3 ms·

I felt bullied into using G+, especially on youtube because of the real name policy, so I mostly avoid it like the plague. Obviously I do have to use a G+ accou

I felt bullied into using G+, especially on youtube because of the real name policy, so I mostly avoid it like the plague. Obviously I do have to use a G+ account to log into google services. It's a failure as far as I'm concerned but Google has stated that they've got what they wanted, unified user accounts and a bunch of real names and personal info. They are probably right, many people I know do have a real name G+ account, but I know almost no one who actually uses "Google Facebook".

danudey 12y ago
I've refused to create a G+ profile, solely because of all of the 'features' they add which aren't actually features at all. Features like 'you can have a public page with your real name on it!' (no thanks) or 'you can post huge long YouTube comments with link spam and ascii penises' (I don't comment on YouTube). For me, (and, I suspect, most users) the only 'benefits' to creating a G+ account were the things that Google took away from people who didn't have one. Posting comments to YouTube, hassle-free YouTube sign-in, Google 'Hangouts' (which used to be Gtalk Messenger which no one I know uses anymore anyway), and so on. The worst part is, Google could have made it far more palatable by not linking what they 'wanted' (unified accounts, real names, personal info, etc.) with their fated-to-fail paint-by-number social network. If they had framed their pitch as 'Upgrade your Google Account to a Google ID, and you get all the benefits of unified account management (and more features down the road), including access to Google+, our latest social media thing…' then it would have been much more palatable. A new account format so I don't have to re-enter data all the time? A new ID framework that apps/OAuth/Android/etc. can use? A perfect example of why Google IDs are a good idea, the new Google+ service that they couldn't have built without it? Sign me up! But instead, it came across as 'we made a social network but no one's using it so from now on if you want YouTube you need to sign up for this other social network you don't want and if you use not your real name then we'll close your account and delete all your stuff.'

danudey 12y ago

I've refused to create a G+ profile, solely because of all of the 'features' they add which aren't actually features at all. Features like 'you can have a public page with your real name on it!' (no thanks) or 'you can post huge long YouTube comments with link spam and ascii penises' (I don't comment on YouTube). For me, (and, I suspect, most users) the only 'benefits' to creating a G+ account were the things that Google took away from people who didn't have one. Posting comments to YouTube, hassle-free YouTube sign-in, Google 'Hangouts' (which used to be Gtalk Messenger which no one I know uses anymore anyway), and so on. The worst part is, Google could have made it far more palatable by not linking what they 'wanted' (unified accounts, real names, personal info, etc.) with their fated-to-fail paint-by-number social network. If they had framed their pitch as 'Upgrade your Google Account to a Google ID, and you get all the benefits of unified account management (and more features down the road), including access to Google+, our latest social media thing…' then it would have been much more palatable. A new account format so I don't have to re-enter data all the time? A new ID framework that apps/OAuth/Android/etc. can use? A perfect example of why Google IDs are a good idea, the new Google+ service that they couldn't have built without it? Sign me up! But instead, it came across as 'we made a social network but no one's using it so from now on if you want YouTube you need to sign up for this other social network you don't want and if you use not your real name then we'll close your account and delete all your stuff.'