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+ Account Suspensions Over ToS Drawing Fire

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the good-thing-about-being-unfamous dept.

Social Networks 560

ideonexus writes "Reports of Google+ deleting user accounts are all over, including Limor Fried — AKA Lady Ada / Adafruit Industries (recently featured in Wired Magazine) and former Google employee Kirrily 'Skud' Robert for violating Google's identity ToS. Other users are finding themselves locked out of their accounts without an explanation of how they violated the ToS. The worst part for these individuals is that a lock-out of Google+ includes being locked out of all Google services, including email, calendar, and documents."

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

Mark Twain... (4, Funny)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860896)

would get his account suspended, too...

Re:Mark Twain... (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860972)

Or (more appropriately) George Orwell.

Re:Mark Twain... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861016)

The reports of my account suspension are greatly exaggerated.

--
Mark Twain

Re:Mark Twain... (1)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861246)

Hang on... aren't you dead?

LOCKED OUT!? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36860898)

I've been locked in Google+ for a week now....please send help...running low on air...heeeellllllppppp!

This wouldn't be a big deal except (5, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860902)

There have been some claims that this is an example Google being evil but this seems more like incompetence and hamfistedness than evil. This would be silly and minor if not for the reports that some of these people can't access their other Google products they use. Many people use gmail for their primary email. If any of these people use it for business they could be actively losing money from this. But this does lead to two basic lessons which are apparently not repeated enough: First, when you use a free service you get what you paid for. Second, backing things up is always a good idea.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (5, Insightful)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860942)

The trouble is you are debating "being evil" over "doing evil". That is, "Don't Be Evil" rather than "Don't Do Evil" is a distraction - it means that when Google does something that's just fucking obnoxious, people start debating the inner content of their hearts rather than that they're doing something they should damn well stop doing. Excellent piece of derailing, that slogan.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861030)

Somebody being evil means that they're likely to be evil in whatever they do; someone doing evil means they may have made a rare mistake and will fix it, or perhaps they're blind to the evilness of that one particular area.
 
To compare: if Google buys a company, there's a good chance they'll handle the existing userbase reasonably well. If Oracle buys a company, the user base is almost guaranteed to be fucked over.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861088)

Somebody being evil means that they're likely to be evil in whatever they do; someone doing evil means they may have made a rare mistake and will fix it, or perhaps they're blind to the evilness of that one particular area.

Oh you innocent, innocent child.

An evil man can do good for greater evils. It's easy.

For example, start up an orphanage. Let it grow larger and larger. Watch as more and more orphans come in under your wing. Then, when it hits an amount of orphans that is very large, torch the place, destroy all the infrastructure and records, and send those orphans that came in and were relived to have a safe place back out into the shithole that they once were in. Laugh as some of them suicide in despair.

Compared that to just killing random orphans or torching a small established orphanage, this is FAR more return on investment.

As for doing evil in the pursuit of good, see: EVERY WAR, EVER? Especially the religious ones. Hell, you even have people willingly doing acts that they know as evil for the greater good. Fuck the greater good. Fuck the needs of the many. If the many aren't willing to sacrifice for the few, why should the few sacrifice for the many?

The only lives people should be allowed to sacrifice are their own.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861264)

Actually that reminds me of a commentary by Joss Whedon when he talked about writing evil characters. he said the trick was that nobody believes they are evil even when they are truly monstrous. He said "I have known people who have done truly vicious things, gone out of their way to cause pain and suffering to a fellow human being and they believed they were moral and just as they did it, for they always had a reason"

And that is the whole problem with that stupid "Do no evil" slogan as you can always find an excuse to justify almost any behavior. They broke the TOS, they threatened our business, they could have cost us contracts that would have cost people their jobs (I'm sure Intel used the last two when bribing OEMs to nearly put AMD out of business). Everyone has an excuse, everyone has a reason.

The fact that people here are actually arguing over what Google had in their hearts when they fucked those people over (how many of us have all our contacts in our email written down?) just shows what a brilliant piece of marketing "Do no evil" is. Makes Apple and MSFT look like little league, but it don't make it any less bullshit.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (1)

tooyoung (853621) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861100)

Somebody being evil means that they're likely to be evil in whatever they do; someone doing evil means they may have made a rare mistake and will fix it, or perhaps they're blind to the evilness of that one particular area.

It also means they'll kill two virgins every full moon.

In all seriousness, which fairytail's rules are you operating by?

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861252)

In all seriousness: if you don't think people can do something evil by accident or without being evil, and that people can't see the error of their ways, one of the logical consequences is for all criminal punishments to be life (or death) sentences.
 
You're living in a fantasy world yourself, it's just a cynical one.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (3, Informative)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861196)

Perhaps we should all cancel our Google+ accounts, stating that we do it because:
1. We strongly disagree with the policy that makes our entire Google account for all services disappear for just breaking Google+ policy
2. (optional) We disagree with the policy that we shouldn't be able to use a pseudonym on Google+
3. We disagree with having to provide an identification or other proof for our names - this should be required only for a kind of a light version of a verified account

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (1)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861232)

Making a distinction between intent and action is quite important. Intent (along with historical performance, yes) has relevance to future action. Good Samaritan laws exist because people know there's a difference.

If Google were believed to be evil (malicious in intent), you could expect them not to clean this mess up. I don't think they're evil per se (it's complicated), so I expect they'll at least disentangle Gmail lockouts from Google+ lockouts.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860944)

Regardless of whether "evil" it is certainly incompetent and hamfisted: "Oh, hey guys! Let's ensure that our product's debut continues to get good press(and doesn't stir up any 'is Google getting too powerful?' articles by locking out a number of fairly high-profile geeks who sometimes like to use nicknames! And, just so it looks really petty, let's hit the ones whose real names are well known and associated with those nicknames, and lock out enough random users without explanation that quotes-from-disgruntled-peasants will be readily available!"

Even being evil doesn't absolve you of the need to not be stupid.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36860958)

Third:
Monoculture is always a bad thing.
Always.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36860980)

Not everyone who uses Gmail is using it for free. This is where Google could be heading for real trouble, because they do have negotiated institutional terms, and they do charge real money for enterprise services. Lots of companies and academic institutions use Gmail on their domains.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861050)

Google Apps accounts cannot register for Google+ ... so they are not affected by the bans.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (4, Informative)

Marble68 (746305) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860992)

As a G+ problem - I've seen several people report this and almost always it comes down to something like this:
The ToS for Google services have various criteria.
When filling out the G+ profile - it's really your "Google" profile.

People have been putting bullshit information in. This triggers an automatic suspension of the account because what was entered violates the ToS.

Since the G+ profile is really your "Google" profile; it also locks you out of other services.

The most common one I've seen is people bitching after saying they put in a birth date that made them under the required minimum age to enter into an agreement with Google.

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (1)

HJED (1304957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861114)

which can be due to a typo and which google give you no option to change once you've entered it. However many people are in fact complaining that google is blocking out all under 18 (not under 13) users with no explanation and that in some cases it seems to be guessing peoples age (they haven't given that information to google)

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861282)

Why the obsession with youth? Why lie about your age to be a fetus? Why not say you're as old as possible? Grow up, people!

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (5, Insightful)

doomy (7461) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861060)

The problem is that El Goog has almost no existing customer support service. If your account is compromised and or disabled by Google itself, there is no place to seek help. The only place you could ask for help would be the Google support forum, which is actually run by users, no one hangs around there that can do administrative level work. The next issue is that G+ has automated real name identification system and account an suspension system based on several automated features, currently due there is almost no way to appeal an account suspension due to a non-existing customer support system. To test this system try changing your name (preferably on a throwaway account) multiple times, you'd find out that it would automatically suspend access to your account once that passes a certain threshold. The biggest issue is that once someone creates a G+ account, all their existing Google content comes under that account, thus a suspension of the G+ account means goodbye to gmail, YouTube, blogger, Calendar and so on.. all content is disabled and it's almost impossible to get it back (unless you are a celebrity or your story gets published in media).

Re:This wouldn't be a big deal except (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861258)

I'm quite sure it would be trivial to get your stuff back even if you were a small-time businessman such as myself - stealing of trade secrets, tortious interference of business, etc.

No kidding (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861080)

Makes me reconsider if I wish to use it. If Google shut down my G+ account, or Facebook shut down my account or the like I'd lose no sleep over it. I really am not in to social networking and I think it is mostly a silly way for people to waste time at work (I've got better ways to waste time at work, like Slashdot :). However I would be rather angry if my G-mail account was shut down. I have a lot of important things directed to it and it would be rather inconvenient if shut down.

I signed up because friends invited me. I'll have to think if I want to stay signed up as G+ is just something silly to keep my friends happy, G-mail is something I use a lot and I don't want one to risk the other.

Re:No kidding (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861172)

I have to agree. I quit using youtube in a signed in fashion when they insisted I connect with a gmail account, and I seriously dislike the integration of g+ into anything else.

Personally I don't use my gmail for anything significant (I'll run my own server for anything I actually care about, thankyouverymuch), but if I did I'd certainly be very leery about using it in a linked way.

Facebook Vs. Google+ (3, Insightful)

Nukedoom (1776114) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860904)

You know for all of Facebook's privacy infringement, there is one ace in the sleeve Google+ has over their users that Facebook does not: Gmail.

Re:Facebook Vs. Google+ (0)

__Paul__ (1570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860996)

I don't understand what the big deal over gmail is. The interface is nasty. Labels are ridiculous; give me proper folders any day.

Webmail might be useful when you're not near your own computer, but I'd prefer a fully-fledged MUA over any of the available webmail interfaces any day.

Re:Facebook Vs. Google+ (2)

Nukedoom (1776114) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861052)

I'm not really familiar with the term, heh, but if MUA is what Wikipedia says it is, then I use one all the time. I'm sure you've heard of it--it's called Sparrow and it's pretty much an integral part of my workflow nowadays. The problem I was talking about though, was that Google has the ability to completely turn off your Gmail account so that you can't access it. I agree with you over the interface, however. It looks better now; it's more minimalist, but I still prefer Sparrow.

Re:Facebook Vs. Google+ (2)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861056)

You know gmail allows imap and pop access as well?

Re:Facebook Vs. Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861106)

If you use IMAP or POP3 instead of the web interface, then why don't you get your own domain and make your own email addresses? There are much fewer strings attached to a domain than to a Google account. In the 90s, you could always tell the cheapskates and metoos from the people who "got" the internet by looking at their email address. Back then the mark of failure was an AOL address on a business card or on the back of the van. Do you really think Gmail is different?

Re:Facebook Vs. Google+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861250)

I use my own domain on google apps.

Re:Facebook Vs. Google+ (2)

masshuu (1260516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861256)

because someone has to actually host the mailserver. Not everyone knows how to do that themselves.
You have the option of paying a company to do it or use a free service like hotmail/gmail/yahoo(not sure if yahoo or hotmail let you use your own domain, I don't touch them)

Re:Facebook Vs. Google+ (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861138)

Do not forget Exchange as well.

Re:Facebook Vs. Google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861062)

Your comment on labels is ridiculous. Labels are a superset of folders, allowing you to do anything folders can, and more. If you want to use them as folders, then you are free to do that - just don't assign multiple labels to a message.

Re:Facebook Vs. Google+ (2)

petteyg359 (1847514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861066)

Folders are ridiculous; give me proper labels any day.

Fixed that for you. Until you show me a mail client that can display several folders at once in a concise list...

A certain part of the interface is particularly nasty, though (the "report spam" button being right next to the "archive" button).

Gmail is a more "fully fledged MUA" than any other I've ever seen or used.

Re:Facebook Vs. Google+ (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861076)

You can place labels "inside" other labels (just like nested folders).

So, use them as if they were folders. What's the big deal? The only difference is that you can place the same message in multiple "folders" with Gmail's labels -- instead of making duplicates. (Sort of like a hard-link, where all you ever use is the links, and the actual file is inside Google somewhere...)

So they create a rule.... (2)

liquidweaver (1988660) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860906)

...and they don't make exceptions to celebrities? I think if Google allowed some people to have fake identities and some not, this same article would be front page Slashdot and the haters will still be hatin'

Re:So they create a rule.... (2)

middlerun (1702904) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860974)

Nobody is saying they should make exceptions for celebrities. The problem is that they lock people out of all their Google services for one alleged infringement, potentially cutting off access to important personal data, with no real avenues of appeal. And also that by not allowing anonymous Google accounts they're screwing over people such as activists who need to be able to use services like this anonymously.

Re:So they create a rule.... (2)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861012)

Come on, snap back to reality. How many tens of millions of people share the same bloody name. How stupid can google be, effectively banning anyone from using google who has the same name as someone else using google. The single greatest benefit of pseudonym usernames is getting past the fact many people share the same name.

Google bans tens of thousands of john smiths, now add these two http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_given_names [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_most_common_surnames [wikipedia.org] and you get the real measure of google idiocy.

Re:So they create a rule.... (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861064)

Maybe they should change their names to Bobby Tables?

Re:So they create a rule.... (3, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861120)

This is not what Google is doing. They allow multiple people with the same name, it's just underage or fraudulent info gets you banned.

I removed all of my "correct, yet questionable" data, eg: Location: Earth, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy (A suburb of the Virgo Galactic Cluster) -- just in case. Actually, I removed ALL of the optional data about me, except for my name. Way to fail at your core competency Google (that is, getting me to allow them to aggregate my data).

With all the fucking automated badassery that is google, why do they not simply send you a notice or email:

ATTENTION! We are assholes, and thus this is your first and final warning before we lock you out of your account for-fucking-ever!

Please be advised, there is some questionable material that we do not think is correct on your profile (but we really don't know, someone probably just reported you, so we sent you this letter).

If you do not dispute this within 3 days access to your account will be denied, but we'll keep aggegating data about you when you search or use Youtube, etc.

You can Fuck Right off Human Slime,
Google's Faceless Automated Android Systems.

IMHO, this would be much better than what they are currently doing...

Re:So they create a rule.... (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861270)

Define how getting you to remove completely pointless data from your account is them "failing at their core competency"? If anything your example proves that their rules have just benefited them, and the accuracy of their aggregated data.

Re:So they create a rule.... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861128)

Forgive the additional reply, but WRT to "John Smith" being banned -- Well, that's a folk singer's name. Perhaps people are reporting other John Smiths thinking "Hey, this isn't the singer I searched for".

In short, it could just be a bunch of dumbass Google+ users banning people by reporting them, and Google not having a good algo in place that says: 1) Notify before ban w/ dispute resolution option. 2) If many same-name's get reported, look into the cause, perhaps it's a common name and 3) Ban the reporting fools -- You know they reported too many people (see also #1).

Re:So they create a rule.... (0)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861278)

"Forgive the additional reply, but WRT to "John Smith" being banned -- Well, that's a folk singer's name."

When this country was first starting, many of the settlers did not have a last name or title. Thus, their last name came from their profession - So in your example, John Smith would have been a blacksmith named John.

This is in fact how many last names commonly found today were created. This tradition carried on well into the 1920s from what I recall.

Re:So they create a rule.... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861164)

Actually, Google is attempting to woo celebrities to their platform, such as Lady Gaga.

The irony is that Lady Gaga isn't her actual name.

Facebook does this too (4, Informative)

ArcRiley (737114) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860908)

Lets not forget that Facebook has been deactivating user accounts on the suspicion that they're using an alias for many years, they have a small dictionary of banned names to do this automatically. Have a unique first name like "Husky Smithson"? Too bad.

Only difference is Facebook accounts are not also used for email and other essential services.

Re:Facebook does this too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36860926)

Really? I have four fake FB accounts with obviously unnatural names, and they've been active for a few years already.

Re:Facebook does this too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36860964)

Care to give us the names of those fake accounts? We can show you very quickly how FB deletes fake accounts, simply by reporting said accounts as fake and sitting back to watch their incompetent employees go to town on them.

Re:Facebook does this too (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861002)

Why should I? Go use your Anon powers and figure em out yourselves.

Re:Facebook does this too (1)

MokuMokuRyoushi (1701196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860966)

Interestingly, I do as well. I had no idea that they even deleted accounts for that reason.

Re:Facebook does this too (2)

Cito (1725214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860984)

Yea I have 5 fake facebook accounts for last 4 years My real one

one I use to give out for work

one I use to login to other services so I can remain anon

and backups in case needed to login to a forum under more fake anon aliases or troll news site comments

Re:Facebook does this too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861230)

Shut the fuck up, Husky!

Re:Facebook does this too (2)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861200)

Only difference is Facebook accounts are not also used for email and other essential services.

And this is the important thing. I couldn't care less if Facebook banned me (no seriously, I use it to chat to one friend in another city who I could just text message or ring), but getting banned from my entire Google account is a serious issue. I heard about people having their Google accounts banned for Google+ ToS violations right when it first come out which is why I haven't signed up.

I have already experienced losing a 10+ year old email account on Yahoo (who inexplicitly reset a whole bunch of Australian users passwords when doing upgrades, unfortunately for me I couldn't remember the answer to secret questions I set a decade ago) and it was a serious annoyance. If I hadn't half-transitioned to Gmail it would have been massively more annoying.

P.S. Anyone wonder when we will start getting "official" email addresses like we have postal addresses?

Re:Facebook does this too (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861248)

P.S. Anyone wonder when we will start getting "official" email addresses like we have postal addresses?

In Germany you can already opt into "DE-Mail". If you get a mail there (usually from the government) it is about the same as an letter to your mailbox.
However, each De-mails costs a small fee and I don't see why anyone wants another inbox they are legally required to check.

All from one company.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36860912)

Getting all your services from one company sure is convenient until you have problems with one part of their service but not the other.

Like getting you Internet shut off because you are in dispute with the cell phone devision. We don't learn shit from history.

Re:All from one company.... (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860932)

Unlike with a utility such as the phone/internet company, it is trivial to create separate Google accounts, one for Gmail, one for Google+, etc.

Re:All from one company.... (1)

That Guy From Mrktng (2274712) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861046)

I was thinking along the same lines, but I think google is being incompetent rather that evil here, is not in their best interest to lock people out of gmail or, say.. adwords. I hope they fix it or else probably the 2 account route will be available for those that really need them, or Google can play Nazi and scare people away. Anyway where are the numbers?

Business email in Gmail? You are doing it wrong, they say they can't offer the reliability people need for a critical missions. You get that when you go to the forums looking for help when your email is locked and you cry you are are losing money. Buy a domain, link all web services to recover/fall back from that mail and be done with it. Or get a Google apps account which gives you full MEAT support 24/7, I'm going to do it, when I can transfer my data from several other google accounts into the paid one, not available to 100% of the services.

I'd welcome a Google+ invitation, want to test the water before creating the definitive accounts, anyone?

Re:All from one company.... (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861288)

"Unlike with a utility such as the phone/internet company, it is trivial to create separate Google accounts,"

Not in California. Edison and Sempra LOVE to charge you for addresses you haven't lived in for MONTHS even after you change service to a new address.

Numbers (3, Insightful)

petteyg359 (1847514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860914)

Kobnyc in TFA comments:
"The article refers to deletions "en masse" and "striking number" and "dam had burst" etc but nowhere provides any hard or soft numbers to go with these clearly inflammatory adjectives."

I, too, want some numbers.

Re:Numbers (3, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860952)

Of course, Google aren't releasing numbers. However, Skud is gathering data at the suspended accounts list [google.com] .

Re:Numbers (1)

gront (594175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861254)

I, too, want some numbers.

how bout ? maybe e if you're feeling frisky.

Re:Numbers (1)

gront (594175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861260)

that would have made sense if the symbol for pi actually had stayed in the comment. oh well

Diversify your service providers (2)

theweatherelectric (2007596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860916)

The worst part for these individuals is that a lock-out of Google+ includes being locked out of all Google services, including email, calendar, and documents.

Which is why it's always important avoid concentrating your services in just one provider.

Re:Diversify your service providers (1)

txoof (553270) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860946)

Which is why it's always important avoid concentrating your services in just one provider.

Or, to ensure that you have a solid backup regime that pulls down your data and spreads the risk around. I pop all my gmail, compress it and store it both locally and with a cloud backup provider. Same goes for my contacts and calendar entries. This article motivated me to double check that everything was working as I expected, however.

It would certainly be inconvenient if I was locked out of my email account, but downright tragic to lose my address book. It's one of those things that is hard to value until it's gone.

Re:Diversify your service providers (2)

Marble68 (746305) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861014)

Or, you go ahead and abide by the ToS.

See my previous post - but the first time I saw this happen was someone lied about their age - and it was below the required age for G+.

A G+ profile is a Google profile. If you put in false information that violates the ToS - the account will get shut off.

It's really kinda f*cking simple. Kids lie and say they're 21 and they have a G+ account. Some moron says he's 12 and he's *shocked*, yes *SHOCKED* his account was automatically disabled because he was too young. True story.

I joined G+ on July 1st - and the process was automated at first. I think they're doing some type of review now because they come in waves.

Re:Diversify your service providers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861280)

It's not just the data. It's emails being bounced, no access, no support and possibly having to get a new email as well as everyone else updating their address books.

Re:Diversify your service providers (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861022)

It depends on what the odds of the services suddenly becoming unavailable are, and how important those services are to you. Does the convenience of using a single provider that works fine for millions of people with extremely high uptime outweigh an apparently tiny chance of having those services suddenly disabled? For most people, yup. To use a similar example, most people don't have their own generators, even though they rely on a single power company.

You had said it's "always important," when it's really not. Sorry if I've taken you too literally.

This will drive people away from Plus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36860920)

It's one thing to suspend someone's Google Plus account. That's new, is still truly beta (not just Google Beta), and no one depends on it yet for anything serious. But locking someone out of their Gmail? And not explaining why? That's simply unacceptable. This could discourage people from using Plus.

I know I'm a bit shaky about using now and I don't do anything that critical on Gmail.

Morons. let me deactivate my account. (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860934)

its a good way to lose business. google should congratulate the morons running these policies. they killed google+ before it started for me.

and on another note, this situation basically drew my attention to the fact that relying on google is not a good thing.

Re:Morons. let me deactivate my account. (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861026)

Yep, this guarantees any Google+ account I get in the future will be the only Google service on that account.

All eggs in one basket (2)

xororand (860319) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860976)

Dealing with invididual eggs is just too cumbersome.
So instead, I carry all in one large basket.
What could possibly go wrong?

Re:All eggs in one basket (4, Funny)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861156)

Dealing with invididual eggs is just too cumbersome. So instead, I carry all in one large basket. What could possibly go wrong?

The mass of all the eggs in the world in one basket causes the eggs at the bottom to break, the ones above fall into place and crack too; The eggs quickly begin accelerating towards the bottom of the basket where the speed of their collisions allows the density to surpass the gravity well tipping point, and a new black-hole is born, it quickly gobbles up a chunk of the Earth before vanishing in a burst of Gama rays that extinguishes all life on the planet.

You should here my explanation of why you shouldn't leave the water on while you brush your teeth...

Re:All eggs in one basket (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861238)

You should here my explanation of why you shouldn't leave the water on while you brush your teeth...

Indeed. Let's have it.

G+ id policy is problematic at multiple levels. (2)

master_p (608214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36860978)

I wonder how g+ can know if a name is real or not. I mean, it is obious that "lady ada" is a pseudonym, but what if someone was called bya peculiar and also strange name? how would g+ handle that?

I think google is too afraid that its social network will be used for nefarious purposes. I think Google worries too much: possibly evil people will register with a name as realisitc as possible, but it will not be their real name, while many legitimate users that go by their pseuodyms will suffer.

G+ also does not let you login from the same ip address twice, from what I see so far. How can this work for families with many members but only one computef? or machines shared by different people in different shifts in a business setting?

Re:G+ id policy is problematic at multiple levels. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861008)

It doesn't handle it. A friend of mine's name is Flash Jones.

That's her name, her birth name, the name she prefers, and it's been her name for thirty seven years.

She's lost her Google account, her Facebook account, and had requests to use a 'real' name by multiple employers and banks through her life - some of whom attempt to force the use of her more regular middle name in place of her first.

Google however, is in the business of knowing about us, and the information you have on what we prefer to be known as, the identities *WE* wish to use, is important. Why bother collecting this shit if you'd prefer us to use identities we don't identify with? Sounds self defeating, no?

Re:G+ id policy is problematic at multiple levels. (1)

bluemonq (812827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861028)

Thing is, both Lady Ada and Skud embedded their pseudonyms in their real names that they used for their profile listings. I wonder if that is triggering something.

As for not being able to login from the same IP twice, that is incorrect, and easily proven by the fact that my phone and laptop are accessing Gmail through the same router, at the same time, without any problems. I can also log into two different accounts using two separate browsers. What it doesn't allow is two different sessions in the same browser. For the family computer, you need to logout of your email when you're done... which is what you should be doing anyway whenever you're not the only one with access to a computer.

Re:G+ id policy is problematic at multiple levels. (1)

darrylo (97569) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861170)

I'd guess that the suspension was caused by the mere existence of a double-quote character.

Re:G+ id policy is problematic at multiple levels. (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861034)

Even better a family with multiple computers behind a firewall and NAT. What happens then? I know of many families with that exact setup.

Re:G+ id policy is problematic at multiple levels. (1)

kletus (83572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861158)

I noticed on my Google Account page they now show an option called Multiple Sign-in. It appears that would solve this problem.

Re:G+ id policy is problematic at multiple levels. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861216)

I'm in that situation. No problem with me and my parents being logged on G+ at the same time.

Re:G+ id policy is problematic at multiple levels. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861094)

G+ policy states to use the common name you are called - and we call her ladyada something like 95% of the time... Limor only sometimes (and usually to somebody to who doesn't know her well), and on very rare occasion (i.e, a formal context), Ms. Fried. Same thing for Phil Torrone - except it's more like 45% adabot, 45% pt, and some more formal variation of his proper name fills out the rest.

I suspect that the issue may be that they outsourced policy enforcement, perhaps to somewhere where having a personal identity closely interrelated with a brand identity is not common. Either that or they've got total noobs on the job...

In any case, it's an example of "shoot first, ask questions later" - they should have sent a warning first, and contacted the account holder to sort things out before killing the account.

Re:G+ id policy is problematic at multiple levels. (1)

BonquiquiShiquavius (1598579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861122)

G+ also does not let you login from the same ip address twice, from what I see so far. How can this work for families with many members but only one computef? or machines shared by different people in different shifts in a business setting?

We have more than one computer, but my wife and I both share the main PC. We're both logged into Google+, at the same time, on the same computer...but using different Windows profiles. No problems at all.

Quit the whining! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36860986)

There was a reason why people wanted their own PCs instead of relying on mainframe access. You keep your data in the cloud because looking for a decentralized way seems too much work. Now live with the consequences. (And yes, this is the logical consequence, not just a glitch.)

Playing into Google's hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36860994)

What better way to publicize their security features than to lock out a few high profile individuals and have them tweet the story all the way to Slashdot?

The thing about Lady Ada and Skud... (1)

bluemonq (812827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861004)

...is that they both had their handles as part of their name, in quotes, on their profile. It would be interesting to see what proportion of locked accounts have handles embedded in their real name.

mod 3o,wn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861020)

it a break, if bleak 7uture. In from one folder on it a bre%ak, if from one folder on

Be Careful who you accept Kool-Aid from (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861038)

If a Web site demands that you give them your real phone number so that they can call you up to verify who you are, in order to use their "free" services, then that "free" service isn't worth using.

People may still think I'm a loser for not having a Facebook account. But really, in the end, I'm the one who is looking like a genius.

When corporations become too big, they inevitably become evil. That is a trend anyways. I can't think of any exceptions. Disney and Google (and Enron etc... et al) sure do have the marketing power to make people want to drink the Kool-Aid. Personally, I love Koo Aide, but I don't except free drinks from Internet Evangelists.

This whole trend of requiring real names and phone numbers to use the Internet (or its most popular services) is on the wrong track for safe and anonymous Web browsing.

Now that Slashdot has done the right thing and divorced themselves from Facebook and Twitter, I may get a new account here (once again).

Is it time to disconnect from Google services? (4, Insightful)

JakFrost (139885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861102)

I read the article and the biggest and most fearful thing that many people who were affected by this was that all of their Google services, including Gmail were affected and disabled.

I only use Gmail for e-mail functionality because it is free and convenient and it is my primary e-mail address that has stayed universal through ISP changes and moves. I was quite well aware of Google's privacy policy and advertisement angle along with the fact that all of them will be available forever to Google, before I signed up to Gmail and have been weary every since. The offer of convenient, free, reliable, spam-free, managed by someone else, and universally accepted Gmail account had a lot of benefits since I didn't have to buy my own domain, maintain my own e-mail server, and deal with spam filtering

I still haven't been burned by Gmail but I'm now wondering that since Google has become such a large entity it is surely going to suffer the fate of a behemoth afflicted by blind bureaucracy and the e-mails that they have forever will somehow get out to agencies, companies, or people who I don't want them to see.

I'm going to seriously look into the technical and logical feasibility of install a mail server on my Linux box in my house which is going to require that I manage my own services and spam filtering along with dealing with the hoops of trying to run a mail server behind an ISP with my own domain name.

Re:Is it time to disconnect from Google services? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861206)

I started doing that this year. It is a bit painful at the beginning. But I am slowly but surely going out of google. Have my own mail server that share with a few friends. and start using websearch frontends like ixquick and scroogle. Those are small steps, but I feel a bit more private to be honest.

Google vs Google (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861116)

I always thought that Google+ would face a lot of attacks from Facebook, but I was wrong. Google is mostly going to be attacked by Google.

Google Plus is a Huge Privacy Disappointment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861150)

I blogged about this earlier today. I was so hoping that Google+ would be the thing to come in and show Facebook how to do social collaboration while preserving privacy. I thought the roadblocks would be technical or marketing; I never expected it to be ruined by Google policy.

http://jimrantsnraves.blogspot.com/2011/07/google-and-huge-privacy-letdown.html

Unbelievably stupid... maybe a hack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861154)

I cannot believe that Google would be so foolish as to anger people in this manner. I really wonder if there is another reason for this, someone with an agenda to hurt Google+. I can't think of any one that would do such a thing, everybody loves Google, right? If Google doesn't step forward, and deal with this very fast, they can see this startup go the way of Buzz, and then watch as their stock value plunges.

I love a train wreck....

Re:Unbelievably stupid... maybe a hack? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861218)

I still have a shitload of unknown people blocked on buzz because they don't let you poll your contacts.

LIVE IN THE CLOUD DIE IN THE CLOUD !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861166)

Listen up and let me tell you a story.

Teh Google OWNS You !! And have your monkey, too !!

Beta affecting stable services? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861178)

How can Google allow a BETA service to shut down STABLE services. This doesn't seem very smart.

"real name" means your REAL NAME. (2, Informative)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861180)

mods before you mark this a troll, please consider my point carefully as it has validity.

the people in question would not have ToS violations for their names if they had put their real names in the "real name" fields and their nickname/alias in the "nickname" field.

Kirrily "Skud" Robert is not his real name. Kirrily Robert is his real name and Skud is his nickname.
Limor Fried “Ladyada” is not a real name but Limor Fried is.

While heavy-handed and without warning, these users did actually violate the ToS. That said, it seems Google should inform users that adding their nickname to their real name is not ok.

Re:"real name" means your REAL NAME. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861236)

Thank you, Capt. Obvious. Everyone is aware that it's against the TOS. People don't think it should be. Moreover, It's Google's irrationally and unreasonably extreme enforcement of this term that's causing controversy. It's creepy how desperate Google is becoming and how low they're willing to go to bully you into giving accurate personal information for them to mine.

Google does no wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36861198)

This has to be the fault of those users. Google is the World's Greatest Company and can do no wrong. Just look at their incredible search engine with its amazing ability to change my search words to the correct words instead of giving me results for those obviously wrong words that I typed. No other search engine can do that.

Some backup options for gmail, google docs (1)

suraj.sun (1348507) | more than 3 years ago | (#36861276)

Though I don't have G+ or Adsense etc, after reading this, Google Deletes Last 7 Years Of User's Digital Life (http://consumerist.com/2011/07/google-deletes-last-7-years-of-users-digital-life-shrugs.html), I've started taking gmail, gdocs backups.

Gmail : http://www.gmail-backup.com/ [gmail-backup.com]
Google Docs: http://code.google.com/p/gdocbackup/downloads/list [google.com]

Though the ideal solution would be to have your own domain. I got mine, a .me from Namecheap for $7.49 just a few weeks ago and using it with free Windows Live (http://domains.live.com/) for email (and you can have 500 emails, 25GB Skydrive, 5GB synced storage etc), which I can change anytime I want by changing MX records at Namecheap.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?