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!

Schmidt: G+ 'Identity Service,' Not Social Network

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the not-my-favorite-of-google-moves dept.

Google 417

David Gerard writes "Eric Schmidt has revealed that Google+ is an identity service, and the 'social network' bit is just bait. Schmidt says 'G+ is completely optional,' not mentioning that Google has admitted that deleting a G+ account will seriously downgrade your other Google services. As others have noted, Somewhere, there are two kids in a garage building a company whose motto will be 'Don't be Google.'"

cancel ×

417 comments

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

Sounds like a load of Web 2.0 bullshit to me. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37233992)

Yet another useless marketing buzzword upon the massive pile of existing, meaningless Web 2.0 buzzwords.

goats+ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37233996)

goates+ [goatse.fr]

Did we even need more proof? (-1, Troll)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 3 years ago | (#37234000)

Capitalism is leading our species to disaster! GOOGLE and its nefarious Italian backers are the straw that will break the monkey;s back! Folks, it's time for communism now!

Re:Did we even need more proof? (2, Interesting)

Surt (22457) | about 3 years ago | (#37234128)

It's kind of sad, but the evidence is getting stronger and stronger that capitalism is worse for the average person than communism, in spite of the failure of the USSR (which likely would not have occurred if not for the arms race pressure with the USA).

Re:Did we even need more proof? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234210)

The USSR collappsed after years of spending all their mone fighting the talibans in Afghanistan, then armed by the US. Now its the US fighting the talibans year after year...

Re:Did we even need more proof? (2)

Surt (22457) | about 3 years ago | (#37234268)

While it is factual that those things occurred in that order, that was a minor economic cost for the USSR, the implication that it was causal is quite the stretch. The arms race was a massive cost.

Re:Did we even need more proof? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234226)

Yes, it is horrible google is sending all those people to Siberia to work in the gulags. You are an idiot. It would be nice if your real name was attached to your post so everyone in the world knew what an idiot you were,

Re:Did we even need more proof? (1, Interesting)

Surt (22457) | about 3 years ago | (#37234288)

The USA has more prisoners and more forced labor. Granted, most of that is not happening in Alaska, but our prisoner fatality rates are still pretty competitive.

Re:Did we even need more proof? (1)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | about 3 years ago | (#37234448)

The USA has more prisoners and more forced labor.

Forced labor...................... what?

Re:Did we even need more proof? (2)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about 3 years ago | (#37234292)

Gosh, Communism sure has worked out well everywhere else. You're obviously right. Communist policies such as taking land from farmers and parceling it out to the Common People who didn't know how or have any desire to farm were absolutely sound ideas, that only failed because of EVIL MEAN CAPITALISM!

Re:Did we even need more proof? (0)

Surt (22457) | about 3 years ago | (#37234338)

Yes, capitalism has had no obvious failures of policy to compete.

Re:Did we even need more proof? (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | about 3 years ago | (#37234404)

<devil's advocate>
Ah yes, cos China's doing such a terrible job economically. I mean they're only the second largest economy in the world
</devil's advocate>

Re:Did we even need more proof? (1)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | about 3 years ago | (#37234492)

<devil's advocate> Ah yes, cos China's doing such a terrible job economically. I mean they're only the second largest economy in the world </devil's advocate>

All of China's actual money comes directly from us and our evil capitalist society. The rest of their GDP is artificially inflated by meaningless public works projects such as building gigantic malls or housing complexes that today sit there unoccupied because nobody can afford to use them... but the mere construction of them inflates their GDP so their currency and government will look stronger than it is.

Yes, China is doing a terrible job economically because the government controls everything and nobody has a chance at an independent means of success. Everybody who is successful has the government's hand firmly up their ass... except those who are the most successful, and they have their hand up the government's. You might say that corruption is also quite prevalent in OUR society, and you might be right, but at least it's only the government in the pocket of the large corporations and NOT large and small corporations alike in the pocket of the government.

Those Kids in the Garage (4, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 years ago | (#37234010)

will be sued the second they stick their heads out cause someone holds a patent of a fucking text entry box

Re:Those Kids in the Garage (1)

gnomic (571544) | about 3 years ago | (#37234080)

That's true but won't matter much if by that time those kids could raise (or have a valuation of) billions.
Big companies can probably sue out of business any small player but there is always a chance that a small player becomes a big one too fast.

Re:Those Kids in the Garage (3, Interesting)

Surt (22457) | about 3 years ago | (#37234144)

That has never happened. Even Google and Facebook took years to get big. Bigger companies could have sued them into the ground if they had their eyes open. Facebook rising to power without Google making a peep was the biggest clue to get out of Google stock ever.

Re:Those Kids in the Garage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234302)

Undoing mod, parent not a troll, just poorly written.

Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (5, Insightful)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 3 years ago | (#37234012)

On one hand, I cannot believe Google is doing this.

On the other hand, I cannot believe I fell for Google's "Don't Be Evil". While I used to wish for Google Wallet to come out and take over from Evil Paypal, at least, with Paypal, you know what they are doing. Always doing everything they can screw you over.

Google promises you with sweetness and honey... and then betrays you, which is even worse.

And for everyone who says you don't have to use G+ - it is *NOT* G+, it is Google Profile that is the problem, G+ is a component of Google Profile. If your Google Profile is disabled, a shit load of other services are impacted. Yeah, don't use Google. Sure.

Looking for alternatives now.

bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234048)

bing is not THAT bad.

Re:bing (-1, Flamebait)

leoplan2 (2064520) | about 3 years ago | (#37234100)

It steals results from Google, so, good luck with that

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (5, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | about 3 years ago | (#37234060)

An optional service that is tied to other optional services.

You mad about your free optional services bro?

I use google for email, maps, and homepage for RSS feeds.

Any of those are taken away, I can find alternatives very easily.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 3 years ago | (#37234126)

It's not that there are no alternatives. It's that I have become used to Google, and their interfaces are clean. Remember search before Google? Page full of crap.

Same kind of thing with all the other things.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (2, Insightful)

sourcerror (1718066) | about 3 years ago | (#37234146)

If you used Gmail as your primary mailbox/frontend then it's quite painful. Yeah, it was free, but it's self defeating to punish people for trying out G+. I didn't for exactly this reason: I don't want to play with fire.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (4, Interesting)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | about 3 years ago | (#37234316)

From the TFA:

Why are there reports that people lost Gmail access from earlier G+ account suspensions? Did Google actually do that, or were people confused somehow?

Google: Gmail suspensions are unrelated to Google+ suspensions. It's possible, and an unfortunate coincidence, for users to have both products suspended at the same time, for separate reasons. Earlier in the summer there was some confusion around SMS verification, which we addressed here.

I am considering "downgrading" my G+ account after reading this but let's not spread any fud here.

Having said that, I'm not quite sure why Google is being such a dick about this real name policy. It's really quite possible that they already know exactly who you are so they have all the info they need, so why give yourself such a bad buzz (pun intended) about this anal-retentive real names policy.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (5, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | about 3 years ago | (#37234428)

It's really quite possible that they already know exactly who you are so they have all the info they need,

Then they would already have known that Violet Blue was really Violet Blue. This and other cases indicate that they (and Facebook) haven't the foggiest idea exactly (or even approximately) who you are. And don't care.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (1)

berwiki (989827) | about 3 years ago | (#37234498)

Ok, so for you, GMail wasn't suspended. But someone might desperately need Picasa for work, or access to Google Docs.

Point is, maybe they didn't suspend GMail this time, but this is a pretty big issue.

If your account goes into violation, you should have 96 hours to PREVENT things from being shut down. To shut it down immediately, and without warning, is just plain wrong/evil.

And your argument is that they didn't suspend GMail this time. But this is a very bad precedent. Blocking Gmail would probably hurt the majority of people the most. So it's only a matter of time until it's on the chopping block for whatever they consider a 'serious' violation.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (4, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | about 3 years ago | (#37234406)

It is not free. It is costing you your privacy. Apparently that is not worth anything to many people.
Privacy is the last freedom we have and we are handing it over as if it was never ours to have.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (1)

Shirgall (110235) | about 3 years ago | (#37234140)

Not for "Google Apps For Your Domain", though, since we still can't have Google Profiles on that service. (Feature?)

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (2)

kangsterizer (1698322) | about 3 years ago | (#37234154)

Been using alternatives a while ago. That includes Chrome and a zillion other services Google provides.
Google does evil, well duh, like everyone elses before when they become too big. And after that, they usually fall.

So far the only sensitive thing I have seen to counter that is to force the company into separate entities. It's what Samsung does, actually. It's not perfect - at all - but it's an attempt I suppose.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (2, Insightful)

geekymachoman (1261484) | about 3 years ago | (#37234214)

In capitalism and fascism, the powerful betrays the consumers/subjects. And exploits them.
They only bullshitted you, when they, between the lines, said something like: you have a choice.

It reminds me of a George Carlin bit called, you have no rights, you have owners.

For the american audience:
No, I'm not a commie.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (3, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | about 3 years ago | (#37234242)

How many times does someone parrot the "oh, they're evil now"?

because they call it an identity service? really?

Troll less, please.

If you want to worry about a company, worry about facebook + microsoft working together.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (2)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 3 years ago | (#37234274)

It's the expectation.

With Microsoft and Facebook, you *KNOW* they are out to get you.

With Google, you don't expect it. My G+ profile was in limbo for over a month and I couldn't even get them to take a look at it - the damned "click this and we will review your name" link even disappeared!

It's like this - when your girlfriend or family spurns you and locks you out - you totally did not expect it, and the impact is far worse.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (5, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | about 3 years ago | (#37234436)

wha?

you can pretty much make your entire profile invisible on g+. change the profile photo to something random, use a fake name, make sure every post is only seen by certain people.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Yes, people have gotten locked out but it's rare and fake names *don't* get locked.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | about 3 years ago | (#37234452)

It's like this - when your girlfriend or family spurns you and locks you out - you totally did not expect it, and the impact is far worse.

If you have an emotional attachment to a free online service offered by an advertising agency you have some real problems.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 3 years ago | (#37234272)

Run your own crawler, web/mail server on a plug computer [plugcomputer.org]

Don't be social? Being social is evil? ... (2)

Mathinker (909784) | about 3 years ago | (#37234358)

> a shit load of other services are impacted

The linked article quotes a Google spokesperson that the services impacted are, all told:

Google+, Buzz, and some social features of Reader and Picasa Web Albums. For example, on Buzz, you can't create content, on Reader you can't share items with other users or follow other users, and on Picasa Web Albums you can't comment on photos.

In both scenarios, downgrading from Google+ will have no effect on other Google services like Gmail, Docs, etc.[emphasis mine]

Am I the only one around here who wouldn't be impacted by that? I did play around with Buzz but frankly, I didn't use it much and wouldn't miss it.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (2)

heson (915298) | about 3 years ago | (#37234454)

I'can stand the google bundle, IFF I can be a separate entity to each part.

Therefore, I'm looking for a) a browser with a good cookiemanager or b) a "view 10-50 different browser processes as a tabbed browser".
b) Here I can start several different instances with their own profile, fully sandboxed by the OS (I hope)
a) Something that provides the same, but without me needing a new beefy computer.

Re:Don't Be Evil? That's just a lie (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | about 3 years ago | (#37234562)

Don't! Be evil.

More Reason To Join (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234040)

This is more reason to join. I want to be identified by anybody, everywhere!

who cares? (-1, Redundant)

bhcompy (1877290) | about 3 years ago | (#37234050)

Who fucking cares? Some slut with a bunch of emo myspace pictures(check wiki) is offended that Google cancelled her account on their private service. They have every right to. Big fucking deal. Start your own service if you have a problem with that.

Re:who cares? (1)

poena.dare (306891) | about 3 years ago | (#37234284)

Who fucking cares? Some slut with a bunch of emo myspace pictures(check wiki) is offended that Google cancelled her account on their private service.

First then they came for sluts with a bunch of emo myspace pictures, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a slut with a bunch of emo myspace pictures.

Then then they came for slashdot posters who didn't like sluts with a bunch of emo myspace pictures, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a slashdot poster who didn't like sluts with a bunch of emo myspace pictures.

Then then they came for slashdot posters who comment on comments posted by other slashdot posters who didn't like sluts with a bunch of emo myspace pictures, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Reliable source? (1)

noobermin (1950642) | about 3 years ago | (#37234052)

Looks like some random forum post to me...no recording or exact transcript...the guy even admits he's paraphrasing (albeit he's doing his best).

Re:Reliable source? (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 3 years ago | (#37234372)

I had the same thought, but evidently, this guy has some trustworthy credentials [wikipedia.org] (senior product manager for online communities, whatever that means).

There it is (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 3 years ago | (#37234072)

[Google CEO Eric Schmidt] replied by saying that G+ was build primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they're going to build future products that leverage that information.

Straight from the horse's mouth:
You are the product, not the consumer.

Re:There it is (4, Interesting)

jhoegl (638955) | about 3 years ago | (#37234094)

How is this a surprise to anyone?

Google has always admitted to data mining your information, even your emails.
Best part is, it is self defeating. Googles anti-spam is one of the best, ad block plus helps with the rest.
You are crying over spilled milk, get a sponge....

Re:There it is (2)

mbkennel (97636) | about 3 years ago | (#37234110)

spammers are competitors to Google's paying clients

Re:There it is (4, Interesting)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 3 years ago | (#37234162)

[Google CEO Eric Schmidt] replied by saying that G+ was build primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they're going to build future products that leverage that information.

Straight from the horse's mouth: .

Except for celebrities (Lady Gag, 50 Cent,etc) who are allowed to use their fake names. And in the ultimate ironic hypocracy, the person in charge of G+ and responsible for the real name policy is Vic Gundrota. Whose is real name is not Vic, it is Vivek.

Re:There it is (4, Funny)

TheLink (130905) | about 3 years ago | (#37234224)

And in the ultimate ironic hypocracy, the person in charge of G+ and responsible for the real name policy is Vic Gundrota.

Hypocracy - rule by hypocrites?

Re:There it is (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 3 years ago | (#37234356)

And in the ultimate ironic hypocracy, the person in charge of G+ and responsible for the real name policy is Vic Gundrota.

Hypocracy - rule by hypocrites?

Yes.

Re:There it is (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 3 years ago | (#37234394)

As far as I know, anyone is allowed to use names "by which people know them". The problem is proving it to Google if they demand it.

Re:There it is (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234540)

Except for celebrities

Celebrities aren't Google's customers, they are customer bait.

Re:There it is (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234164)

Come on kids. Keep on buying Android phones and telling everyone Apple is evil!

Re:There it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234360)

Good point. There are no real choices anymore.

Re:There it is (2)

Surt (22457) | about 3 years ago | (#37234186)

A shocking revelation to be sure. I mean, surely no one has thought that Google makes billions of dollars off free services, and not just by sprinkling magical fairy dust on them.

Re:There it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234332)

Straight from the horse's mouth:

Holy schmidt! A talking horse! *ba-dum-tish*

Re:There it is (5, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 3 years ago | (#37234370)

Straight from the horse's mouth:
You are the product, not the consumer.

No. Your HABITS are the product. Google is a marketing machine and they sell insight into current, past and future trends in various groups, and for that they need to follow people's habits. That insight is their product. Google however does not sell people; you cannot buy information on any specific person from Google.

Besides, how is this news? Wasn't it obvious already from before? Did you think Google has trees that sprout cash every spring so they can keep on offering completely free services to people without Google going bankrupt? ALL similar free services monitor their users for anything relevant and share portions of that data forth, Google is in no way an exception or "the one, evil megacorporation out there to suck out your soul" or anything like that.

As long as Google doesn't sell specific people out and anonymize their data I personally couldn't care less, I'm getting hugely useful services without losing anything and I'm going to continue using them.

Re:There it is (2)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 3 years ago | (#37234544)

Google however does not sell people; you cannot buy information on any specific person from Google.

And hence, they should have no need to tag and track anything about any specific person. Except, they do, and they do need to. Because they sell data about trends within communities of people. So they're in the business of mining subcultures. They want to know 'what is cool' quick enough to be able to rip it off and commercialize it as soon as possible.

In otherwords, they are activiely in the business of making whatever is cool totally uncool as quickly as possible, making the most money they can in the process.

Wow. What a hip company!

Re:There it is (4, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 3 years ago | (#37234416)

You mean straight from the paraphrasing without any verifiable transcript's mouth.

Slanted Summary (Big Surprise) (1, Interesting)

dringess (552168) | about 3 years ago | (#37234076)

Pretty slanted summary. By "identity service", I interpret Schmidt as meaning that they prefer people use their own real identity because that makes it a better service for users. As we see on Slashdot, comments posted by anonymous cowards are only occasionally worth much. And the "bait" comment is completely fabricated.

Re:Slanted Summary (Big Surprise) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234130)

In all honesty how would you know? Odds the only AC comments you even see are probably those that get moderated up to +5 by others first.

Like the majority of the registered users really.

Re:Slanted Summary (Big Surprise) (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 3 years ago | (#37234148)

Nobody's asking for anonymity. Only that they are allowed to use their own names that they choose.

Why is google allowing a name like "Jane Brown" but not allowing a name like "Stilgherrian"?

Re:Slanted Summary (Big Surprise) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234244)

Nobody's asking for anonymity. ...

I am.

Re:Slanted Summary (Big Surprise) (4, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about 3 years ago | (#37234166)

As we see on Slashdot, comments posted by anonymous cowards are only occasionally worth much.

Oh. Is 'dringess' your real name, then? Or how exactly does this compare?

Re:Slanted Summary (Big Surprise) (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 3 years ago | (#37234194)

And the "bait" comment is completely fabricated.

It was an opinion. The author was saying "G+ pretends to be social networking in order to lure you in" (i.e., like bait)

It always goes like this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234082)

What do all companies with power want? ...

More power!

For fucks sake, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234114)

stop putting commas inside quotations!

I don't care whether it's "correct" by some ancient cunts who knew nothing in the first place. Illogical is illogical!

Seriously! (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 3 years ago | (#37234118)

Would it be too much to ask for people, when submitting a story, to keep their bias out of it and let us form our own opinion. If you want to voice your _opinion_, save it for the comments section. Let's leave story summaries to, you know, summaries.

This summary couldn't have been more obviously anti-Google biased if it tried. It's utterly tedious trying to stay informed about geek news while being bombarded with such overwhelming biases. Its annoying in the comments section, but that's where I expect to see it.

I know, I know. I must be new here...

Re:Seriously! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234300)

nigger

Alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234122)

What alternatives do you use?
For Searching i mean.

Re:Alternatives (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234344)

http://duckduckgo.com/

  Real privacy
        We don't track you!

Misleading (4, Informative)

Albanach (527650) | about 3 years ago | (#37234134)

From the summary:

Google has admitted that deleting a G+ account will seriously downgrade your other Google services.

From the article

In both scenarios, downgrading from Google+ will have no effect on other Google services like Gmail, Docs, etc.

So the article is at complete opposites with the posted summary. Did the OP just link to the article because they thought more links would increase the chance of story acceptance, or were they deliberately trying to mislead?

Desperate (1)

earls (1367951) | about 3 years ago | (#37234168)

To undermine Google.

Re:Desperate (1)

leoplan2 (2064520) | about 3 years ago | (#37234178)

They are trying to create bad publicity against Google. Have you seen the trend? It has been common, lately

Re:Desperate (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | about 3 years ago | (#37234324)

Or may, Google is lying?

A number of people have reported that when their Google Profile is disabled or deleted, it impacted other services that were tied in to Google Profiles (gee, is that really difficult to believe?)

Re:Desperate (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 3 years ago | (#37234350)

Statements from Google which are on record and verifiable, versus anecdotal evidence of what happened to some undefined person. I somehow think I'm going to choose to believe Google on this one.

Re:Desperate (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 3 years ago | (#37234418)

I think I've read it affects the social features, which makes sense. Sharing items on Google Reader, sharing photos on Picasa, etc.

Re:Desperate (1)

makomk (752139) | about 3 years ago | (#37234506)

Apparently it affects all use of Google Reader, Picasa etc aside from stuff you could do without logging in (and in some cases it may even have affected that)...

Sensationalism at it's finest (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234180)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and our "citation" is to a Google+ status update. Not an article. Not even a blog post. A status update. The conclusions from this summary don't even follow the post that was linked. This is just... bad.

I keep saying it The cost of free (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 3 years ago | (#37234182)

I keep saying it The cost of free has to high a price in this age. Oh and does Google offer all the services for a price without tracking? i dont use anything google so i really dont know.

Re:I keep saying it The cost of free (1)

earls (1367951) | about 3 years ago | (#37234314)

Tracking what?! Do you have anything to substantiate your fear, uncertainty, and doubt? How many of the sites and services that you do use collect demographics? How many of the site and services you use have Google Analytics?! If you're on the Internet, you're being "tracked". Someone could data mine your Slashdot posts. I see you like pornography, wii, and can't spell curfew. Get a fucking clue.

alternatives? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234184)

Every time a post about G+ or Facebook pops up I am reminded of the good old days of IRC when you could socialize with your friends without going through an evil multinational corporation.
I can't even count the number of friends that I don't talk to anymore only because they abandoned IRC, or even real life get-togethers, for Facebook (and G+).

Yahoo is worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234190)

They killed my entire account, including my email account without warning because of something they didn't like on Yahoo Answers.

Just use a fake name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234202)

I don't mind Google wanting people to use real names so much. Unless you're a celebrity using a stage name, it's really not a problem.

Just use a fake name. Google has no way of knowing.

None of my dozens of gmail accounts are under my real name. My facebook profile and twitter account are also under fake names. I've never had any problems.

bonus (2)

trb (8509) | about 3 years ago | (#37234220)

A few months ago, Google planned to tie employee bonuses to their social networking strategy:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/google/229401282 [informationweek.com]

Do you think they meant the Google+ identity service?

You 7ail It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234290)

Overreaction (1)

davide marney (231845) | about 3 years ago | (#37234298)

The way to think about this is that G+ is part of a very long list of things that people can do together using Google tools and services. It's the part of the system that identifies a person as a person ('identity service'), really the linchpin of the whole system of person-to-person networking. The "social" uses of this are but one application of the identity service.

So what? Big Deal. (1)

beowulf01 (843871) | about 3 years ago | (#37234318)

People get so upset when a free online service wants to make money off of freely submitted data. Gee. Who woulda thunk it? Maybe the question is really: Are there ANY on line services that are required for Life, Liberty, and the pursuit or happiness? As for "social network" anonymity: There was a time people social networked by going to churches, clubs, and various events IN PERSON. Security? There was once a group of individuals who dedicated their fortunes, life, liberty and sacred honor to found a new nation. You can read their signatures on the Declaration of Independence.

Good grief... when did social justice become... (1)

drjones78 (961270) | about 3 years ago | (#37234322)

... a social networking requirement? It never has been before.

When the heck did this expectation creep into peoples brains that any new social network must be the ultimate vehicle for social justice for all the oppressed people of the world, or be the or the ultimate tool for self-important, angsty, psuedonyming blowhards who want to spout off their crazy philosophies and conspiracy theories without having to use their real names to do it (because obviously the powers that be want to shut them up!)? Really?

I like to use social networks to communicate and socialize with people. I'm sorry for all the oppression in the world, but hey - G+, Facebook, et al. maybe arent your best tools to fight it, though I'm sure they will, in some instances, be helpful.

This is all just... a little silly.

Re:Good grief... when did social justice become... (1)

Improv (2467) | about 3 years ago | (#37234334)

Hear, hear!

Re:Good grief... when did social justice become... (1)

makomk (752139) | about 3 years ago | (#37234530)

Probably at around the time social networking sites became many people's main method of communication. Most forms of social justice activism require involving other people, and it's not as though you can control what method the people you want to communicate with choose to make themselves available through...

Seriously downgrade your service? (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | about 3 years ago | (#37234330)

Tell me about it.

Signed,

Google Apps user.

This is not news... (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about 3 years ago | (#37234348)

Obviously there needs to be real people tied to these accounts, they're not worth anything if they're fake people or pets. Facebook regularly deletes profiles it deems are not "real", too.

At the end of the day, share what you are comfortable with. It's not like this is Google Mortgage we're talking about, or Google Driver's License. There is no one standing over anyone's shoulder screaming "YOU WILL USE GOOGLE AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!" Google sells information about you...everybody sells information about you...but they can only sell the information you give them. Buy a car, your info is sold. Go to college, your info is sold. Buy a house, your info is sold. Apply for a credit card, your info is sold. Look at your junk mail after any of these activities if you need verification of that. Hell, I started receiving a bunch of new junk mail for third party car warranties and auto repair coupons after I registered my car last time with the DMV, so even government agencies are monetizing your personal info now. That is far more troubling to me because it's not like I can opt out of the DMV if I want to legally drive in this state.

You want an anonymous social network? Go ahead and start one up...good luck paying for it. Everyone has a choice here....we need to remember that.

Re:This is not news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234402)

If Google is selling this information, how do I buy it?

Re:This is not news... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 3 years ago | (#37234420)

Its called advertising. Its like when they put stickers on the inside of the rock you're living under.

I call bullshit (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | about 3 years ago | (#37234352)

Firstly, is the first source reputable? I never heard of Andy Carvin. Why is he the only one reporting it?

Secondly, the reasons which are given are silly:

"so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they're going to build future products that leverage that information. "

Google has my Gmail. So it already knows my name. When people who know me send me emails, they generally use my name. If you use it as a primary email and send your CV to companies - then they potentially have a crapton more of info. They can easily harvest my name from there. Identity service? With all the stuff Google already knows about me? Not really needed.

Also what does my name have to do with anything? User #39430432 likes linux, /. and images of llamas. If my name is Joe Smith or John Smith it makes no difference.

Can't find "bait" (1)

gtirloni (1531285) | about 3 years ago | (#37234362)

"""Eric Schmidt has revealed that Google+ is an identity service, and the 'social network' bit is just bait."""

Looked for "bait" in the "news' source" and couldn't find any.... what's wrong with me? Or is it Slashdot accepting fabricated stories?

So just don't do it (5, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 3 years ago | (#37234424)

Regarding people who are concerned about their safety, he said G+ is completely optional. No one is forcing you to use it.

Exactly right.

Google may have started as a couple of college students creating a search engine and Facebook may have started as a couple of college students creating a social networking web site. But those days a long gone. Google and Facebook are not in the search or social networking business, they are in the ADVERTISING business. Their business model is now one thing and one thing only: collecting as much personal information about you as they can so they can sell it to advertisers.

If you really seriously have a problem with this, then DON'T FUCKING USE THEM. Seriously, how hard is that to figure out.

It extends to our YouTube accounts (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 3 years ago | (#37234450)

I used the same email address, an @gmail.com addy, to sign up for YouTube, that I registered as my G+ account. I have had the YouTube account for years, so it wasn't something new I did.

Last time I tried to log onto YouTube I got a dialogue saying I would from now on have to log onto YouTube using my Google+ credentials. It would no longer be possible to log on using my old YouTube account's password, which only incidentally is connected to Google through my using a gmail account to sign up. I think I even got the YouTube account before Google bought them.

US needs identity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37234462)

The US needs an online identity service provider. Way too much authentication ultimately depends on email access--not designed for authentication, i assure you.

You want your WoW account back after hacking? A strong identity service provider will ultimately save online economies billions of dollars. It is a really hard problem, though.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>