google+

  On 7/15/2011 at 10:15 AM, kokoon said:

MY THREAD

a major coup, my good gentleman. :bowleremoticon:

wtf hamppened

Ah they suspended my account. Considering applying for reconsideration, as part of their TOS states "to use the name that people commonly refer to you by" or something along those lines.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/201171254914892161.html

  Quote

With the beta release of Google+ this past week, the global tech community is already ruminating on how the new service might be a "game changer" for social media. A plethora of new features - including a video chat platform for up to ten people - ensure that Google+ will be a success, at least in certain circles.

 

Along with the initial excitement, concerns about the platform are arising, particularly around its privacy and user policies. In 2010, Google launched social platform Buzz, only to face a class action lawsuit over its exposure of users' email contacts (full disclosure: the organisation where I work, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was among the recipients in the settlement).

 

While so far, there have been few complaints - and in fact, heaps of praise - as to how Google+ has dealt with privacy, there are concerns as to what happens when a user runs afoul of the platform's Terms of Service. Given how intertwined the social platform is with the rest of Google's products (and how reliant so many of us are on Google products), breaking the rules on Google+ could have serious implications.

 

Following the rules

 

Google offers two sets of rules for users of the Google+ service: Its overarching Terms of Service (ToS), which apply to all of Google, and a set of Community Standards specific to the social networking site.

 

The community standards ban a handful of behaviors: no nudity or hate speech, no impersonating other users, no spam malware or phishing. They also warn users against copyright violation, offering a clear procedure for complainants to file a DMCA notice.

 

While the rules should be quite clear to users, what isn't clear is the ramifications of breaking them. On Facebook, users who break the rules have often seen their accounts closed down entirely. On YouTube, which is owned by Google, users who post inappropriate content are usually given a warning or two before losing access to their accounts for a period of time, or sometimes permanently.

 

The latest Google service is too new for anyone to determine what the result of a minor ToS violation might be, but one example making rounds in the blogosphere is hopefully no indicator.

  On 7/16/2011 at 9:30 PM, chenGOD said:

Ah they suspended my account. Considering applying for reconsideration, as part of their TOS states "to use the name that people commonly refer to you by" or something along those lines.

well, i did warn everyone in my circles that are using non-real names

Yeah yeah I saw...thanks for consistently posting my user name next to that information and drawing it to their attention (j/k - I actually had read a slashdot article about it as well). But it's a pain in the ass and now I'm gonna have to make up a "realistic sounding" pseudonym or go through the review process - since I am known on several sites as the user chenGOD, shouldn't that be like being known by your real name in the real world? I mean wtf.

I think that you are commonly referred to as chenGOD and that what they did is bullshit. Also, when they talk about 'community standards' in the above quote. Shouldn't the standards that apply, only be those relative to the those held by the participants of the circle that you are writing in. Further, to police these standards, does this now mean that they will be moderating (using algorithms) what are supposed to be private circle conversations.

Anyway, so begins the slow decline of google+. bye bye. As it's usefulness is melting, melting.

Sure it's a good idea to stop spam and phishing accounts, but it doesn't leave you feeling too positive, when contemplating the long term vision for the term community standards.

you know Facebook has the same policy, right?

fuckin illuminati bowlshit

  On 7/17/2011 at 5:21 AM, oscillik said:

you know Facebook has the same policy, right?

Yes but I don't have anybody I don't know personally on facebook. I'd like to keep some of WATMM at bay, but being as the google+ network is in fact "social", that's not possible: hence my desire to continue using the pseudonym which I've been using for at least 10 years.

If they don't approve, I'll either use my "chen wang" account or say fuck it altogether.

  On 7/17/2011 at 6:36 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 7/17/2011 at 5:21 AM, oscillik said:

you know Facebook has the same policy, right?

 

Yes but I don't have anybody I don't know personally on facebook. I'd like to keep some of WATMM at bay, but being as the google+ network is in fact "social", that's not possible: hence my desire to continue using the pseudonym which I've been using for at least 10 years.

If they don't approve, I'll either use my "chen wang" account or say fuck it altogether.

but then, i kinda don't see the point in joining a social network if you're just going to use a pseudonym. you may as well just sign up on an internet forum with a handle...like signing up to WATMM.

the way you're talking about having WATMM people on there, but not wanting to divulge any personal information (even as much as your name), yet you still want to engage with the users...just seems like you may as well cut out the middle-man and just converse here instead.

doesnt google to say not be evil? thises pretty f'in evil IMO to spend a account over bull crap. I'm standing with you Chen God

  On 7/17/2011 at 7:25 AM, sup said:

doesnt google to say not be evil? thises pretty f'in evil IMO to spend a account over bull crap. I'm standing with you Chen God

i guess you don't read too good - Facebook have exactly the same policy.

retweet my google+ post to support chen god

https://plus.google.com/107639111947098429517/posts/AhqHRUZo4jx

  On 7/17/2011 at 7:13 AM, oscillik said:

  On 7/17/2011 at 6:36 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 7/17/2011 at 5:21 AM, oscillik said:

you know Facebook has the same policy, right?

 

Yes but I don't have anybody I don't know personally on facebook. I'd like to keep some of WATMM at bay, but being as the google+ network is in fact "social", that's not possible: hence my desire to continue using the pseudonym which I've been using for at least 10 years.

If they don't approve, I'll either use my "chen wang" account or say fuck it altogether.

but then, i kinda don't see the point in joining a social network if you're just going to use a pseudonym. you may as well just sign up on an internet forum with a handle...like signing up to WATMM.

 

the way you're talking about having WATMM people on there, but not wanting to divulge any personal information (even as much as your name), yet you still want to engage with the users...just seems like you may as well cut out the middle-man and just converse here instead.

Except people do post interesting stuff on Google+ (you are one of them), that they don't post here. Now, when you converse with my posts, does it make a difference if you know my real name or my pseudonym? Does it significantly change the meaning of any discourse? What if my real name does contain the word "chen" in it? Why not use your real name on WATMM then?

Google+ is an online social network, filled with people I'll more than likely never meet. Why should I not be able to use a pseudonym of my choice instead of one that sounds like a "real name", as long as I am not breaking their TOS with regards to spamming/posting questionable content. It's bollocks.

Thanks for the 'sup'port.

  On 7/17/2011 at 7:39 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 7/17/2011 at 7:13 AM, oscillik said:

  On 7/17/2011 at 6:36 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 7/17/2011 at 5:21 AM, oscillik said:

you know Facebook has the same policy, right?

 

Yes but I don't have anybody I don't know personally on facebook. I'd like to keep some of WATMM at bay, but being as the google+ network is in fact "social", that's not possible: hence my desire to continue using the pseudonym which I've been using for at least 10 years.

If they don't approve, I'll either use my "chen wang" account or say fuck it altogether.

but then, i kinda don't see the point in joining a social network if you're just going to use a pseudonym. you may as well just sign up on an internet forum with a handle...like signing up to WATMM.

 

the way you're talking about having WATMM people on there, but not wanting to divulge any personal information (even as much as your name), yet you still want to engage with the users...just seems like you may as well cut out the middle-man and just converse here instead.

 

Except people do post interesting stuff on Google+ (you are one of them), that they don't post here. Now, when you converse with my posts, does it make a difference if you know my real name or my pseudonym? Does it significantly change the meaning of any discourse? What if my real name does contain the word "chen" in it? Why not use your real name on WATMM then?

Google+ is an online social network, filled with people I'll more than likely never meet. Why should I not be able to use a pseudonym of my choice instead of one that sounds like a "real name", as long as I am not breaking their TOS with regards to spamming/posting questionable content. It's bollocks.

 

Thanks for the 'sup'port.

i think as a compromise, Google should give the ability to set a nickname that is visible publicly, and you can have your real name for only those that you deem trustworthy (using the circles).

now you've explained that there, i can totally see your point.

but i also see it from the perspective of "what's the point of being a pseudonym on a social network?".

i'm still leaning more towards the latter perspective, but at least i see it clearer from your perspective.

pretty sure with this though, i don't think Google will budge on their stance about this. i think it's gonna be a case of "if you don't like it, leave." which i'm sure you won't really have that much of an issue with anyway as you seem to be a bit 'not bothered' too much about Google+ anyways. social network sites aren't the be-all-and-end-all

See if the social network were actually one where I stood a reasonable chance of meeting the people on it, then yeah, but as it is, I will meet less than 1% of the posters who post there...

I like your compromise.

I also tend to agree that google will probably say "like it or leave it", but as you said, i'm "not bothered" (lol hadn't thought of that one in a while).

damn, too drunk to read the thread properly, but hi everybody.

;----]]]]

  On 7/17/2011 at 6:36 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 7/17/2011 at 5:21 AM, oscillik said:

you know Facebook has the same policy, right?

 

Yes but I don't have anybody I don't know personally on facebook. I'd like to keep some of WATMM at bay, but being as the google+ network is in fact "social", that's not possible: hence my desire to continue using the pseudonym which I've been using for at least 10 years.

If they don't approve, I'll either use my "chen wang" account or say fuck it altogether.

dude if facebook has the same policy is clearly never enforced. A shit ton of my 'friends' on facebook have obviously fake names. my

I changed my facebook name once to koji kabuto and it warned me before doing it about the policy, but yeah, i think it's rarely enforced, mostly in cases of impersonation, they also have some system that identifies common fake names and blocks you from using them.

  On 7/18/2011 at 7:38 AM, GORDO said:

I changed my facebook name once to koji kabuto and it warned me before doing it about the policy, but yeah, i think it's rarely enforced, mostly in cases of impersonation, they also have some system that identifies common fake names and blocks you from using them.

so much for 'rarely enforced'

facebook still hasn't found my fake party-boy account that makes disgusting comments about parties he claims he attended

anybody have invintes

what the fuck is google+?

you mean to tell me it's not just that new black bar on the top of the google home page?