31–40 of 63 posts
now I regret linking my gmail+youtube accounts. Oh well, time to delete that youtube account. What was the name of that anonymous email service again, ironic that I'll find it with google. I don't need every future employer forever more knowing that I commented on a controversial video that one time back in '12.
I'm actually interested in using my real name but I would like to be able to employ pseudonyms as well (mostly to be able to interact as a brand). When you opt out of using your real name they ask you what the reason is and I think based on the feedback they get from that little survey they might extend the functionality to include multiple names in some way shape or form. (at least I hope). Google+ already has some…
I posted a short reaction at http://youtu.be/Imhqt1vr3T8 Hopefully their search engine will pick it up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it very frustrating that Google thinks that forcing people to reveal their identities is a "good" thing. "People will be held accountable now!" is the slogan I keep hearing ringing in my head listening to the excuses put out by companies. In the end, it is their service people are using and they can dictate the terms all they want. However, it also sets up a system where people will now expect websites across…
> I find it very frustrating that Google thinks that forcing people to reveal their identities is a "good" thing. Remember: Google's business is advertising, and you can sell far better/more expensive ads to "real identities". As far as business goes, real identities are most definitely a good thing. For google, that is.
For instance, with Google's music service. Once you upload a few albums Google shows albums you might like. This isn't done because I have my real name (I don't use it, personally, but have seen it in action) posted.
Same kind of thing goes with ads. They can track your IP(s) and go with that. If anything, it's a better system than using so called "real names" because people, I will bet, will use fake names.
The same type of system can be used with nick names. It's just tied to the user's profile.
Maybe I'm just getting it all wrong and not thinking right, but it really doesn't sit well with me.
Although there probably will be a backlash, I think this is a smart move from the social networking standpoint. Google is finally leveraging one of its most powerful assets that has to this point not played an integral role of building their G+ user base in any way. This is a weapon that facebook lacks. Plus it helps get rid of the "internet fuckwads" but as the author said, it's certainly an uphill battle. I don't t…
You won't be saying that when your future girlfriend googles your name and sees all the My Little Pony videos you've been watching.
I deleted my Google+ account when they started playing the Facebook game, turning an interesting service into a ~personal~ thing.
From what I can tell from my usage and discussions among friends, YouTube really is declining in use, thanks to the overzealous media industry, blocking videos left and right. If you want to listen to a bit of German music you're advised to use a proxy outside of Germany itself for a while, to avoid getting the dreaded 'This video is not available in your country' message.
In short: G+ fell short for me personally and in my 'circles'. YouTube could never interest me much in terms of keeping an account, as a consumer (for what? Comments?).
I'm glad that I don't rely on these services (anymore). I'll rather stay with a pseudonym, vimeo and duckduckgo.
As such this leaves me with hope that they at least understand that real-name-for-everything is not a good idea.
Speaking of nicknames though:
Being able to use a nickname as the main identification handle on twitter is one of the main reasons why I'm not using Google+. Finishing a talk or a discussion with a quick "hey - follow me on twitter: @pilif" is so much easier than "Please search me on Google+ under the name Philip Hofstetter".
The last name is very difficult to type and in addition there are still a ton of Philip Hofstetter's around for people to confuse me with.
By enforcing the unique nickname and allowing users to use them as handles (and in URLs), twitter makes it much easier for people to bridge the gap between the real and the virtual world to the point where I know many people by their twitter handle instead of their real names.
With Google+ I'd have to make people spell my long name ("how many t's again?") or to give them an absurdly long number as my ID - neither of which is at all appealing (or producing "conversions" - if you want to call acquiring followers that)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Aug 2011, Google banned quite a bit of Google+ accounts for using fake names and nicknames. Does Google still do this?
That's where realistic comes in. They banned people using company names or clearly fake ones.
Basically, the nym wars debacle demonstrated (if nothing else) that if you demand people's real names, know what you're asking for, and be prepared to support the multitude of naming conventions that exist worldwide.
In the last step of the assistant (by looking at the screenshots - not really using my youtube account, so I can't say), they ask for possible reasons why not to use the real name and the reasons they list are pretty valid and cover about the extent of reasons why I would not want to use my real name. As such this leaves me with hope that they at least understand that real-name-for-everything is not a good idea. Spea…
The closest thing is "I _cannot_ use my real name". Which I'd probably click if I'd ever be in that situation. But that's not the same thing.