day, and year of birth. A site that includes a drop-down menu that only permits users to enter birth years making them 13 or older, would not be considered a neutral age-screening mechanism since children cannot enter their correct age on that site. - Not encouraging children to falsify their age information, for example, by stating that visitors under 13 cannot participate on your website or should ask their parents before participating. In addition, a site that does not ask for neutral date of birth information but rather simply includes a check box stating “I am over 12 years old” would not be considered a neutral age-screening mechanism. - In addition, we recommend using a temporary or a permanent cookie to prevent children from back-buttoning to enter a different age."
      - wnight 15y ago
        How horrible. When asking an adult for proof of date-of-birth we clearly say "Because you can't come in and buy beer until you're 21". But kids don't get that respect. There's no worse way to handle this. It teaches kids to lie and there's no reason a less-than-13yo shouldn't have access to email anyways. Yes, it is the law, but it's just wrong.
wnight 15y ago
Admittedly they do say "It is a myth your entire Google account will be suspended because of violating the G+ real-name policy". But they do not say, and would have to to make me comfortable, "we will not force any G+/real-name policies on users of other Google services". They're just saying they won't just suspend you over it, not that they won't force a transition at some point. I don't fear for my data with Google like I would with other companies, but the continuity of that address is its value. If I'm forced to change it I won't bother coming back.

danmaz74 15y ago

On gmail there are millions of non-personal addresses. Why would google kill those? Gmail isn't an "identity service"...

wnight 15y ago
Sure, but they appear to be moving to single-sign-in for all their services and that single thing is a real-name based identity service. Google has reportedly closed other accounts that predated G+ for G+ problems. I don't know if they'll push that to gmail too but they haven't said they won't. I'm not calling them bastards based on no evidence or anything but I'm not using gmail for anything important because I can't really count on it.

cageface 15y ago

I had exactly the same reaction. G+ woke me up to just how much information one company had about me and how dishonest they were willing to be about the reasons for their policies surrounding that information. Rather than G+ driving me into Google's arms it drove me out.