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 Suspended? You Won't Find Out Why

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the it's-a-mystery dept.

Google 341

jfruh writes "Dan Tynan is a tech writer and blogger who discovered, while trying to post links to his writing on his Google+ profile, that his account had been suspended. This despite the fact that he used his real name and didn't violate the terms of service in any other way. Upon appeal his account was reinstated, just as mysteriously as it was shut down, but along the way he discovered a rash of people with suspended Google+ accounts who can't figure out what they did to anger the Google gods."

cancel ×

341 comments

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

Just like the no-fly list? (5, Funny)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 2 years ago | (#40868551)

Is Google acting like the TSA?

Re:Just like the no-fly list? (5, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40868733)

One of the persons suspended by Google has an "unusual name". She didn't say what.... maybe Blossom or Flower or something. In any case she pointed-out the name on G+ is the same as the name on her credit card (which she registered to make paymentws), but that's not good enough for the Microsoft... Apple... ooops, I mean Google fuckup corporation. It deserves to be boycotted.

Just like MS... (5, Interesting)

leuk_he (194174) | about 2 years ago | (#40868947)

Same happens at MS.. upload a file that violates their code of conduct [microsoft.com] policy to MS sky drive, and your windows 7 phone account will be permanently blocked [tweakers.net] without telling what file caused it or getting any good response.

Note that that includes files that are not yet shared of, and includes partial nudity

Re:Just like MS... (4, Informative)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#40869353)

Same happens at MS.. upload a file that violates their code of conduct [microsoft.com] policy to MS sky drive, and your windows 7 phone account will be permanently blocked [tweakers.net] without telling what file caused it or getting any good response.

Note that that includes files that are not yet shared of, and includes partial nudity

Not just like Google, then, because if Google blocks your Google+ account, only your Google+ account gets blocked, regardless of a bunch of widely-repeated erroneous reporting early on.

Your sig... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869123)

Bought an i7-equipped PC for $650. An equal-speced MacMini costs almost double that.

Inquiring minds want to know:

Does your PC fit in the same number of cubic inches the mini does? And your PC has all the same features out of the box, right? Wifi, bluetooth, usb, network, thunderbolt, hdmi/dvi, dual display output, digital audio, analog audio, firewire 800, SDXC card slot?

And of course you can get all this with an i5 for $599.

And you get OS X, which is pretty much the deal-maker for me.

I'm just asking. Sure, we're all price sensitive, but under some circumstances saving a few hundred bucks is shooting yourself in the foot. Every time I've looked at a PC, that's the impression I've walked away with: Yeah, I'd spend less money, but I'd have less computer, lose more desk space, spend more time on maintenance, and be stuck using a really crappy OS. Divide that few hundred bucks over years of ownership, and it just looks like not spending it would be... a bad idea.

Re:Your sig... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869231)

it just looks like not spending it would be... a bad idea.

Thanks for the info, bonch/jo_ham

Re:Your sig... (0, Redundant)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 years ago | (#40869355)

"stuck using a really crappy OS."

Many more options with a PC than an Apple. Try some out, my friend.

Re:Just like the no-fly list? (3, Insightful)

martiniturbide (1203660) | about 2 years ago | (#40869001)

If there is not apparent reason that anger the Google gods, the other thing that came to mind is that there is always a dumbass that deleted the wrong accounts by mistake. ..wait...wait... the conspiracy theories are always more fun.

Re:Just like the no-fly list? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869029)

You've been put on a Do-Not-Surf list

Re:Just like the no-fly list? (3, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 2 years ago | (#40869041)

Worse--like e-Harmony.

Re:Just like the no-fly list? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#40869285)

This is old news. They took away mcgrew@gmail.com several years ago, and they didn't give a reason then, either.

Re:Just like the no-fly list? (1)

FitForTheSun (2651243) | about 2 years ago | (#40869357)

I'll let you know after they grope my private parts.

Changed My Name (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868557)

After last week's YouTube story about being prompted to use one's real name, I went to Google+ and deliberately changed my account to a fake name. Go ahead Google, kick me out of your ghost town. It's even less useful than LinkedIn, so nothing of value will be lost.

Re:Changed My Name (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868607)

After last week's YouTube story about being prompted to use one's real name, I went to Google+ and deliberately changed my account to a fake name. Go ahead Google, kick me out of your ghost town. It's even less useful than LinkedIn, so nothing of value will be lost.

Given that you took the time to take to take that out of your system... well, you just prove your point to be invalid (although still trying to figure out what the "point" might be).

Re:Changed My Name (2)

PenisLands (930247) | about 2 years ago | (#40868895)

Get back to work, Larry.

Re:Changed My Name (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869079)

Given that you took the time to take to take that out of your system... well, you just prove your point to be invalid (although still trying to figure out what the "point" might be).

I give up - what's your native language? Moonbat?

Curious it is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868563)

I'm starting to think that some of these companies are up to something they aren't saying.

Oh, Google. (4, Funny)

w3dg (1079833) | about 2 years ago | (#40868569)

Art thou not aware of thine own future? Art thou so evil, one cannot trust thy anymore? Woe is me. Woe is me...

Re:Oh, Google. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868821)

"Art thou not aware of thine own future? Art thou so evil, one cannot trust thee anymore? Woe is me. Woe is me..."

FTFY

Re:Oh, Google. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869387)

"Art thou not aware of thine own future? Art thou so evil, one cannot trust thee anymore? Woe is I. Woe is I..."

FTFY. The verb "to be" is a linking verb, and as such does not take an object.

Re:Oh, Google. (5, Informative)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#40868891)

Why is it so hard for people to use "thee", "thy", and "thine"? I mean, I know people don't know it because it's archaic, and I know it's only really used facetiously. But seriously, it follows the same rules as "me", "my", and "mine". Try telling someone "you cannot trust my anymore." The confusion should be good for a laugh.

Re:Oh, Google. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 years ago | (#40869019)

But seriously, it follows the same rules as "me", "my", and "mine".

No, it doesn't. The GP's usage was correct. The word "thine" is also used instead of "thy" when the word after it begins with a vowel.

Re:Oh, Google. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869057)

The GP usage: "one cannot trust thy anymore?"

Not correct.

Re:Oh, Google. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869141)

Thy're a faggot, sir

Re:Oh, Google. (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 years ago | (#40869067)

My bad. There was an error; I missed the one word you were referring to. That word should have been thee, as you implied. But the point still remains that it does not quite follow the same rules.

Re:Oh, Google. (1)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#40869177)

But seriously, it follows the same rules as "me", "my", and "mine".

No, it doesn't. The GP's usage was correct. The word "thine" is also used instead of "thy" when the word after it begins with a vowel.

You can do that with "mine" too; it's just an older form that doesn't get used much anymore. If I want to sound archaic and formal, I can talk about "mine own laptop computer" and still be grammatically correct (though, again, sounding like a prick). Even if that weren't true, though, "cannot trust thy anymore" is not ever OK.

Great, and now I sound like a prick even arguing about it. Bah!

Re:Oh, Google. (5, Insightful)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 2 years ago | (#40869427)

Fuck, I'd be thrilled if people would figure out "they're", "their", and "there".

Re:Oh, Google. (1)

w3dg (1079833) | about 2 years ago | (#40869017)

I expected the correction responses. GJ on catching the error...

Shenanigans (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868575)

Honest question. How many of those banned users are fabricated by the facebook anti google pr machine?

Re:Shenanigans (0)

mk1004 (2488060) | about 2 years ago | (#40868659)

Honest question. How many of those banned users are fabricated by the facebook anti google pr machine?

Since you're AC, we're assuming that you were banned by /. Are YOU fabricated?

Re:Shenanigans (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868893)

Honest question. How many of those banned users are fabricated by the facebook anti google pr machine?

Since you're AC, we're assuming that you were banned by /. Are YOU fabricated?

All your assumption proves is that you are an idiot.

Not everyone wants to have a user account with Slashdot.

Re:Shenanigans (2)

mk1004 (2488060) | about 2 years ago | (#40868973)

Wow, way to take a joke waaaaay too seriously.

Re:Shenanigans (2)

w3dg (1079833) | about 2 years ago | (#40869055)

A joke can never be taken seriously enough. We are on the internet! Everything is srs bzns!!!

Re:Shenanigans (2)

mk1004 (2488060) | about 2 years ago | (#40869161)

We are /. We must solve all the world's problems before lunch!

Re:Shenanigans (1)

w3dg (1079833) | about 2 years ago | (#40869189)

All of them! And all solutions must involve fire of some sort! Fix it with FIRE!!!

Re:Shenanigans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869395)

I'm prefabricated and IKEA branded, bork bork!

Re:Shenanigans (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869295)

Honest question. How many of those banned users are fabricated by the facebook anti google pr machine?

That's not an "honest question" at all.

It's an accusation without a shred of evidence to support it, clumsily disguised as a question to excuse said lack of evidence.

Despite what Glenn Beck may have told you, putting a question mark at the end of your lie does not make you less of a liar.

Just Like Slashdot's Moderation System (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868595)

Mysterious and known moderations (mostly by editors) can't get you comment banned here and for some unknown length of time. As well as mod points given and taken away.

Slashdot does shady stuff like this all the time, why is what google doing news?

Re:Just Like Slashdot's Moderation System (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 2 years ago | (#40868695)

"Mysterious and known moderations (mostly by editors) can't get you comment banned here and for some unknown length of time. As well as mod points given and taken away. Slashdot does shady stuff like this all the time, why is what google doing news?"

"Can't get you banned here"

WTF?

If you really do want to get banned, I am sure your IP address could get banned.

Re:Just Like Slashdot's Moderation System (1)

mk1004 (2488060) | about 2 years ago | (#40869213)

Took long enough to ban MyCleanPC.

Oops, I used the keyword "MyCleanPC," will my account be banned next?

Re:Just Like Slashdot's Moderation System (4, Insightful)

cyberzephyr (705742) | about 2 years ago | (#40868739)

"Mysterious and known moderations (mostly by editors) can't get you comment banned here and for some unknown length of time. As well as mod points given and taken away."

Have you read the TOS for moderators? ( http://tech.slashdot.org/moderation.shtml [slashdot.org] ) I'm not going into rant mode but go look at /. a little harder and you might see it for what it's for.
It sounds to me you are ungrateful.

Re:Just Like Slashdot's Moderation System (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869085)

It's a good thing none of you are aware of the post of doom. Mod it, and you lose mod privileges for life.
We still don't know why, and inb4 I'm sacked for bringing it up.

Seriously though, the mod system sucks, we are all aware of it and nobody does anything about it. Makes Slashdot sound sort of like Gotham, really...

Uh, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868599)

Author Dan Tynan has been writing about Internet privacy for the last 3,247 years.

Uh, what?

Re:Uh, what? (4, Funny)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 years ago | (#40868813)

That bastard has invented time travel, and or imortality! Which everyone knows, is explicitly banned in the TOS of Google Plus. That's why he got banned.

Re:Uh, what? (2)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 2 years ago | (#40869145)

naw, he just isn't patched for the Y2K bug yet.

I move... (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#40868603)

I move that Google+ should be renamed Google+ RTM. Rush being the key word. Lack of planning and proper procedural modelling.

Re:I move... (1)

w3dg (1079833) | about 2 years ago | (#40868685)

You just sort of described everything Google does... For the product (most of us) anyway. I'm sure their customers are treated well, er, relatively. Minus the outages they experience every once in a bit.

Re:I move... (3, Informative)

Ksevio (865461) | about 2 years ago | (#40868713)

RTM usually means Release to Manufacturing, in that it's essentially ready.

Re:I move... (2)

alphacharliezero (2469428) | about 2 years ago | (#40868865)

or-
Rush To Market (a play on 'Release To Manufacturing' and what the poster likely meant)
or-
Read The Manual (usually RTFM ;-)

Attention unemployed geeks! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868613)

Attention leftist free software hippies!

Hows that free Obamacare colonoscopy going?

Iran marching toward a nuclear weapon

Egypt and Libya handed over to the Islamists on a silver platter

45% increase in debt.

Regulatory policies strangling business

That perfect health care for all, casuing businesses to not hire and drop coverage to put more people on the dole.

Unemployment above 8%

GDP Growth below 2%

Changed his mind four times on that OBL kill, which was set up by the hardwork of Bush, Bush worked 8 strong, Obama got the save.

Domestic energy production hamstrung, while billions of tax dollars wasted on masturbatory green energy companies, run by his cronies.

A racist running the Justice Department.

Hundreds of Mexican citizens and a US law enforcement officer dead because of Obama/Holder's agenda on guns.

Photo ID laws being challenged because they interfered with typical Democrat voters, the Dead and Illegal Aliens.

Chrysler bondholders screwed out of their money so the UAW could receive a giant wad of cash in the illegal government takeover of the Auto industry.........

Yeah, he's a raving success.

Re: Attention unemployed geeks! (3, Funny)

aglider (2435074) | about 2 years ago | (#40868643)

I would publish all this golden info on your Google+ account, rather than SlashDot.

Re: Attention unemployed geeks! (0, Offtopic)

w3dg (1079833) | about 2 years ago | (#40868735)

It's going great! How's Romney going? With his empathy towards unemployment, after-all, he has been for a while too. And his ability to directly relate with the people! I don't like either side of the argument, I just hate propaganda that is single-sided (I guess all of it is.) I really wish our nation would collectively come together and demand suggested actions that the people will take, detailed action plans and the like, and require that the president follow-through with them or justify the lack-of following their own action plan.

Re: Attention unemployed geeks! (-1, Offtopic)

doston (2372830) | about 2 years ago | (#40868995)

Attention leftist free software hippies!

Hows that free Obamacare colonoscopy going?

Iran marching toward a nuclear weapon

Egypt and Libya handed over to the Islamists on a silver platter

45% increase in debt.

Regulatory policies strangling business

That perfect health care for all, casuing businesses to not hire and drop coverage to put more people on the dole.

Unemployment above 8%

GDP Growth below 2%

Changed his mind four times on that OBL kill, which was set up by the hardwork of Bush, Bush worked 8 strong, Obama got the save.

Domestic energy production hamstrung, while billions of tax dollars wasted on masturbatory green energy companies, run by his cronies.

A racist running the Justice Department.

Hundreds of Mexican citizens and a US law enforcement officer dead because of Obama/Holder's agenda on guns.

Photo ID laws being challenged because they interfered with typical Democrat voters, the Dead and Illegal Aliens.

Chrysler bondholders screwed out of their money so the UAW could receive a giant wad of cash in the illegal government takeover of the Auto industry.........

Yeah, he's a raving success.

Business isn't around to "hire", as every right winger I've ever met is so quick to point out, yet every time I hear one spouting tax cuts for business (so they'll hire) and less regulation (so they'll hire). It seems to me you right wing freaks should take your own advice. Business is there to make money. Corporate charters require that the CEO do everything in his power to increase profit at any cost. Externalize as much as possible. I don't know of anything in corporate bylaws that talks about hiring people, so you can stop trying to have it both ways. Once you take the regulations away, corporations will still not hire, but they'll be sure to externalize more cost! (dumping, spilling and general polluting, rip-offs, scams, false claims, fake ingredients, price fixing, monopolizing) Remember...oh wait, you're a right winger, so you don't read. Well, there is a REASON those REGULATIONS were put into place. Because your "self-correcting" "free-market" doesn't regulate itself, contrary to current popular corporate propaganda. We've been in a time of rampant capitalism before and it didn't go well. I'm not sure what makes you think it would go well this time. CEOs are still dying to externalize anything. Corporate bylaws and charters still call for profit at any cost. If anything, no regulation would be even more destructive now. So please tell me, who's going to clean up the messes corporations make? The tax payer? Yup. Yeah, that's capitalism.

Re: Attention unemployed geeks! (-1, Offtopic)

doston (2372830) | about 2 years ago | (#40869051)

Attention leftist free software hippies!

Hows that free Obamacare colonoscopy going?

Iran marching toward a nuclear weapon

Egypt and Libya handed over to the Islamists on a silver platter

45% increase in debt.

Regulatory policies strangling business

That perfect health care for all, casuing businesses to not hire and drop coverage to put more people on the dole.

Unemployment above 8%

GDP Growth below 2%

Changed his mind four times on that OBL kill, which was set up by the hardwork of Bush, Bush worked 8 strong, Obama got the save.

Domestic energy production hamstrung, while billions of tax dollars wasted on masturbatory green energy companies, run by his cronies.

A racist running the Justice Department.

Hundreds of Mexican citizens and a US law enforcement officer dead because of Obama/Holder's agenda on guns.

Photo ID laws being challenged because they interfered with typical Democrat voters, the Dead and Illegal Aliens.

Chrysler bondholders screwed out of their money so the UAW could receive a giant wad of cash in the illegal government takeover of the Auto industry.........

Yeah, he's a raving success.

Business isn't around to "hire", as every right winger I've ever met is so quick to point out, yet every time I hear one spouting tax cuts for business (so they'll hire) and less regulation (so they'll hire). It seems to me you right wing freaks should take your own advice. Business is there to make money. Corporate charters require that the CEO do everything in his power to increase profit at any cost. Externalize as much as possible. I don't know of anything in corporate bylaws that talks about hiring people, so you can stop trying to have it both ways. Once you take the regulations away, corporations will still not hire, but they'll be sure to externalize more cost! (dumping, spilling and general polluting, rip-offs, scams, false claims, fake ingredients, price fixing, monopolizing) Remember...oh wait, you're a right winger, so you don't read. Well, there is a REASON those REGULATIONS were put into place. Because your "self-correcting" "free-market" doesn't regulate itself, contrary to current popular corporate propaganda. We've been in a time of rampant capitalism before and it didn't go well. I'm not sure what makes you think it would go well this time. CEOs are still dying to externalize anything. Corporate bylaws and charters still call for profit at any cost. If anything, no regulation would be even more destructive now. So please tell me, who's going to clean up the messes corporations make? The tax payer? Yup. Yeah, that's capitalism.

In fact, corporate profits have been through the fucking ROOF for years. Where's the hiring? You stupid or what? So they sit on trillions now not hiring, but you think a few more billion in tax cuts and some savings my externalizing costs to the tax payer are going to help? Please explain how. What basically doing is giving your kid a billion dollars to buy a new car, but the kid won't buy the car, so you think maybe giving him another billion will prompt him to buy it. Guess what? The kid is smart and he's not going to buy another car unless he needs it. In fact, with no regulation to deal with, I'd expect even less employment and higher profit. So, you want less employment and higher profit for corporations and that's good for society in general how?

Re: Attention unemployed geeks! (-1, Offtopic)

w3dg (1079833) | about 2 years ago | (#40869121)

Quit being hippies. We all know that big business is struggling and they're not hiring because they cannot find the talent in the states. It is their duty to hire and pay fair wages. Jeesh, this is America!! Home of the Free and the well-employed! We had to outsource because Americans couldn't do the work anymore. Lol, profits as main goal. You fools. It's not like we'd use slaves if it weren't illegal.

Re: Attention unemployed geeks! (0)

Surt (22457) | about 2 years ago | (#40869077)

Iran: was happening under Bush. Would be happening under Romney too.
Egypt/Libya: glad they are free.
Debt problem: real problem, but caused by Bush policies. At least things are headed in a better direction.
Regulatory issues: predate Obama.
Health care: definitely an improvement for me, and businesses are still hiring.
Unemployment: could be better, but IS better than most of the world right now.
GDP: problem predates Obama. At least it is headed in the right direction.
OBL: got the job done. If you want to claim he did all the work, you better agree with me on giving him all the credit on all the bad stuff he set up in his 8 years.
Green energy making great strides, and Solyndra burned by the Chinese spending even more to ensure we'd have to buy the technology from them.
Not sure what your point is about the racist in the Justice dept, haven't heard anything to make me think that's remotely true.
Agenda on guns: conspiracy theory crazy.
If you can't see you're on the wrong (morally) side of the photo id laws ... that's just sad.
Auto Industry: basically everyone thinks that turned out well.

I have an easy guess (5, Insightful)

aglider (2435074) | about 2 years ago | (#40868625)

Even Google has bugs!

Re:I have an easy guess (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868791)

Even Google has bugs!

That's true, and they named their biggest bug Android.

Re:I have an easy guess (4, Insightful)

jkflying (2190798) | about 2 years ago | (#40868879)

Never attribute to malice what could be attributed to incompetence... Google does go by the model of 'eventual consistency' with search, so perhaps some of that ethos spilled over into the G+ data handling.

Re:I have an easy guess (4, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#40869007)

Even Google has bugs!

Indeed.

BTW, I want to put in a plug for using Google's "Send Feedback" link. Not only is a pretty cool piece of work technically (it basically has to implement a full HTML rendering engine in Javascript in order to dynamically construct the image of the page you're seeing, with your problem areas highlighted), it actually does get a lot of internal attention. Feedback gets classified and similar comments tracked over time, with lots of pretty graphs and charts, and teams scrub their feedback regularly. Things that are bothering lots of people get bug reports generated and added to the internal bug reporting system, and they get prioritized and fixed.

The one failing of the Google feedback system, IMO, is that it lacks feedback. By that I mean that there's no response back to the submitter letting them know what's being done or when the problem is fixed. I think I'm going to submit feedback on feedback, pointing out that feedback needs feedback.

Re:I have an easy guess (2)

aztracker1 (702135) | about 2 years ago | (#40869217)

I think that is probably the biggest issue of all... never an indication of "we got your report" a "thanks" or "we're looking into it" ... It's disconcerting every time I have an issue wrt google... it seems the fastest responses seem to be when people start flooding twitter with complaints re a bug/outage/error. I can understand their reasoning, it just irks me.

Re:I have an easy guess (1)

6Yankee (597075) | about 2 years ago | (#40869247)

I think I'm going to submit feedback on feedback, pointing out that feedback needs feedback.

Yo dawg...

They all do this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868635)

No online 'social' network will ever tell you why, I'm not sure why this is, but the only thing I can think of is "well we got the money and it's a 'free' service, so let them F#CK themselves"

Re:They all do this... (4, Interesting)

tverbeek (457094) | about 2 years ago | (#40868931)

Yahoo did this to me. The only Yahoo service I was actively doing anything with at the time was Yahoo Answers, so I assume it came from there. But no explanation, and in my case they didn't respond to a few attempts to ask why or reconsider. I couldn't login to my Yahoo mail or anything else controlled by Yahoo. But it was only Yahoo (nothing important), so I just gave up.

Re:They all do this... (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about 2 years ago | (#40869265)

I left Yahoo long ago... when they were in league with spammers re: Yahoo Mail... couldn't create an account and opt out before you were already on spam lists. It seems like the only company not selling your information to third parties is Google, of course that's in their own interest to keep it all in-house. I'm not really a conspiracy theorist against Google, but it does bug me, you can't actually ever reach out to a google rep/employee like say MS, Apple, etc... it's almost as bad as IBM, where it's hard to get a real person, and when you do, they're worthless and redirect you elsewhere...

the die hard versions of - 1984 (3, Insightful)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 2 years ago | (#40868637)

the short, fun version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ymyWS82NsY [youtube.com]

The long, serious version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hATC_2I1wZE [youtube.com]

The original, analog version
http://www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Classics-George-Orwell/dp/0451524934 [amazon.com]

But, they're *not* evil! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868721)

Imagine the comments if this were Verizon or AT&T.

But noooo! Google is God! So sayeth the fanbois.

Re:But, they're *not* evil! (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#40869025)

But noooo! Google is God! So sayeth the fanbois.

As is the case with those referring to Obama as a "messiah," I get the feeling that the only people who actually say that are douche bags trying to demonize "the other guys."

"Google gods" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868745)

Right there is your problem. You view them as something they are not: they are mere mortals driven by their own devices and vanity. You cannot rely on them or be accountable especially if the stuff they give you is "free" (not really, you pay dearly with your privacy, the only commodity that matters and that you give up for free so easily).

this is what we're asking for (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868755)

By shifting our online communication to a few proprietary services like Facebook, Twitter, and G+, this is exactly what we're begging for: censored tweets, data-mining of everything we say for advertisement purposes, EULAs that grant ownership of our pictures and videos to those services, and more.

Collectively, internet users are *begging* for this kind of world, where we can only communicate at someone else's whim.

Re:this is what we're asking for (4, Interesting)

aztracker1 (702135) | about 2 years ago | (#40869365)

Well, there's always Diaspora... though it's really polished for what it has, it's lacking in a lot of ways, and missing something (everyone else you know).

I thought they stopped requiring real names? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 2 years ago | (#40868763)

I thought Google+ stopped requiring real names a while ago?

Once I heard they had stopped this requirement I reopened my G+ account. I've hardly used it, but haven't had any problems with it being suspended.

I wonder if this user's account was hacked and the hackers decided to stir up some shit? Though he'd probably notice this if it were the case.

Either way, I've not used G+ very much. After the whole real name debacle last year, it just felt like a less friendly place.

Re:I thought they stopped requiring real names? (3, Informative)

pavon (30274) | about 2 years ago | (#40868887)

No, still they require real names, unless you are already widely known by an established alias.

Re:I thought they stopped requiring real names? (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 2 years ago | (#40868923)

Ahh, that would probably explain it. I've been Zorin since 1995 at least.

But that kind of sucks too, because it means someone can't *start* a new alias on G+.

Re:I thought they stopped requiring real names? (3, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#40869143)

Ahh, that would probably explain it. I've been Zorin since 1995 at least.

More likely it's just that no one has reported your account. There are probably some automated filters that look for really obvious fake names, but Zorin is a real name, though typically a surname. "Zorin Lynx" is obviously a pseudonym, but one that isn't likely to be flagged by an automated check. I suspect that if someone reported your account you'd have to send Google some documentation proving it's a well-established and well-known alias (and you might be unsuccessful).

Personally, I can see both sides of this debate. It appears that real name policies actually do improve the S/N ratio significantly, which makes for a better user experience. On the other hand, pseudonymity is important to some people. It will be interesting to see if the real names push on YouTube is successful at cleaning up a large portion of the crapflood which is the typical YouTube comment stream.

More ML Poisoning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868771)

Stinks like Google's anomaly detection ML algorithms are now also being poisoned.

Obvious solution: (0, Flamebait)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#40868795)

Preemptively delete your G+ account. I'd like to see them suspend it then. While I can't speak for everyone, it's certainly worked for me. I've never had my deleted G+ account suspended, nor have I faced the uncertainty of determining why an account has been suspended.

If you sleep with google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868803)

don't complain when you get grabs...

slight chance... (2)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#40868825)

Perhaps they used Google to search for the Bing website?

welcome to google support (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868829)

Imagine how we felt in the early days of AdSense and PPC advertising with noone to talk to when we ran into issues. And these were services that cost us money and generated actual revenue for Google.

Good luck suckers!

Honestly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868847)

If people don't want to use their real name, then they shouldn't have to. The ONLY reason they want a real name is to track you and pass information to the NSA.

I have no desire to have my real name floating around where anyone can easily look up where I live etc etc. This is why I will never use any online service that requires it.

I wonder if Outlook.com requires a real name, their link to the TOS didn't work when I tried yesterday. Go figure.

Reminds me of a saying... (2)

jeremyds (456206) | about 2 years ago | (#40868867)

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Re:Reminds me of a saying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869179)

I depends on who came first, the chicken or the egg. Oh, that's right, it also makes no sense.

It's a victimless crime, like punching someone in the dark. -the ha-ha guy from Simpsons

Considering leaving Google's services (5, Insightful)

Kimomaru (2579489) | about 2 years ago | (#40868885)

This has been building for a while and I've been thinking of not using their services for anything important anymore. I think, overall, that using any "ecosystem" is a terrible mistake. I got locked out of my Google account a few months ago and found it very difficult to get access to my docs. Maybe this ecosystem stuff has just run its course, we're living on other people's networks too much and need to start installing and maintaining our our postfix servers agains. I might start on it this weekend. And, yes, requiring real names is a mistake. Sometimes people need to ask "dumb" questions and not look bad in a Google search.

Re:Considering leaving Google's services (2)

StormReaver (59959) | about 2 years ago | (#40869409)

I think, overall, that using any "cloud" is a terrible mistake.

There. Fixed that for you.

Publicity (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868903)

Suspend a tech writer's account and what is he going to do? If there is no such thing as bad publicity. . .

Centralized systems (4, Insightful)

Meneth (872868) | about 2 years ago | (#40868933)

Yet another example of how centralized systems are bad.

Social networks, torrent indexes, search engines, you name it. All of them censored and/or unreliable.

We need decentralization.

Seems G+ is acting like Twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40868983)

The "block and report for spam" is abused like CRAZY on twitter to censor accounts.

He probably pissed off some faction of jackasses who take opposing opinions as personal attacks and "hate speech," thus justifying abuse of the system.

I wouldn't notice it... (1)

lems1 (163074) | about 2 years ago | (#40869005)

They can suspend all they want. Who uses this thing seriously?

Because nobody knows. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869013)

You should know that customer service is not really Google's strong suit. Behind every single one of their services is some really smart guy creating an automated algorithm/process that runs said service. Its how their entire company runs (And why they're so good at certain things) Unfortunately, there is no one there to know or care about your petty meat space issues. If it's not part of the system the support goon that reads your emails really has no answers for you.

Other companies with traditional have a gaggle of departments and middle management. It's people driven instead of machine driven. This has it's ups and it's downs, but it means that if you bitch enough you might be able to get someone to cough up an answer.. Or BS you enough to give up.

My bet is that the blogger's account got caught up in some sort of automated sweep.. And upon receipt of the blogger's complaint, the support goon found no obvious violations and simply un-ticked the shit-can-this-account checkbox.

Nice self reference article (1, Insightful)

djsmiley (752149) | about 2 years ago | (#40869035)

Step 1. Post links sure to get your self banned on G+
2. Don't actually attempt to contact anyone at G+ about your account; simply click "recheck link on profile"
3. Post on Slashdot notice of your banning - make sure to state you didn't break the rules ever, except for those times you did.
4. Tell visitors you didn't miss G+; but you still feel its worth wasting their time by having them read about your lack of missingness of G+

Yes, I just coined the term "missingness" when items aren't simply missing; but they are so unfindable they have a high missingness rating.

Lord of the Googles (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 2 years ago | (#40869045)

“Do not meddle in the affairs of the Google, for it is not subtle and quick to anger.”

The cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869073)

Yup - good plan trusting third parties to take care of all your services for you.

Google nailed me (5, Informative)

patchouly (1755506) | about 2 years ago | (#40869093)

A few years back, I set up a Google banner on a forum I run. After my income reached the $100 minimum for payout, it was mysteriously closed down for "illegal clicks". I offered to provide all of my log files as proof there was no illegal activity or repeat clicks but they wouldn't hear it. There is no way to contact them other than email. No phone number. They did not respond to any of my emails. The account is still suspended, to this day. If they decide you are cut off, whether right or wrong, you are gone...permanently. Google sucks.

Pretty obvious, really (1)

bhunachchicken (834243) | about 2 years ago | (#40869105)

Google has a real name policy on Google+. However, Dan Tynan's profile wasn't using his real name. He was on G+ as Dan Tynan, whereas if you go to Wikipedia, you can see that his real name is Daniel Tynan.

Q.E.D. :)

(in all seriousness, I wouldn't be surprised if it was something as pedantic as this!)

Using Google+ is too dangerous (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869111)

I just don't post anything on my google+ account ever. If my google account was suspended i'd lose email, docs, drive, calendar etc.

Its too dangerous to use. Why risk it. F**k google+

Re:Using Google+ is too dangerous (1)

cheros (223479) | about 2 years ago | (#40869227)

If my google account was suspended i'd lose email, docs, drive, calendar etc.

Have you ever heard of
- single point of failure
- making offline backups?

There is no way I would ever rely on an online provider for such services - let alone from the privacy risk..

Problem of Free (4, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | about 2 years ago | (#40869115)

This is the problem with freely offered services. You can be subject to an incredibly arbitrary policy. It might make sense to pay a small monthly fee, therefore you have some true legal recourse.

Re:Problem of Free (2)

ToriaUru (750485) | about 2 years ago | (#40869413)

I had the same thing happen to me on Google+. I think it's because someone marked it as hate speech.

work at home (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40869175)

what Kathy replied I cannot believe that some one can earn $8648 in 4 weeks on the internet. Have you seen this site http://www.makecash16.com

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>