Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear Googles: G+/YouTube Anschluss – you've done outed me

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 189 posts

Re: Dear Googles: G+/YouTube Anschluss – you've done outed me

#141

Post by djillionsmix »

alexeisadeski3 wrote: post #73
rb2e wrote: post #71

Having a Google plus account linked to YouTube with real name policy has not stopped the trolls and poisonous commenters. They have just carried on as usual. Now it has just made it easier with spammers, blackhats now able to leave links on their comments. Sure they can be deleted with an hour or so but that one hour is all you need to spread your payload. The only people who the real name policy punishes is the real…

Agreed on all points, but I'd just like to add: Never saw the issue with YouTube comments. Always was much ado about nothing. So people were immature - it's funny. So people were insulting - grow up, they're having fun. This whole movement to control YouTube comments reeks more of management's personal embarrassment that their customers weren't as serious and high class as they. Again, grow up. Not everyone is like y…

>Never saw the issue with YouTube comments. Always was much ado about nothing. So people were immature - it's funny. So people were insulting - grow up, they're having fun.

It's a splinter/beam problem: the flaws in a community you don't participate in or give a shit about are always massive and terrible and the benefits of that community continuing to exist are always worthless and nonexistent.

Like maybe youtube comments were as shit as everyone says they were, but all I - and most people who say youtube comments were shit - knew about youtube comments was a couple of notable high-profile examples that, really, weren't any worse than the shittier grade of comments you get everywhere on the internet.

Re: Dear Googles: G+/YouTube Anschluss – you've done outed me

#142

Post by josteink »

rryan wrote: post #68

Instead of merging with your G+ account you can link it to a G+ page (and use your YT username or other pseudonym as its name). This is part of the "link your account" flow. I think this would fix her problem.

So the new and improved system is that you can have your youtube account linked up to a G+ thingie you never asked for and have no intention of using, instead of linking up to the G+ account you never asked for and have no intention using, but which is connected to your real name.

Yeah. I can see how that is an incremental improvement, but it still has a long way to go over what all users are asking: Do nothing. No linkage. Leave our accounts alone.

Re: Dear Googles: G+/YouTube Anschluss – you've done outed me

#143

Post by josteink »

brigade wrote: post #50
lignuist wrote: post #30

So what is the next coup? Linking all the comments from the past that you wrote when you were thinking it was pseudonymous to your real name? My only recommendation: Get out of such services as fast as possible.

At this point, everyone really needs to decide whether all of their usage of Google services will be linked to their real-life identity, or none whatsoever (and migrate all usage of Google services linked to their real-life identity elsewhere) Maintaining multiple distinct identities through various Google services is only going to become harder, and with shit like this I wouldn't trust even completely separate Googl…

At this point, everyone really needs to decide whether all of their usage of Google services will be linked to their real-life identity, or none whatsoever

For a while I've lived under the illusion that if you sign out, log out from Google, you will be less prone to tracking. That was until I had to fool around with multiple Google accounts for some testing.

When I click "sign out" do you know what the default landing screen is? "Sign in"!

And do you know what that screen shows you? Every single google account you've ever logged into. They know who you are. Every single identity you've created.

So yeah. Logging out or using multiple accounts is no protection. They're still tracking you.

It's like brigade says here: Unless you're all out, you're 100% in as far as Google is concerned.

Re: Dear Googles: G+/YouTube Anschluss – you've done outed me

#144

Post by lignuist »

josteink wrote: post #143
brigade wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, everyone really needs to decide whether all of their usage of Google services will be linked to their real-life identity, or none whatsoever (and migrate all usage of Google services linked to their real-life identity elsewhere) Maintaining multiple distinct identities through various Google services is only going to become harder, and with shit like this I wouldn't trust even completely separate Googl…

At this point, everyone really needs to decide whether all of their usage of Google services will be linked to their real-life identity, or none whatsoever For a while I've lived under the illusion that if you sign out, log out from Google, you will be less prone to tracking. That was until I had to fool around with multiple Google accounts for some testing. When I click "sign out" do you know what the default landin…

Delete Cookies, change IP, probably even switch browsers, block Analytics and G+ buttons. At least makes it a little harder for them.

Re: Dear Googles: G+/YouTube Anschluss – you've done outed me

#145

Post by devinj »

vondur wrote: post #19
jyap wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google to Pay $8.5 Million in Buzz Privacy Class Action Settlement http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2050437/Google-to-Pay-8...

8.5 million is just a rounding error for Google.

Well, there's also the consent decree. I don't think anyone wants one of those...

Re: Dear Googles: G+/YouTube Anschluss – you've done outed me

#146

Post by dredmorbius »

hayksaakian wrote: post #2

At least for now, you CAN delete only your Google Plus stuff without also removing your Gmail

That's fine so long as you trust Google to abide by their word on how they do or don't link or structure their services.

The point of the G+ article referenced by the OP that I wrote, is that I had repeatedly responded "no" to the option of linking my (pseudonymous) YouTube account with my (pseudonymous) G+ account, strictly on the merits that I'd used the same (pseudonymous) Gmail account to originally register for both.

At the time I'd set each of these services up, they were a freestanding service. I'd created a Gmail account some years back recognizing that having a pseudonymous identity would be useful to me. I later created a YouTube account to be able to access the occasional restricted video. I've occasionally commented on and/or rated videos, but as those actions became increasingly public and accessible, I've periodically purged my content there under that account. And when G+ started up, having first created an account under my real name, I rapidly decided that I didn't want an "identity service", deleted that G+ profile (elements of it remain but I make very little use of them) and switched to a pseudonymous account as my primary persona on that service.

Now Google have, against my wishes, elected to merge the previously independent G+ and YouTube accounts. And for the life of me I can't figure out how to un-do that, or to disable the YouTube account entirely.

I also no longer trust Google to keep separate aspects of my online existence separate.

Re: Dear Googles: G+/YouTube Anschluss – you've done outed me

#147

Post by dredmorbius »

SnydenBitchy wrote: post #133
spenvo wrote: post #120

A comment I left a few weekends ago, which addressed the same topic but before the Youtube/G+ story broke: [0] "Hijacking the top comment to talk about a big concern I have. This EFF article argues that there's a place for Anonymity on the Internet [1], and I think most of us agree (especially if we emphathize with those in Iran, China, Syria, and the like). But what HNers must realize is the following: The mainstrea…

It’s interesting that you would hold up reddit as an example of the “positive sociological impact” of anonymity on the internet, when OP specifically describes her desire to avoid “sexist, racist, homophobic, sophomoric, monosyllabic jerks”—precisely the sort of creature that reddit breeds. Though to be fair, the anonymity may not be to blame for reddit’s culture, seeing as other internet forums with similar traditio…

It's interesting when you hold up the type of creature reddit breeds when OP was linking to a re-share of a post originally made by a pseudonymous Google+ user. Namely me.

At my request, I might add, due to some idiosyncrasies of G+: a re-share of a post preserves the content of a post even if the original is deleted. But a re-share and the comments on it is not itself re-sharable. A link to a G+ post, however, is.

So, should I delete or purge my G+ account (I haven't yet decided which, if either, I plan on doing), Andi's posts will continue to exist with the content on them visible.

Re: Dear Googles: G+/YouTube Anschluss – you've done outed me

#148

Post by marvin »

SnydenBitchy wrote: post #133
spenvo wrote: post #120

A comment I left a few weekends ago, which addressed the same topic but before the Youtube/G+ story broke: [0] "Hijacking the top comment to talk about a big concern I have. This EFF article argues that there's a place for Anonymity on the Internet [1], and I think most of us agree (especially if we emphathize with those in Iran, China, Syria, and the like). But what HNers must realize is the following: The mainstrea…

It’s interesting that you would hold up reddit as an example of the “positive sociological impact” of anonymity on the internet, when OP specifically describes her desire to avoid “sexist, racist, homophobic, sophomoric, monosyllabic jerks”—precisely the sort of creature that reddit breeds. Though to be fair, the anonymity may not be to blame for reddit’s culture, seeing as other internet forums with similar traditio…

You are vastly overgeneralizing. Have you ever digged into the heavily moderated subreddits? The front page is not particularly representative of the positive parts of anonymity that spenvo is talking about. I am a very active reddit user and respectfully, you have no clue what you are talking about.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that reddit as a whole is representative of the younger (American society, not just a particular demographic or political group. Reddit has > 50 million users and is a very heterogenuous community. It is not just some hangout exclusive to nerds any longer. So you will see every political opinion and every positive and negative personal characteristic. As usual, the front page will show the lowest common denominator. There is by definition no way this could be any different, which you can see even if you look at the comments under any national newspaper article.

Re: Dear Googles: G+/YouTube Anschluss – you've done outed me

#149

Post by thaumasiotes »

tehwalrus wrote: post #135
SnydenBitchy wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s interesting that you would hold up reddit as an example of the “positive sociological impact” of anonymity on the internet, when OP specifically describes her desire to avoid “sexist, racist, homophobic, sophomoric, monosyllabic jerks”—precisely the sort of creature that reddit breeds. Though to be fair, the anonymity may not be to blame for reddit’s culture, seeing as other internet forums with similar traditio…

But on reddit you can create an account called "fred_jones" or "slwkajbgj" instead of "Eleanora Rashid-Feldman" and avoid having that behaviour directed at you like a heat-seeking missile. GP is arguing that the douchebags only become a significant problem if your diversity[1] status is tagged to your profile. [1] Women are the majority, so "minority status" => "diversity status"

> Women are the majority, so "minority status" => "diversity status"

Surely, by that reasoning "diversity status" is just as inappropriate a term? If a group is over 50% female, adding one more female will make it less diverse.

Re: Dear Googles: G+/YouTube Anschluss – you've done outed me

#150

Post by chipsy »

tw77 wrote: post #123
javert wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of it is purely game theoretic. Once one person realizes it's a successful strategy to send more messages then their competition, their competition also has to send more messages. Arms race quickly ensues. And once you have such an arms race on one side, the other gender no longer has to even bother initiating conversations. Why did the arms race tip towards men competing and women getting it easy? Probably cult…

> "Why did the arms race tip towards men competing and women getting it easy? Probably cultural norms." Cultural norms that are followed by every live-birthing animal species, how strange.

Incorrect. For example, the bonobo.
Post reply on HN