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

I’ve been suspended from Google+

infotrope.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: I’ve been suspended from Google+

#51

Post by CodeMage »

forkandwait wrote: post #9
dstein wrote: post #2

Welcome to what I call Google's vision of an "Orwellian Computing Age". Your every action & communication will be monitored, and your entire digital identity can be deleted by a centralized, seemingly autonomous authority. Better comply with the TOS or you might get yourself "ungoogled".

Why I downvoted you: Objective discussion which leads to new ideas and solutions is generally hampered by name calling and over-generalization, which just leads to "my side is best, your side sucks" ... "no, my side is best, your side sucks". Add in the emotional charge, and people forget to think about what they say before they open their mouths. I think you might have a point lurking in your polemic, like "I am afr…

(One of these days I am going to write a "Rhetoric for Hackers"...)

Please do. I for one think it sounds interesting.

Re: I’ve been suspended from Google+

#52

Post by murz »

Wickk wrote: post #38
nextparadigms wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook will delete you if you have fake names, too. Mark said at e-g8 too when asked why isn't he allowing people to be anonymous on their network, and he said he knows anonymity can be a useful thing, too, but he's trying to make a social network where people use real names. I fail to see how Google+ is any different. Use your own name and you'll be fine.

Some users are getting locked out of their entire google accounts, not just G+. That's the difference.

Not for name violations. For name violations users just get their G+ profile suspended.

"When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products unrelated to the Google+ profile are not removed. (Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension.)

It is not our intention to shut off access to all Google services when an account is suspended for violating our Google+ common name standards. This is a misunderstanding, and I wanted to clarify it."

Re: I’ve been suspended from Google+

#53

Post by murz »

autarch wrote: post #17
vladd wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eric Schmidt: The people who built the Internet did not get a stable version of identity; You need identity, in the sense that you are a person, this is who you are these are your friends and so on … The issue on the Internet is not the lack of Facebook, the issue on the Internet is the lack of identity. (from http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/09/eric-schmidt-on-gauging-goo... ) See also http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/h…

Identity is not the same as "name on your birth certificate". Skud's identity is Skud, not Kirrily Roberts. I'm all for having stable identities on social networking services, but that has nothing to do with legal names vs pseudonyms.

The G+ names policy doesn't say "name on your birth certificate". It says "the name you commonly go by in real life", see: http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271

Even if Skud does go by that name in daily life, I don't see how it comes as any surprise that he is suspended pending review for that name. He even says it himself:

> I knew I was at risk of my account (under the name of “Skud .”) being suspended

Re: I’ve been suspended from Google+

#54

Post by ReneeKline »

I paid $32.68 for a XBOX 360 and my mom got a 17 inch Toshiba laptop for $94.83 being delivered to our house tomorrow by FedEX. I will never again pay expensive retail prices at stores. I even sold a 46 inch HDTV to my boss for $650 and it only cost me $52.78 to get. Here is the website we using to get all this stuff, GrabCent.com

Re: I’ve been suspended from Google+

#55

Post by BasDirks »

joelhaus wrote: post #49
dstein wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/cyberspace/jan-june06/google_... http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june10/google_01...

The first link is really a great retrospective (thank god for PBS) and it gives a much more nuanced look at the situation than the overly simple statement you made. The final outcome showed, at least for me, that Google is willing to learn and grow from it's experiences[1]. Thank you for sharing it. All-in-all, your essay reads like a conspiracy theory that takes leaps of reason and logic so large that it would proba…

Where Orwellian phenomena are seen (even if it requires a little squinting), they mustn't be ignored.

Re: I’ve been suspended from Google+

#57

Post by sedev »

michaelpinto wrote: post #45

If you think of a social site as a party, the rules you set create the environment. And to be fair to Google what makes Facebook good to a degree is that people are anchored to a real identity — this prevents flame wars and all sorts of other noise. Honestly part of the spam problem on Twitter is the ability to setup a fake profile via robot and start spamming everyone within seconds -- fake IDs also are part of what…

The flip side of that metaphor, though, is that most of us go to lots of parties without necessarily taking the same identity with us to each party. Further, using people's legal names (if this fiasco demonstrates anything, it's that the concept of a "real" name is kind of a crock) doesn't guarantee better interactions - at the Facebook party I run into objectionable relatives all the time, but it's not really my party and I can't kick them out.

Re: I’ve been suspended from Google+

#58

Post by derleth »

michaelpinto wrote: post #45

If you think of a social site as a party, the rules you set create the environment. And to be fair to Google what makes Facebook good to a degree is that people are anchored to a real identity — this prevents flame wars and all sorts of other noise. Honestly part of the spam problem on Twitter is the ability to setup a fake profile via robot and start spamming everyone within seconds -- fake IDs also are part of what…

> this prevents flame wars and all sorts of other noise

I don't think this has been proven. In fact, I think if you look at real world locales like bars and clubs, you see the exact opposite.

Re: I’ve been suspended from Google+

#59

Post by sedev »

murz wrote: post #53
autarch wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Identity is not the same as "name on your birth certificate". Skud's identity is Skud, not Kirrily Roberts. I'm all for having stable identities on social networking services, but that has nothing to do with legal names vs pseudonyms.

The G+ names policy doesn't say "name on your birth certificate". It says "the name you commonly go by in real life", see: http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271 Even if Skud does go by that name in daily life, I don't see how it comes as any surprise that he is suspended pending review for that name. He even says it himself: > I knew I was at risk of my account (under the name of “Skud .”) bein…

The policy that they are enforcing is that you must use your legal name, leading many people to the obvious conclusion that the policy is bullshit.

Re: I’ve been suspended from Google+

#60

Post by onan_barbarian »

forkandwait wrote: post #9
dstein wrote: post #2

Welcome to what I call Google's vision of an "Orwellian Computing Age". Your every action & communication will be monitored, and your entire digital identity can be deleted by a centralized, seemingly autonomous authority. Better comply with the TOS or you might get yourself "ungoogled".

Why I downvoted you: Objective discussion which leads to new ideas and solutions is generally hampered by name calling and over-generalization, which just leads to "my side is best, your side sucks" ... "no, my side is best, your side sucks". Add in the emotional charge, and people forget to think about what they say before they open their mouths. I think you might have a point lurking in your polemic, like "I am afr…

Why I downvoted you (redux): starchy would-be HN exceptionalism and undergraduate pomposity ("we're so much better than Reddit, ...").

The grandparent post was a bit overheated, but not exactly an out-of-control polemic. Much of what he wrote is literally true. It might be "improved" by pumping it up with a pile of "of course, there are many points of view here" and "other companies also do bad things" and "let's remember all the awesome things that Google has done". But so what?

Your rewriting actually removes content. He is not "afraid that Google will start to monitor and try to control its users and content too closely". He's saying it's already happened.

What you're asking is that instead of concisely putting forth their point of view posters puff up what they're writing with pompous polysyllabic mini-essays on Every Goddamn Thing, with copious footnotes, links, etc. Same biases, more tl;dr.

Forcing everyone to furnish "pragmatic alternatives" is also another great way of turning every concise 4-line statement into a tedious mini-essay. It's actually OK to be against something without necessarily having to lay out an 8-step plan to substitute for it...

Finally, ad-hominem name-calling can be fun and brightens up everyone's day, as long as it's not bullying. The guy isn't exactly going to ruin Brin/Page/Schmidt's days by taking a swing at the goog, now, is he?

Post reply on HN