It's a fair point, nobody has to use it, that's true.
But what I don't like is that there are exceptions like for "Madonna" and maybe others as well.
Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
21–30 of 87 posts
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#22I'm not sure how much of that is improvisation on Eric's part or how much of his original meaning was preserved in the paraphrase, either way I doubt he is involved with the development of G+.
Not that there was much wrong with what was said, but if you're after some real insight here is a recent interview with Bradley Horowitz were he touches on psuedonyms, and basically says that the service will be more inclusive as it matures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5sRC67s9fg#t=26m25s
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#23Losing hope in G+ very fast. They're going to make the same mistakes that are killing Facebook. I'm also concerned about them selling data from G+, since Schmidt describes it as an identity service. It's a very evil concept.
I don't see how it is an "evil concept", I think what he means by identity service is a platform on which they can build social apps, it's same as social network. And I'm quite annoyed by claims that associate a real identity requirement with selling data or ad targeting and such, they can target well enough using interests, not sure your name improves much on it. Also instead of speculating read the service's privac…
Speaking as a caucasian male with a name that's basically unique in the world (there is only one person who has my name but that might have been a typo in the article as every where else he uses a different last name), having my name improves their ad targeting considerably.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#24Once again I repeat: Google+ is dead . It's over.
I wish I could agree with you but for so many people this isn't an issue. It will probably do fine regardless of how us geeks feel about it.
In my view the naming issue is just a distraction. The bigger problem is that Google+ was always living off nerd hype whereas facebook(its main competitor) didn't come into nerd limelight until several years after launch.
I really wasn't talking about any specific issue. Google+ is dead because it has little traction/engagement and most importantly, no focused plan of growth.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how it is an "evil concept", I think what he means by identity service is a platform on which they can build social apps, it's same as social network. And I'm quite annoyed by claims that associate a real identity requirement with selling data or ad targeting and such, they can target well enough using interests, not sure your name improves much on it. Also instead of speculating read the service's privac…
Speaking as a caucasian male with a name that's basically unique in the world (there is only one person who has my name but that might have been a typo in the article as every where else he uses a different last name), having my name improves their ad targeting considerably.
What does the fact you are a Caucasian male have to do with your point?
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#26I prefer anonymity. Google knows too much about me already, I'd prefer they stop trying to make every fact about me known by the servers that serve me pages. I don't want every link on the internet an opportunity for the authorities to stop that click event.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#27Losing hope in G+ very fast. They're going to make the same mistakes that are killing Facebook. I'm also concerned about them selling data from G+, since Schmidt describes it as an identity service. It's a very evil concept.
I don't see how it is an "evil concept", I think what he means by identity service is a platform on which they can build social apps, it's same as social network. And I'm quite annoyed by claims that associate a real identity requirement with selling data or ad targeting and such, they can target well enough using interests, not sure your name improves much on it. Also instead of speculating read the service's privac…
Its because the root motivation most people including myself see is that its about control. And things that try and control other things are evil.
Years ago Google was a disruption force towards existing controlling organisations. Now Google are trying to prevent disruptive technologies eroding their market share.
Hence they have joined the ranks of the old guard such as Microsoft, IBM, Apple etc... those desiring control, and hence arguably evil.
Just the nature of business, they don't really have a choice, and many respects are bound by law to become 'evil'.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how it is an "evil concept", I think what he means by identity service is a platform on which they can build social apps, it's same as social network. And I'm quite annoyed by claims that associate a real identity requirement with selling data or ad targeting and such, they can target well enough using interests, not sure your name improves much on it. Also instead of speculating read the service's privac…
Speaking as a caucasian male with a name that's basically unique in the world (there is only one person who has my name but that might have been a typo in the article as every where else he uses a different last name), having my name improves their ad targeting considerably.
Be that as it may, do think the primary reason for insisting on real names is to target ads better? they first need a sufficient critical mass to implement that, their reasons are different, at least in this early stage.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#29If so, it is an identity service run by an advertising company.
Re: Eric Schmidt describes Google+ as an "identity service"
#30I prefer anonymity. Google knows too much about me already, I'd prefer they stop trying to make every fact about me known by the servers that serve me pages. I don't want every link on the internet an opportunity for the authorities to stop that click event.
Agreed. Just because I may be anonymous doesn't automatically mean I'm evil.