Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google+ To End Real Names Policy

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the just-keep-an-eye-on-the-birdie dept.

Google 235

bs0d3 writes "After months of Google+ being unsuccessful at taking the edge over Facebook, Google announces a new plan. Google executive Vic Gundotra announced yesterday that they will be 'adding features that will "support other forms of identity,"' a major victory for security and privacy advocates. If Google+ gets rid of their 'real names' policy, they will finally be the social networking site that people will flock to when running away from Facebook." JWZ is a skeptic; he describes as "premature victory" (and much harsher things, too) any rejoicing in the announced policy change, writing in part "My guess? I'll bet they still require you to register with your 'real' name, but then they'll graciously allow you to have a linked nickname or two, meaning they're still fully prepared to roll over on you to authoritarian governments or advertisers at the drop of a hat."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

jwz (0)

suso (153703) | about 3 years ago | (#37781280)

Hey look kids, its Jamie Zawinski!

Re:jwz (1, Insightful)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 3 years ago | (#37781354)

Ho hum... whatever. [joindiaspora.com]

Re:jwz (3, Insightful)

LoudNoiseElitist (1016584) | about 3 years ago | (#37781524)

Diaspora would be cool and all, you know, if it would ever launch. I swear I signed up for that site like 2 years ago, and all I ever get are emails wanting me to donate.

Re:jwz (1)

Real_Reddox (1010195) | about 3 years ago | (#37781630)

I got the invite, and made an account, but the site is pretty buggy so its a hassle. Besides, theres even fewer of my friends on Diaspora than on G+

Re:jwz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37781708)

Diaspora would be cool and all, you know, if it would ever launch. I swear I signed up for that site like 2 years ago, and all I ever get are emails wanting me to donate.

What you have to understand about Diaspora is the concept. It is a decentralized social network, meaning you don't have to signup to one host, you can signup to others that don't require invites. In any case, you also have the option to host your own Diaspora website. =) It's open source after all. But it still allows you and your users to be friends with other Diaspora networks.

Re:jwz (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782104)

Diaspora is decentralized, so you may join any pod (server) and befriend and interact with anyone on other pods.
Only the pod run by the founders (joindiaspora.org) is currently invite only. You may join any of the other open pods out there without an invite.

Check podupti.me for a larger list, or Diasp.org (which is one of my personal favorites).
Diasporafoundation.org has more information on the project in general.

Re:jwz (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782536)

No it wouldn't be cool. I've posted about this before and was modded to oblivion so I'll do it AC. It's hard to get people to switch social networks. G+ isn't working, Google fucked it up before it started*. Diaspora's problem was being a bunch of whiny bastards about it. I use linux and go between Opera, Chrome and Aurora and checking out diaspora for the first time and reading about how they won't work with IE. What the hell kind of BS is that? We don't approve of your browser so fuck right off?

*I hope you read the rant by the brilliant Google employee who describes what Google's main problem -- platforms [ycombinator.com] .

Sign up for an invite! (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#37781686)

How long is the typical wait for an invite on joindiaspora.com?

Re:Sign up for an invite! (2)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about 3 years ago | (#37781850)

As far as I know they haven't started sending out invites, other than to people who donated on Kickstarter.

Re:jwz (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#37782448)

Diaspora was a great concept, and an abysmally failed execution. They managed to simultaneously launch to fast and too slow. They failed to launch (or at least publicly advertise or even point out the pods that were available) anywhere near the time they had hype or interest (dropping them from the radar for anyone but the extreme tinfoilhats and hardcore geeks), Then when they did finally show what they had, it was so buggy, security hole filled and flawed, that the tinfoil hats and 3/4ths of the geeks who were interested ran away. Say what you will about G+, but they actually do have at least a niche that uses and likes their product. I haven't really heard of anyone using diaspora as more then a slight curiosity.

Re:jwz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782810)

Beta for public consumption starts in November.
Although you can go out and start your own pod up right now, the project is still in Alpha and nothing has been "officially" launched.
There has been a lot of bug fixing and security holes filled in the last few months, it is worth a second look.

It will never be as big as Facebook or G+, but really the D* community is a different lot. It appeals to people in the same way that Linux appeals to people.

Re:jwz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37781682)

How has this not been modded overrated, yet?

Re:jwz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782272)

JWZ is a skeptic [...]

So what else is new?

Can I be Steve Jobs? (1, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37781292)

I mean, seeing as he doesn't need it any more...

Re:Can I be Steve Jobs? (1)

RapidEye (322253) | about 3 years ago | (#37781384)

The heck with Steve Jobs - I want to be Darth Vader!!!

Re:Can I be Steve Jobs? (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | about 3 years ago | (#37781888)

Which one? [google.com] I count 8 "Darth Vader"s and one "Lord Vader". Doesn't look like a problem currently, though there may have been more at one time and these are just the ones that haven't had any complaints lodged against them so far.

Google Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37781308)

I'll start caring once Google Apps is available! That's what I'm waiting for!

Re:Google Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37781786)

You mean once they enable Google+ for Google Apps? That's what I'm waiting for too!

Finally.. (2)

roscocoltran (1014187) | about 3 years ago | (#37781326)

They understand the problem. But it might be too little too late.

Re:Finally.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37781378)

I'm not convinced they "understand the problem", unless the problem you're referring to is that the initial wave of interest subsided and all their uses went back to their original Facebook accounts. Don't get me wrong: I think this is a good move, but the answer to the question of whether it's being motivated by a change of heart on the issue, or because they view it as a way to gain an edge over Facebook, is unclear.

Re:Finally.. (3, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37781480)

The thing us that this policy wasn't why most people weren't leaving facebook to come to google+. In the privacy-nut nerd circles it might have been but most people using facebook are fine with giving out their real name.

Re:Finally.. (1)

RCL (891376) | about 3 years ago | (#37782856)

Well, that's how the market works: someone wants to gain an edge over competition and provides you with a better product. I don't need any other "answers" - I wouldn't believe in them anyway.

Re:Finally.. (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37781408)

Yeah because the only thing keeping people from dropping facebook to come to google+ was the names policy. Oh right, except that outside of nerd circles most people don't care and freely use their real name on facebook. Give it a couple more months and this will join buzz and wave on the trash heap.

Re:Finally.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37781568)

Indeed. But the folks around Slashdot have always been a bit optimistic thinking that [the evil one] will fall to [the good one] if they just [do this].
 
We heard it for years when Slashdot really cared about Linux. Every faulter by MS turned into the first shot in a revolution that was going to bring Linux to every desktop and MS would be in its death throws within 6 months.
 
Now it's Facebook and iOS. They're the evil ones. Sadly, most Slashdotters haven't figured out yet that 99.5% of all users don't know what they're talking about and those who do normally don't care.
 
Ho hum, I guess if it keeps the fanbois happy...

Re:Finally.. (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 3 years ago | (#37782096)

>>Oh right, except that outside of nerd circles most people don't care and freely use their real name on facebook

And people in nerd circles realized that you could use a fake name on Google+, you just had to make it sound like a real name instead of "Cyber McCool" or something like that.

It does suck for people whose real life names fail their lameness filter though.

Re:Finally.. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 3 years ago | (#37782584)

Indeed. For example there exists at least one person in Germany having the real name "German Hacker". A name which is certain to trigger any real-name filter ...

Re:Finally.. (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37782540)

It was the only thing that was keeping me from taking a look at it. I'm not sure that it's going to be enough for me to use the service. Personally I don't use FB, so having something available that's more stable from a privacy POV would be good.

Re:Finally.. (5, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 3 years ago | (#37781416)

No .... they are simply trying to disguise the problem in order to suck in more users. Contrary to whatever bullshit they try to spread, Google+, Facebook and all the rest will NEVER implement any policy that actually respects the privacy of users. It will never happen, because their business model depends on selling their users to advertisers.

Re:Finally.. (3, Informative)

Surt (22457) | about 3 years ago | (#37782194)

Google+ could possibly guarantee they would never sell you to advertisers. They could view it as a cost-saving measure against getting killed in the search space when facebook introduces peersearch next year.

Re:Finally.. (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37782574)

Google has a pretty strong reason to keep as much of the information to itself as possible, it doesn't want anybody to know how it chooses what ads to serve at what time and to whom. Them sharing unnecessary information makes about as much sense as a billboard company allowing folks to put up their own ads the night before they put up a new ad.

Re:Finally.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782638)

Social networking has never really been about privacy, it's all about sharing. You can't share stuff and have privacy. The reason no-one bitches about Twitter's privacy issues is that Twittering is inherently public. It's only Facebook and its clone which try to blur the line between email and blogging and make people think things they share over the Internet are still private.

If you don't want strangers tracking you, use mailing lists. You can pretty much do everything with email that you can with Facebook. There are even play-by-mail games to sink your time into.

But just remember, when sending a picture of your wang to your girlfriend, she might hate you by this time next week. Nothing you share is private.

Re:Finally.. (4, Insightful)

Ruke (857276) | about 3 years ago | (#37781520)

The "problem" is one of critical mass: there's no reason to use a social networking site unless your friends use the same social networking site. Hell, right now, my G+ pretty much acts as an RSS agregator, allowing me to read updates from nerd celebrities that they're also posting to their blogs, twitter, facebook, and probably two or three other places. My friends are on Facebook, so, if I want to talk to them, or organize an event, I have to be on facebook.

Re:Finally.. (3, Insightful)

RazorSharp (1418697) | about 3 years ago | (#37781584)

I agree. They've just been trying to take away Facebook users since it went public. A better strategy would be to look at the market and go after those who don't use Facebook, for one reason or another. Build a solid user base of people who wouldn't consider the alternative, then worry about picking off the competitor's customers. I would guess that most of the current users also have Facebook pages, so they'll default to that since it's the de-facto standard. Having a strong user base that will say, "No, get ahold of me on G+ b/c I don't have a Facebook page" is a much better strategy for keeping the network active. But Google didn't really give many good reasons for non-Facebook users to consider their network other than "We're not Facebook" until now, out of desperation.

At least it's a step in the right direction, but I'm sure G+ would have been doing much better had they originally tried to allow some form of anonymity. Just look at how many Slashdotters they could have pulled in from the start. These are heavy internet users and clicks are what counts.

Re:Finally.. (1)

Chapter80 (926879) | about 3 years ago | (#37782628)

A better strategy would be to look at the market and go after those who don't use Facebook, for one reason or another.

Wow, you nailed it.

For all you tech guys building products that you want to take to market, this is exactly the right strategy as a start-up. Build your product to fill the gaps left by the competition. Don't try to go head to head with a market incumbent - that's suicide!

Another strategy is the Microsoft "Embrace -> Extend -> Eliminate" style. You have to embrace today's paradigm. In the Google+ case, they could have embraced Facebook, but given people a slight advantage by using Google+. And then an advantage by using ONLY Google+.

Re:Finally.. (1)

jythie (914043) | about 3 years ago | (#37781678)

The problem with 'the problem' is there are multiple use-cases, some of which are mutually exclusive. The 'real name' policy is not an unmitigated bad thing, it has advantages and cases where it works better then allowing pseudonyms.

Personally, I am a little sad to see it go this way. The majority of the internet is pseudonym based... one thing that made Facebook such a force was it was at least one major place where that was not the dominant paradigm.... but like usual, the majority wanted to make sure that everyone played by their preferred rules and seemed to be offended that there were places with different rules. *shrug*

Re:Finally.. (1)

bberens (965711) | about 3 years ago | (#37781886)

Does google+ even have farmville or any of the other sorts of apps that cause people to literally waste hours and hours of time on facebook? Google+ lacks time wasters. Google+ has a superior "wall" concept but none of the things that cause/allow users to spend all day "hanging out" there. Obviously, the only way to make Google+ succeed is to make it suck.

Re:Finally.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782126)

Actually, it does. Even a few Zynga titles are there.

Learn to google.

I'll tell you how to get more users... (4, Insightful)

Ectospheno (724239) | about 3 years ago | (#37781348)

If they really want more users then they should add profile support to Google Apps so the metric crap-ton of people who ALREADY PAY THEM MONEY can use Google+.

Re:I'll tell you how to get more users... (1)

kullnd (760403) | about 3 years ago | (#37781552)

Agreed... i would like to use it, but will not until the let my apps account work with it.

Re:I'll tell you how to get more users... (4, Informative)

doctormetal (62102) | about 3 years ago | (#37781700)

Just a little more patience: https://plus.google.com/u/1/100940716892313727285/posts/2J1KCf3vv6K [google.com]
He should know as he is the Google Apps guy.

Re:I'll tell you how to get more users... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37781962)

Yes, it does seem to be coming soon. When logged onto any Google mobile page and then going to Google plus, you get a warning about being an apps user. Something along the lines of "You must create a Google profile page, and your Apps administrator can see it, blah, blah, blah..." Then, once you continue, you get a notification that it isn't available to your organization and to contact your administrator to enable it.

I'm okay with that (1)

flanders_down (2424442) | about 3 years ago | (#37781374)

I don't mind that they'll cough up my "real" name so much. Just as long as it isn't available to casual browsing.

Re:I'm okay with that (2)

DanAnderson26 (54603) | about 3 years ago | (#37781544)

Yeah, me neither. It's not like Facebook is some bastion of discretion and privacy.

I'd use Google+ more if it was better integrated into my other Google tools (i.e., Google reader)

Still not what we need (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37781462)

Communication should be open and federated, yet private and protected by strong cryptography.

Communication is a human right.

Social networking needs to be seen as something other than an "app" or a trendy buzzword. Why can't we call it communication? Why can't we standardize a protocol for more robust communication than is offered by email?

Under proprietary services, you'll never be anything more than an identified consumer (even by pseudonym) on the corporate feedlot, for sale to advertisers.

There will always be a primary key, even if it isn't the same one issued to you by the government (legal name). This is Google - they'll hoover up your phone number, email, address, from you and your contacts, and identify you anyway. Don't kid yourselves. Unless you're a hardcore privacy geek, your friends will leak info, even if you don't. Google is letting you use a pseudonym because they know their datamining is so powerful that they can identify you anyway.

I don't mind sharing my life, but I'm not going to share it with an advertising conglomerate and any marketroid willing to cough up the required price.

The things people share on proprietary networks are shared with more unknown third party marketers than with their real, actual friends and family.

Stop filling out your own marketing profiles. Revolt. You are a human being, not a datapoint.

Re:Still not what we need (2, Funny)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37781566)

Hey look some 12 year old just saw fight club for the first time.

Re:Still not what we need (2)

Jibekn (1975348) | about 3 years ago | (#37781914)

Its funny, I'm 32 and still haven't seen that movie. I never will just for the sheer look on peoples faces when I tell them I haven't seen it.

Re:Still not what we need (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37782052)

You didn't miss much

Re:Still not what we need (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37782610)

I'm in my 30s and I've never bothered to watch it. I've heard the film really hasn't held up very well over the last decade.

Re:Still not what we need (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | about 3 years ago | (#37782072)

Got you beat.

33 and never seen it. :P

Re:Still not what we need (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 3 years ago | (#37782114)

Hey look some 12 year old just saw fight club for the first time.

While that is funny.... he has made some quite excellent points:

1) Communication should be open and federated, yet private and protected by strong cryptography.

Wow. Kind of hard to disagree with that at all. Spot on so far....

2) Communication is a human right.

Is there anybody that is really going to fight this point at all?

3) Social networking needs to be seen as something other than an "app" or a trendy buzzword. Why can't we call it communication? Why can't we standardize a protocol for more robust communication than is offered by email?

No. Fucking. Shit.

Right now, Social Networking is derided by quite a few of us here on Slashdot because we don't see it as useful communication. I still see it's use as nothing more than sharing of worthless information and tweets about stuff I don't really want to know. Signal to Noise ratio is not good. Other than some funny pictures and a quips about your daily life, it is just a gaming portal.... Farmville... need I say more?

It should be communication. Email needs to die, it has served its purpose. Right now, it is just a huge drain on resources since 90% of resources used are to fight SPAM. Sending data through it requires Base 64 encoding, which is the most hilariously inefficient form of data transfer on the planet. I find it useful because it can change any data to be "safe" for transfer between processes mainly because none of the characters inside it are picked up by compilers, interpreters, etc. XML fields wrapped in CDATA can still fail.

4) Under proprietary services, you'll never be anything more than an identified consumer (even by pseudonym) on the corporate feedlot, for sale to advertisers.

Is anyone disagreeing with that? It's true. Whether or not you care about is a different argument.

5) There will always be a primary key, even if it isn't the same one issued to you by the government (legal name). This is Google - they'll hoover up your phone number, email, address, from you and your contacts, and identify you anyway. Don't kid yourselves. Unless you're a hardcore privacy geek, your friends will leak info, even if you don't. Google is letting you use a pseudonym because they know their datamining is so powerful that they can identify you anyway.

Also true. Data mining has become a new field and a new market. Even if you don't participate, what you are is extrapolated from information provided by people you know. Almost impossible to fight.... unless you don't want to have any life at all.

6) I don't mind sharing my life, but I'm not going to share it with an advertising conglomerate and any marketroid willing to cough up the required price.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You want to control who knows what about you. It's called privacy, and deriding the ability to share information with a friend without having it spread across the whole world, intelligence communities, and marketing groups is not fair, and wanting it is not indicative of a tin foil hatter.

7) Stop filling out your own marketing profiles. Revolt. You are a human being, not a datapoint.

Why not? Why should you be penalized for having a life by constant bombardment by advertisers and governments profiling you?

I don't think you should.

The day I join Social Networking is when I can host my own personal P2P SNS that does not allow any huge corporation like Google to analyze my personal data and relationships.

It's not easy. It will take time, development, and testing. We can get there and take true control over our communications and turn ISPs into what they were always intended to be... common carriers.

Re:Still not what we need (1)

MrSmith0011000100110 (1344879) | about 3 years ago | (#37782204)

Real Social Networking in my mind would connect devices in a P2P space. So my laptop and/or my phone would connect to my "friends" devices and I talked to my "friends" directly. An invite would consist of a MAC or some kind of hash for joining my P2P network. In essence each person/device would be their own Social Hub. If there was an FOSS push for something like this then the walls of Facebook, Google +, Twitter and the like would crumble. Bottom line is that real social networking can't be owned by one person and if someone wants to flesh out this idea, I give it to you freely.

Re:Still not what we need (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782912)

Communication is nowhere near a human right. You can be slapped with a restraining order that says you can't communicate with someone or come within a certain distance of them. Those wouldn't exist if it was a human rights situation.

Try thinking about crap as it exists in reality before posting. You're confusing fantasy with reality again.

G+ Aliases (2)

Grindalf (1089511) | about 3 years ago | (#37781494)

The answer's simple: when using social media assume everyone can read everything you type all the time, DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES, and type what you like. It doesn't matter as long as you don't care and they don't hire stupid moderators. So you don't need an alias system like slashdot, unless it's funny to. I think I've made my point.

Re:G+ Aliases (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 3 years ago | (#37781780)

I hear what you are saying, but I have Cardinal Richelieu on the other line and he says "LOL"

Re:G+ Aliases (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782626)

I have to say, I didn't expect that sort of comparison, but the GP's point still stands. It's a social network. The entire POINT is to be public.

If people think the entire point is to be private, they're confusing a social network with email. We already have email.

If people think the entire point is to just contain everything to a very tight circle of friends, they're confusing a social network with a private forum. We already have forum software which can easily be configured to only let certain people in and hide its contents from everyone else.

If people think the entire point is some distributed network of people publicly bantering on their own servers that other people can subscribe to and read, they're confusing social network with blogging software and RSS readers. We already have blogging software and RSS readers.

If people even care about and want to participate in social networks in the first place, then they're going to be doing things in public. If they don't want to do that, then they shouldn't participate in social networks. It's really simple.

I'm a fake and proud of it (3, Insightful)

phoncible (2468768) | about 3 years ago | (#37781500)

Not sure what the big deal is, my G+ account name is a false name; not even a semblance of a real name in fact. Of course, I'm sure google has my real name in their system somewhere, and I'm sure it's tied to this G+ account in some way shape or form.

Re:I'm a fake and proud of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37781704)

Not sure what the big deal is, my G+ account name is a false name; not even a semblance of a real name in fact.

How'd you sign up for the underlying Google account without accepting a text message or a voice call to a telephone?

Of course, I'm sure google has my real name in their system somewhere, and I'm sure it's tied to this G+ account in some way shape or form.

Precisely.

Re:I'm a fake and proud of it (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37781910)

When I signed up for my google account (gmail) I never had to get a text message or voice call.... Then again this was years ago, and I signed up via invite, so maybe things have changed...

Re:I'm a fake and proud of it (1)

jumpingfred (244629) | about 3 years ago | (#37781916)

If you got an invite at the beginning of gmail you never needed to provide a phone number.

Re:I'm a fake and proud of it (1)

bberens (965711) | about 3 years ago | (#37781936)

You can get a text message and/or a voice call to a telephone that is pretty unidentifiable. Cash is king.

Re:I'm a fake and proud of it (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 3 years ago | (#37782702)

Hope you don't use that Google account for anything important, like email or Android marketplace or payment or advertising or any such thing.

Using a fake name violates their TOS, and their response when a violator is found has been, thus far, to simply kill the violating Google account. Not the G+ portion of it, the whole account. People have found their phones can't log in after signing up for G+ under a fake name, because an Android phone is tied to a Google account and the account was killed.

Good luck, I guess...

No way to know your "real" name isn't real anymore (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | about 3 years ago | (#37781538)

People can't report you for it if they can't see it.

Too Late (4, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | about 3 years ago | (#37781576)

They already squandered the publicity and marketing that existed around the launch. In the process, they pissed off many users and made even more suspicious. There is no chance to recover after the major blunders they have made. Google+ is dead now, just like wave, and Google will admit it eventually. The best thing they can do is try to contain that failure so it doesn't spill over into their other, successful services, especially Gmail.

Re:Too Late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37781756)

It may not be too late to recover somehow, but I agree that this is "too little, too late." With many of Google's offerings, they've followed the idea of launching private betas of incomplete and flawed products, trusting that people will stick with it until the details are worked out. What they seem not to understand is, social networks can't work that way. Social sites rely too much on your friends also using it, which means that their success is all bound up with social inertia: people will use the site that people are already using, and they won't use sites that people aren't already using.

A few years ago, you could launch small and grow, but now with Facebook's dominance, that's not an option. You have to launch big, get everyone using it quickly. You want everyone to already be in the habit of posting to the site *before* the hype dies down. Google botched that at launch by trying to go for the viral/exclusive appeal, which is dumb under these circumstances.

Re:Too Late (1)

Phlow (2488880) | about 3 years ago | (#37782134)

Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

It's very much alive, and it CAN coexist with Facebook.

I don't use G+, but pseudonym support would get me to take a longer look at whether there is a place for it in my life.

Re:Too Late (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37782652)

Which is sort of the point, FB has a pretty good lock right now on folks that don't care about their privacy at all, G+ could easily get them onboard, especially if they could create a consistent privacy policy and allow folks to get in touch with people that wouldn't touch FB with a 11 and a half foot pole.

JWZ (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 years ago | (#37781610)

is not very bright, and ignorant when in comes to anything politics.

I think he jst has an aversion with anything that has a '+' in the name~

I ant to see him and Ballmer go head to head in a chair throwing competition.

Re:JWZ (1)

vadim_t (324782) | about 3 years ago | (#37782384)

That's not a rebuttal, that's just an ad hominem.

I just don't trust them (3, Insightful)

Kunedog (1033226) | about 3 years ago | (#37781628)

Until I've seen how the policy is written (and enforced), I have to proceed with caution and assume this is just another trick they've copied from Facebook (i.e. the trick where they announce theoretically improved privacy to the public, but maintain the status quo in practice (and in the fine print)).

"unsuccessful at taking the edge over Facebook..." (1)

Pecisk (688001) | about 3 years ago | (#37781714)

Maybe I got this wrong but:
a) Google+ were just rolled out from invite only beta
b) Google adds stuff to G+ almost every week
c) Goole+ for App users are just about to launch
d) Company accounts are yet to be announced

And we already decided that it was unsuccessful?

And ohh, by the way, I love real name policy. And don't get me started, if you want to be really anonymous, you can create innocent looking fake name and surename and other details.

Re:"unsuccessful at taking the edge over Facebook. (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37781970)

" And we already decided that it was unsuccessful?"

Did you miss the link to the story about the 60% drop on active users that was posted 10 days ago? That is probably why they made that statement.

Re:"unsuccessful at taking the edge over Facebook. (1)

Pecisk (688001) | about 3 years ago | (#37782128)

Yeah, those was very trustworthy statistics and really reliable trend :)

Re:"unsuccessful at taking the edge over Facebook. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782198)

and how did they come by this data i wonder? looking at public posts? when the selling point of google+ is to post what you want to WHO you want and noone else?

Re:"unsuccessful at taking the edge over Facebook. (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#37782684)

60% drop in public posts I believe. At a service that's selling point was that most posts don't have to be public and you can send them specifically to the groups you want them to go to. I would be far from surprised if most of face-books "increasing activity" turned out to be 80% "Take care of this dying cow for me" farm ville posts. I can say I have about half the number of friends on G+ that I had on facebook, yet there are twice as many posts with actual interesting information then I ever saw on facebook.

So what? (1)

Zebedeu (739988) | about 3 years ago | (#37781740)

I understand some people's hangups with using their real names, but what I don't understand is why they're complaining so loudly.
It's Google's site, and it's their prerogative to implement whatever rules fit their fancy. It's not like people are being forced to join, so if you don't like the rules, join a social network which allows you to use nicknames.

In fact, there's one which does just that: MySpace.
Here's the founder's comments on the whole real name thing: https://plus.google.com/112063946124358686266/posts/EcJ77v4KRSA [google.com]

Or you could just create your own social network, with blackjack, and hookers.
In fact, forget the social network.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37781984)

I understand some people's hangups with using their real names, but what I don't understand is why they're complaining so loudly.
It's Google's site, and it's their prerogative to implement whatever rules fit their fancy. It's not like people are being forced to join, so if you don't like the rules, join a social network which allows you to use nicknames.

In fact, there's one which does just that: MySpace.
Here's the founder's comments on the whole real name thing: https://plus.google.com/112063946124358686266/posts/EcJ77v4KRSA [google.com]

Or you could just create your own social network, with blackjack, and hookers.
In fact, forget the social network.

Comments from Bender. I agree

There's always D* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37781826)

Because they've been letting you do this from the get go.

Never really enforced anyway (2)

blind biker (1066130) | about 3 years ago | (#37781884)

At least 20% of the people in my circles have faux names, especially in the brony circle (yeah, yeah, I do have brony friends). I don't think Google really gives a shit.

Re:Never really enforced anyway (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37782710)

Until somebody brings it to their attention and they request proof that you are who you say you are. At which point Google would have authorization to terminate the account. Just because it's not being enforced does not meant that they can't enforce it and it doesn't mean that they have to go looking for violations to enforce.

This is great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782032)

This is great news for those of us with complex rather than real names

Signed
        e * ( 42 + i )

I need sunglasses (0)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | about 3 years ago | (#37782070)

I guess that's a big
*sunglasses*
+1
YEEAAAAH!

The enforcement mechanism was dumb, too. (2)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about 3 years ago | (#37782082)

It's not just that the policy was wrong (it is); it's that the way it was enforced was error-prone. If you happen to have a weird name (like Violet Blue [wikipedia.org] ) then the enforcement mechanisms would assume that you were using a pseudonym and ask you to provide a "real" name. There was never any mechanism to convince Google that the weird name was, in fact, your real name.

I think we are right to be concerned that the next policy and set of enforcement mechanisms will be just as silly, stupid and wrong as the present one is.

Google+ screwed the pooch (2)

tesdalld (2428496) | about 3 years ago | (#37782084)

How many users are on facebook with their real names? The problem was not that they wouldn't let people use faux names but that they waited when they should have pounded. When facebook was issues with their chat software and google+ didn't push for people to join. I have never been to google+ and i don't see a need to go to it. All of my friends (wife) use facebook, why go?

Why I don't use Google+ (2)

PCM2 (4486) | about 3 years ago | (#37782088)

I'm actually pretty baffled that people are still pissed about this "real name policy." Even more confused that people think this is really the reason people aren't flocking from Facebook to Google+.

I might use Google+ if it offered me something Facebook didn't, full stop.

As it stands, why switch? That's sort of like saying, "Why don't you change phone numbers? The 241 prefix is so much better than the 547 prefix you have now."

If all my friends were on Google+, I might use Google+ more than I use Facebook. They're not. In fact, the ones who have Google+ accounts don't do anything there. So there's not much reason for me to waste any time on it, either. I don't know what makes this so hard to understand. It kind of feels like Google is ashamed to admit it's not offering anything compelling with Google+. In this scenario, Facebook is Google and Google+ is Bing, it's just that simple.

Re:Why I don't use Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782292)

I might use Google+ if it offered me something Facebook didn't, full stop.

There is one thing which Google+ offers which Facebook does not. It is not Facebook. There's really no single feature that's more important than that one.

Re:Why I don't use Google+ (2)

daver!west!fmc (536918) | about 3 years ago | (#37782572)

As it stands, why switch? That's sort of like saying, "Why don't you change phone numbers? The 241 prefix is so much better than the 547 prefix you have now."

But the 241 prefix is better: you don't need to pull the dial as far to dial 241.

Re:Why I don't use Google+ (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#37782790)

Because the people that are going to get G+ going are the ones that refused to get a FB account due to the horrendous privacy policies. Google isn't perfect when it comes to their privacy policy, but at least they tend to keep it fairly consistent rather than constantly changing the settings hoping to catch people unaware.

The tough thing is getting the beginning group to stay, after that you'll start to see groups moving there and ultimately if things go well they'll start to snowball. But, if G+ requires real names, it doesn't give me any reason to start groups there as I might as well just go with FB and accept that my privacy is just going to be ass raped by that douch Zuckerberg.

Re:Why I don't use Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782848)

No obnoxious app notifications.
Hangouts.
Android 4.0 integration

There, three features.

Re:Why I don't use Google+ (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#37782876)

Actually the problem is Google isn't a jackass with patents. Google offered a ton of things that Facebook didn't have on day 1. Intelligent group sharing, easy controls, easy to understand following, video chat (you could argue that Facebook didn't do video chat as reactionary, but as soon as Google began hinting at getting into the social network business, it was pretty strongly known that they were going to do video chat, considering they have it in everything else). In the month following Google+'s launch, facebook added more actual features to their page then they had in the previous year. If microsoft, apple or any other company had been the company to launch the equivalent of G+, you could bet your ass that they'd have patented each of those features and taken facebook to court for every single one of them.

This will go over big with web spammers (1)

Animats (122034) | about 3 years ago | (#37782156)

This will be a big boost to "purchaseplusone.com", "googleplus1supply.com", "buyrealplusone.com" (a Google advertiser, no less) and "plusonehero.com", "buyplusoneservice.com", "buygoogleplus1.net", "buyplusonenow.com", and "plusonesbuilder.com". It will be even easier for them to acquire Google accounts and create "+1" value for their customers.

Social is bad for search, and search is bad for social. As soon as a social service provides a boost to search ranking, it gets spammed. Heavily. This has happened to Google Places [sitetruth.com] ., Yelp, Citysearch (really bad there), Twitter (this is why your Twitter feeds are full of spam links), Facebook "likes", and now Google +1. From a spammer perspective, social spamming is easy and cheap. Setting up a link farm requires web sites, unique content, and ongoing site maintenance. Social spam just requires phony free accounts. The social services host your spam for you, for free.

Presumably the smart people at Google have figured this out by now, but they've been told that 2011 employee bonuses depends on Google's success at social. [businessinsider.com] So, from a Google employee perspective, sacrificing search quality for social features makes sense. Google top management got paranoid about Facebook, which is about 1/5 the size of Google and peaked a few months back. (Social networks grow and die like nightclubs, which have a limited lifetime of coolness. Remember AOL, Geocities, Friendster, Orkut, Yahoo 360, Myspace...)

Google search quality efforts are mostly "window dressing", as the U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island put it in his statement about Google's non-prosecution agreement. [mainjustice.com] When ad revenue conflicts with search quality, ad revenue wins. Prof. Ben Eidelman of the Harvard Business School [benedelman.org] has analyzed this in detail.

Re:This will go over big with web spammers (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | about 3 years ago | (#37782920)

Google search quality efforts are mostly "window dressing", as the U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island put it in his statement about Google's non-prosecution agreement. [mainjustice.com] When ad revenue conflicts with search quality, ad revenue wins. Prof. Ben Eidelman of the Harvard Business School [benedelman.org] has analyzed this in detail.

Do you even read your own links? Neither of those is talking about search quality whatsoever.

But still no org pages??? (1)

Maltheus (248271) | about 3 years ago | (#37782158)

I never really got what this was such a big deal to people. It's distracting from the fact that the site still lacks basic features, like be able to change the visibility of a post, nesting circles, chat invite though button (instead of having to know the other's e-mail), being able to select multiple circles in your stream (instead of all or 1 -- god this is so fucking obvious) and most of all ... org/group/business pages.

Without org pages, I have no way of drawing new people in since all of my social networking usually revolves around a page or a group. Google even acknowledged that it was a mistake not to be ready with them but they still haven't taken a break from surfing in the parking lot long enough to implement them.

I really wanted G+ to succeed, but there's obviously something very wrong with the management over there. I thought they were going all in with this product, but we only see a minor update every couple of weeks, and now the momentum is gone. I wonder who will get promoted for this fuck up.

I know how to get them more users... (1)

T-Mckenney (2008418) | about 3 years ago | (#37782180)

Its easy. Stop trying to be Facebook. There are too many sites now that are just photocopying Facebook. People want something different, that is what drives competition.

What about already-deleted G+ accounts?! (1)

Bahumat (213955) | about 3 years ago | (#37782208)

And what about those of us who already had our G+ accounts deleted for refusing to use our real names?

G+ has more issues than just names (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782248)

I canceled the sign-up process for Google+ once I saw the message that anyone who can see my profile can share my uploaded Picasa photo albums with people of their choosing. Screw that. No one should be allowed to share my stuff.

Just all register as Allen Smithee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782254)

then no problem

OpenID (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 3 years ago | (#37782310)

If they're serious about this, all they have to do is adopt OpenID and not be dicks about it. Maybe things have changed, but last I checked big companies like Google and Facebook only accept OpenID from either themselves or other big companies. This insular, corporate attitude contrasts with the friendly Internet face they like to portray.

WRONG (1)

koan (80826) | about 3 years ago | (#37782530)

"JWZ is a skeptic" wrong, wrong, wrong, the word you want here is "realist".

So, JWZ is a realist.

Why was this such a big deal in the first place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37782598)

Seriously, I constantly heard people bitching about it, but who adds friends that use fake names?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?