iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Users Beware: Google+ Deleting Accounts (VIDEO)

The Huffington Post   First Posted: 07/25/11 05:46 PM ET Updated: 09/24/11 06:12 AM ET

Google+, Google's latest attempt at developing a popular social networking service, has users in a tizzy because of its no-negotiation policy regarding what it takes to be fake profile names.

According to ZDNet, "a striking number of Google+ accounts" were deleted over the weekend because of questionable profile authenticity. Limor Fried, ZDNet notes, had her Google account revoked--but later restored--for using the pseudonym "Ladyada" on her profile. The site also notes that another suspended user, a former Google employee nonetheless, named Kirrily "Skud" Robert, was asked to scan a photo of her photo ID to prove it was indeed she. Even William Shatner got axed from Google+: the actor, who played Captain James T. Kirk in Star Trek, tweeted on July 18, "My Google+ account was flagged for violating standards. Saying hello to everyone apparently is against the rules maybe I should say goodbye?"

Getting cut from Google+ could mean losing more than just your social networking profile--you might even lose access to all of your Google accounts, including Gmail. As PCWorld reports, "to be clear, the stories we're hearing so far are of people being suddenly frozen out of EVERYTHING...Given who we early adopters are, even a few more days of this unreasonable behavior could abort the whole G+ effort".

To be fair, Google+ clearly states in its policy documents that members are prohibited from using professional titles, pseudonyms, and unusual characters in their name. "You can be certain you're connecting with the right person," Google says in defense of its stance on profiles. "Google Profiles requires you to use the name that you commonly go by in daily life."

According to a conversation Robert Scoble said he had with Google Vice President of Social, Vic Gundotra, Gundotra acknowledged that Google had made some mistakes, though said Google is working to address how it requires users to use "common names," as well as how Google communicates with its users. Scoble wrote, "He says they have made some mistakes while doing the first pass at this and they are learning. He also says the team will change how they communicate with people. IE, let them know what they are doing wrong, etc."

Google seems to hope that using "common names" will create a closer-knit online community.

Nonetheless, it's understandable that some users are upset about having to show proof of identification--or having their accounts canceled outright without having the chance to petition the decision ahead of time. Signing up for a social network online shouldn't feel like going to the DMV to get your license renewed, and it's certainly not what people expect from an Internet company such as Google.

"Google Plus's names policy seems to have been scribbled on a napkin at the last minute, rushed into production while still half-baked, and confused even further by their haphazard, scattershot approach," Jon Evans wrote in a post on TechCrunch. " It's too bad that the service has sacrificed a pile of goodwill over the last week by repeatedly publicly shooting themselves in the foot."

Unless Google+ can find a kinder, more efficient and more accurate way of identifying people, then some users might just decide to abandon the service altogether--and not put in the effort required to return.

Learn more about the controversy in the video above.


FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

Google+, Google's latest attempt at developing a popular social networking service, has users in a tizzy because of its no-negotiation policy regarding what it takes to be fake profile names. Acco...
Google+, Google's latest attempt at developing a popular social networking service, has users in a tizzy because of its no-negotiation policy regarding what it takes to be fake profile names. Acco...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 65
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Jacquel Chiraco
You don't count, if you don't vote
11:20 PM on 07/26/2011
I wonder if the writer has direct access to G+. The problem has been corrected, when you enter your info, it warns you so you can fix it. G+ is very easy to use specially if you have gmail, hotmail and yahoo contacts. Just pick who you want in any circle, and voila. If you want an invite, just reply to this post with your email. Have fun.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:25 PM on 07/27/2011
Which *problem* has been fixed?

-- You no longer disallow pseudonyms?
-- You are no longer requiring a driver's license?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
J0E1
Don't blame me, I'm not a republicrat.
03:36 PM on 07/26/2011
Good. Fake profiles killed myspace, and are now killing facebook.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Benjamin Rosenfeld
03:04 PM on 07/26/2011
No unusual characters? Is that to say that all names must be in English and all other languages, Russian, Hebrew, Arabic, and the like are forbidden?
12:06 PM on 07/26/2011
And they have now added nicknames and Other names that you can make searchable.

So while they may not be getting it 100% correct right out of the box, they are listening to feedback and talking with the community.

They have also confirmed that NO ONE has lost their other Google access to services over naming. They have suspended people for spamming and violating other parts of the TOS though.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:54 AM on 07/26/2011
Google's "no-pseudonym" policy reeks of wanting to sell real identities to their advertisers. They require you to use your full name and verify it. What's left for them to know? Forget privacy. You have none on Google+.

Bad idea.
10:33 AM on 07/26/2011
You have none anyway. If you haven't given up yet, you haven't been paying attention.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:46 AM on 07/26/2011
That's fallacious reasoning. I have been paying attention, you haven't, and one does have a choice in which information to divulge and which not to divulge. It's a choice. Your logic is what is known as "begging the question." The conclusion that privacy has been surrendered is assumed in your premise.

People don't hand their driver's license to random people they meet on the street--but they will give it to Google to verify an account? That's a choice--a bad one--but a choice. Smart people shred documents with their name and address and credit card data on them to protect against identity theft--they don't then hand that data to Google so that Google can sell it and say--"what are you going to do?" It's a choice. Don't assume I'm making the same mistakes you are.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
menschmaschine5
10:36 AM on 07/26/2011
Want privacy? Alright, get rid of that pesky broadband router in your house. Unfortunately, there's no way to have complete privacy on the internet these days.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:09 AM on 07/26/2011
You are comparing a broadband router (using a secure protocol and cipher) to actually handing your identity and every word you type into a Google search box to Google? Your IP address, your location, the content of your emails (which Google scans)?

That's epic ignorance. One is a safe with an extremely secure lock. The other is a cardboard box, with all your stuff in it, your every thought, everything you search for and read, everything you type, which you willing hand over to an admitted thief. (Read Google's privacy policy if you doubt the "admitted thief" bit.)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:54 PM on 07/28/2011
[“What you don't seem to get is that anyone with a router has several internet accounts. Google + account or no, your informatio­n isn't private at all. This HP account of yours is being mined for plenty of data.”--menschmashine5]

Oh yeah...I get that facile concept. You seem to believe that a router--an internet connection--is more dangerous by itself than what you do with your personal data when connected. I fully understand your reasoning error.

This website doesn't have my real name, my email (disposabl­e email used to register), they don't have my phone, address, or any meaningful personal data. They don't know me other than by pseudonym. These are words on a page--absent my identity all they can sell is aggregate data. Even that isn't that useful without demographic data. No, there really isn't a valid comparison between this website and what Google has access to across their products--and the info you share with them out of necessity
photo
RemoveTheGreedyOnes
This space is intentionally left blank...
07:59 AM on 07/26/2011
I beat them to it and deleted my account myself, it's just a Facebook look alike, and I mean it totally looks and does the same as Facebook. Why have to manage two social sites? I am not into making my life more complicated.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UserNameJane
Does my micro bio make my butt look big
11:45 AM on 07/26/2011
Yes, I agree. Why have multiple social networking sites, When I started my FB account I for the most part got rid of all the rest, I know a lot of people like Myspace for the music, but I youtube for that. To me it is a waste of time to have more than one.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Benjamin Rosenfeld
03:00 PM on 07/26/2011
Youtube is a social networking site on the simple fact that you can follow and be followed and communicate with other users as you would on Facebook or twitter. So to say that you have only one is incorrect.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ogaraj
02:06 PM on 07/26/2011
The value of social networks is in the people socially networking. So, when everyone else makes the move to G+ because FB is old and boring, you will be back on it. It will be no different than myspace being replaced by FB. Then something new and shiny will come along again.

My friends and family are primarily on G+ now because of the 10-party video conferencing (called Hangouts) and the far better photo sharing.
06:47 AM on 07/26/2011
It's just a trick !! dont fall for it or you may die, forever
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hypnos Rises
Rebel/hybrid monster
03:25 AM on 07/26/2011
If these CORPORATIONS like Google and Facebook demand a narrow selection of user names and identities, drop them! They are NOT doing it to keep us honest. They are doing it so they can take our identities and information, and sell it to the highest bidder. Data mining companies.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ogaraj
02:08 PM on 07/26/2011
You have obviously never read your ISP's privacy policy, or HuffPo's, or any web company that you log in to. Google and Facebook are marketing companies as that is where their revenue comes from.

Your paranoia is misplaced.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
No Yards
I never said most of the things I said.
04:21 PM on 07/27/2011
I don't think it's a case of "paranoia" as such, it's just being informed about what you are "signing up for", and making a decision if that is acceptable to you.

None of these companies make it easy to figure out all the "ins and outs" of what they are going to do with your information, so a little warning (or reassurance, as the case may be) now and then from interested 3rd parties is not a bad thing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hypnos Rises
Rebel/hybrid monster
12:29 AM on 07/28/2011
"Google and Facebook are marketing companies as that is where their revenue comes from."
YA think? Of course they are. You are confused, the little paranoia comment you made is just your passive aggressive comments you cannot control. I appreciate you taking the time to "educate" me but you can leave out the snipes and insults. You cannot tell me what I've already known. Better luck next time.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:15 AM on 07/26/2011
Google knows how to close a deal, don't they?

"Come to Google+

-- We have fewer accounts, so you'll waste less time conversing!
-- We routinely purge users who don't meet our shifting standards.
-- Sign up is easy. All you need is a winning lottery ticket, and three forms of ID.
-- So, what are you waiting for? Join at some point in the next six months, at our discretion!"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ogaraj
02:16 PM on 07/26/2011
G+ has already set records for growing the fastest social network, even as invite only and beta. The G+ app is the #1 app on android and iOS in their respective app stores. It is invite only because they do not want to repeat the mistakes of their own Buzz and Orkut, and also myspace or early facebook which was atrocious. They will hit 100million+ by year's end.

G+ will leave their beta/field-test by the end of the month, and you will be able to join and quit your crying.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:31 PM on 07/26/2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

A shill, plant or stooge is a person who helps a person or organization without disclosing that he or she has a close relationship with that person or organization. Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he or she is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) that he or she is secretly working for. The person or group that hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:46 PM on 07/26/2011
http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/S­hill
12:27 AM on 07/26/2011
Firstly, you don't give invitation and then you have decided to delete accounts. What is this???
12:20 AM on 07/26/2011
Good for them. Enforcing rules from the beginning is a good idea. Facebook could learn something.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stephen-in-Seattle
There isn't much we can do about the situation.
10:10 AM on 07/26/2011
Agreed. We can't have it both ways. Facebook allows anyone and then abuses followed (some resulting in Suicide) along with the outcry. As far as data mining goes -- doesn't matter who you sign up with, your data will be mined, analyzed, "trended": use a social network - get used to it.
11:33 PM on 07/25/2011
I think it's annoying how people on facebook for example sometimes change their names to some dumb nickname that nobody has ever called them by. That being said, canceling google+ accounts and, even worse, messing with their gmail accounts does not seem like a reasonable response.

The structure of google+'s circles whereby you choose people to share information with without giving them a chance to confirm or deny could be problematic for people who are incorrectly identified, however. I think it will be interesting to see if it catches on with celebrities, who on facebook and twitter have to do nothing to get their information out and none back, while on google+ they'll have to actively add fans and will likely get a lot of unwanted info back from the fans who will add them to their circles.
12:22 AM on 07/26/2011
I agree with you on the names thing, but I do think that its reasonable to delete their accounts if they violate terms. They knew from the beginning, and it's good for Google to tell people that they don't put up with crap.

They're trying to avoid what Mypace and Facebook have become. They want to keep a clean website that's not full of fake and annoying profiles that are claiming to be other people.
08:20 AM on 07/26/2011
G+ circles actually work perfectly for celebrities. They can add people they actually know to their circles for more private posts and just make public posts for their fans. Any fan that has a celebrity in their circle will see the public posts regardless of whether the celebrity has added the fan to a circle or not.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:58 AM on 07/26/2011
Why do you care?

It's funny reading some of the more brainwashed replies. I'm wondering if these are shill accounts. (After all, HP doesn't verify....) Using invitations to get celebrities signed up is the same methodology practiced by The Church of Scientology.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Trickery
Gave up private vanity for public insanity
10:22 PM on 07/25/2011
Google seems to be counting on their Google+ users to be mature in their social network profiles, otherwise, why be so strict on names? Sure, no one should go around falsely identifying themselves, but maybe people have the wrong idea about this new social networking part of Google. I have heard good things about Google+ and the features seems to be very good, but I guess time will tell.
10:15 PM on 07/25/2011
It's not "IE."
It's "i.e."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tchoupitoulav1
01:53 AM on 07/26/2011
FINALLY!!! Someone on HP that knows grammar! Thank You. F&F!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
apathyman
Let them hate, so long as they fear
09:58 PM on 07/25/2011
Fortunately I could care less about google+ or face book for that matter. If i really want to talk to someone I have a phone
10:14 PM on 07/25/2011
It's "couldn't" care less.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vavavoom
Yeah,.. yeah... vroom ... vroom, Next please.
10:22 PM on 07/25/2011
Unless he just wants to care less which he could.
Of course it means he cares more than he thinks he does. :-)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
apathyman
Let them hate, so long as they fear
10:34 PM on 07/25/2011
I could also care less about your correction >:]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ogaraj
02:20 PM on 07/26/2011
Social networks are simply a method of communication. Voice conversation is possible on social networks. In theory, people on cell phones are part of a social network of cell phone users. So, using a cell phone to communicate socially is in fact a form of social networking.