8 ms·

Well, I've had difficulty opting out, and new Google accounts are linked to Google+ by default. E.g.: I have an Android phone and I would like to rate a scam a

by kaoD 14y ago

Well, I've had difficulty opting out, and new Google accounts are linked to Google+ by default. E.g.: I have an Android phone and I would like to rate a scam app so people don't download it. Oops, it's not possible without a Google+ account. See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5535556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5535556

knightzero 14y ago
Google is trying to consolidate all of their services under one account. Like it or not a Google+ is just public facing page for a Google account. In away it dose make sense and answers an age old internet problem. It requires users to be responsible for what they put online.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  Yea, people who oppose China's human rights policies while living in China need to step up and stop hiding behind anonymity, the cowards!
  - knightzero 14y ago
    Yes, you are right. I can see how requiring your name when rating an android app or commenting on a YouTube video would drastically affect human rights activists in China. I am sorry if you are expecting a company whose business model revolves around selling user information to protect your anonymity, then you are going to have a bad time. A company like Google is going to comply to government request for information, that is why we have services, utilities, and tools that protect your anonymity online. Google is doing nothing wrong by asking for your name (they probably have it anyways). However, if they where blocking search results to prevent your anonymity, that is a different story altogether. In a case like China, it is the government that is doing the blocking and Google has no choice in the matter if they want to do business there.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      I was addressing your comment about "take responsibly for what you put online". We need the ability to be anonymous because sometimes things that need to be said simply can't be said if you're not anonymous.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Why do you think people should be? There is value to anonymity, just not to Google. Therefore they are trying to eliminate it.
  - knightzero 14y ago
    From an engineering stand point it cuts down on spam and false comments. If you have your name tied to a review chances are you are going to be more honest. Don't get me wrong anonymity is extremely important on the web, but you can't deny that it is abused. Look at the current state of YouTube. YouTube has some of the nastiest comments around. Instead of censoring, Google had an idea to tie your name to your comments. If you read comments by users using their name they aren't saying things like "Go f* yourself you fing fg. I f*ed your mother last night". The truth of the matter is everyone loves to attack Google for Google+, but the real threat to anonymity are companies that write and sponsor bills like SOPA, PIPA, and CISPA.
tomkarlo 14y ago
While you may not want to comment on Google Play apps publicly, there's a lot of value for other users in being able to see what their actual friends said about an app rather than just random anonymous commenters. (And we've seen the issues on places like Amazon with ratings spamming.) It's just reality that some features may benefit the larger population but might not be to your taste - obviously every feature can't be loved by every user - but I'm not sure that justifies rage.
- zero_intp 14y ago
  "[...] value for other users in being able to see what their actual friends said about an app [...]" Problem: I add value to their ecosystem at the expense of my anonymity. Loosing my anonymity does not return the value to me in any use case.
- cbr 14y ago
  "we've seen the issues on places like Amazon with ratings spamming" My experience with Amazon ratings is that they've been accurate and useful. If there's a spam problem Amazon is dealing with it well, without requiring "real names" or social connections.
  - mamoswined 14y ago
    The ratings on Amazon for things like pots and pans are fine and useful. Books seem to be the main target for spamming.
sshumaker 14y ago
I think you're fixating on Google+ as a social network, when that's not really the point. Google+ is meant to serve as an identity layer for Google, so you don't have a bunch of different logins / passwords to silo-ed properties, which makes a frustrating user experience. They give you pretty damn good tools for deciding what parts of the identity are shared for this exact reason. You can enable Google+ and basically ignore the 'destination social network' entirely if that's what you want. As for having Play store comments attached to your G+ identity, what is your complaint there? I'm sure the quality of reviews is way higher when you can't hide behind an anonymous account.
- coldtea 14y ago
  >I think you're fixating on Google+ as a social network, when that's not really the point. Google+ is meant to serve as an identity layer for Google, so you don't have a bunch of different logins / passwords to silo-ed properties, which makes a frustrating user experience. No, it's not meant like that at all. Google didn't create Google+ to have a single sign on. It created it specifically to compete with Facebook. (As if the crap that Google+ is, as a social network, ever had a chance). The SSO thing was forced upon Google to unwilling users of its disparate services. I, for one, never wanted my YouTube account linked to my Gmail account etc.
  - sshumaker 14y ago
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57413309-93/larry-page-google-is-the-social-spine/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57413309-93/larry-page-goog... "[Larry Page] ... called [G+] the "social spine," reminding listeners that the service isn't just a destination, but a unifying social framework for all Google's products." First off, Google allows you to have multiple identities with SSO. And I find it hard to argue that it's not a good thing for 99% of the user base. Managing multiple accounts sucks, and being able to share between them (and supporting a very rich set of privacy tools) is a win for most users. A genuine question: Why don't you want your YouTube account linked to your Gmail?
    - kaoD 14y ago

by kaoD 14y ago

knightzero 14y ago

Google is trying to consolidate all of their services under one account. Like it or not a Google+ is just public facing page for a Google account. In away it dose make sense and answers an age old internet problem. It requires users to be responsible for what they put online.

flyinRyan 14y ago
Yea, people who oppose China's human rights policies while living in China need to step up and stop hiding behind anonymity, the cowards!
- knightzero 14y ago
  Yes, you are right. I can see how requiring your name when rating an android app or commenting on a YouTube video would drastically affect human rights activists in China. I am sorry if you are expecting a company whose business model revolves around selling user information to protect your anonymity, then you are going to have a bad time. A company like Google is going to comply to government request for information, that is why we have services, utilities, and tools that protect your anonymity online. Google is doing nothing wrong by asking for your name (they probably have it anyways). However, if they where blocking search results to prevent your anonymity, that is a different story altogether. In a case like China, it is the government that is doing the blocking and Google has no choice in the matter if they want to do business there.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    I was addressing your comment about "take responsibly for what you put online". We need the ability to be anonymous because sometimes things that need to be said simply can't be said if you're not anonymous.
hackinthebochs 14y ago
Why do you think people should be? There is value to anonymity, just not to Google. Therefore they are trying to eliminate it.
- knightzero 14y ago
  From an engineering stand point it cuts down on spam and false comments. If you have your name tied to a review chances are you are going to be more honest. Don't get me wrong anonymity is extremely important on the web, but you can't deny that it is abused. Look at the current state of YouTube. YouTube has some of the nastiest comments around. Instead of censoring, Google had an idea to tie your name to your comments. If you read comments by users using their name they aren't saying things like "Go f* yourself you fing fg. I f*ed your mother last night". The truth of the matter is everyone loves to attack Google for Google+, but the real threat to anonymity are companies that write and sponsor bills like SOPA, PIPA, and CISPA.

tomkarlo 14y ago

While you may not want to comment on Google Play apps publicly, there's a lot of value for other users in being able to see what their actual friends said about an app rather than just random anonymous commenters. (And we've seen the issues on places like Amazon with ratings spamming.) It's just reality that some features may benefit the larger population but might not be to your taste - obviously every feature can't be loved by every user - but I'm not sure that justifies rage.

zero_intp 14y ago
"[...] value for other users in being able to see what their actual friends said about an app [...]" Problem: I add value to their ecosystem at the expense of my anonymity. Loosing my anonymity does not return the value to me in any use case.
cbr 14y ago
"we've seen the issues on places like Amazon with ratings spamming" My experience with Amazon ratings is that they've been accurate and useful. If there's a spam problem Amazon is dealing with it well, without requiring "real names" or social connections.
- mamoswined 14y ago
  The ratings on Amazon for things like pots and pans are fine and useful. Books seem to be the main target for spamming.

sshumaker 14y ago

I think you're fixating on Google+ as a social network, when that's not really the point. Google+ is meant to serve as an identity layer for Google, so you don't have a bunch of different logins / passwords to silo-ed properties, which makes a frustrating user experience. They give you pretty damn good tools for deciding what parts of the identity are shared for this exact reason. You can enable Google+ and basically ignore the 'destination social network' entirely if that's what you want. As for having Play store comments attached to your G+ identity, what is your complaint there? I'm sure the quality of reviews is way higher when you can't hide behind an anonymous account.

coldtea 14y ago
>I think you're fixating on Google+ as a social network, when that's not really the point. Google+ is meant to serve as an identity layer for Google, so you don't have a bunch of different logins / passwords to silo-ed properties, which makes a frustrating user experience. No, it's not meant like that at all. Google didn't create Google+ to have a single sign on. It created it specifically to compete with Facebook. (As if the crap that Google+ is, as a social network, ever had a chance). The SSO thing was forced upon Google to unwilling users of its disparate services. I, for one, never wanted my YouTube account linked to my Gmail account etc.
- sshumaker 14y ago
  http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57413309-93/larry-page-google-is-the-social-spine/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57413309-93/larry-page-goog... "[Larry Page] ... called [G+] the "social spine," reminding listeners that the service isn't just a destination, but a unifying social framework for all Google's products." First off, Google allows you to have multiple identities with SSO. And I find it hard to argue that it's not a good thing for 99% of the user base. Managing multiple accounts sucks, and being able to share between them (and supporting a very rich set of privacy tools) is a win for most users. A genuine question: Why don't you want your YouTube account linked to your Gmail?
  - kaoD 14y ago