
I’ve been suspended from Google+ - draegtun
http://infotrope.net/2011/07/22/ive-been-suspended-from-google-plus/
======
WordSkill
I only wish I could be suspended!

My profile has been "under review" for over THREE WEEKS, meaning that my
profile is invisible to others and I am unable to do anything with my Google+
account, not even make comments, until some notional human within Google looks
at it and makes a decision.

The irony is that, if I were suspended, I could least click that link to
appeal the decision. As it stands, waiting for a review, I can do nothing.

My "crime"? I had a non-standard character in my old Google profile name,
where it was not a problem but which was automatically carried over to my
Google+ profile. I changed it as soon as I became aware of the problem but,
more than three weeks later, I am still awaiting review, possibly permanently.

How the Hell has Google, a company of supposedly intelligent people, allowed
such an obvious and avoidable problem alienate some of their previously
enthusiastic users?

If a profile is automatically suspended (or, worse, placed "under review"), it
should be automatically reinstated if the offending character is removed, it
should not require human intervention, especially as Google have so clearly
allocated no humans to the task.

------
darklajid
So - recently we had a thread where someone was mocked because he wrote about
future steps he (might?) want to take.

This is what I did, just now:

\- Renamed my profile. It had my real name before, but I gave it voluntarily.
Forcing people to use it is below my moral standards. I won't shed a single
tear if they throw me out, I can find enough animated gif images elsewhere.

\- Thunderbird is downloading my mail archive as I write this. I set up GApps
on my private domain in the past and I'm in the process of migrating to my own
domain right now (already changing credentials online).

\- I blacklisted google.com/www.google.com on my laptop (hosts file). I didn't
use it as a primary search engine for a while now (Hey DDG! You are awesome!),
but every now and then I fell into the habit of typing google.com/google.de
(usually cursing about the idiots that think that redirecting based on source
ip is a nice idea. No, I cannot read hebrew. Yes, I really wanted to go to
google.com and my browser is very specific about the type of content/language
I want: en).

So except for being stuck in the Android world I'm in the process of leaving
the harbor. Maybe someone with more sense (Hi, Mozilla?) can solve the social
network issue in a better way..

~~~
cageface
What about email? None of the GMail alternatives seem comparable.

~~~
darklajid
That's why the trend seems to be (and I'll follow for now, as an easy way to
migrate) to grab free Google Apps on your domain.

You still need to backup your mails (run an imap/pop client somewhere) in the
case that Google locks you out. But in that case mail to you is targeted at
_your_ domain, you just drop the DNS entries for GApps and set up your mails
_then_.

(More clever: Set it up before, but don't list it as MX. That way as soon as
DNS propagates you're able to receive mails again)

~~~
cageface
Google's already locked me out of one domain for no apparent reason at all, so
I guess I'm already at step 2.

------
Wickk
"To help fight spam and prevent fake profiles, use the name your friends,
family or co-workers usually call you." And this is what bothers me about this
whole ordeal. Google's playing a stupidly dangerous ( in regards to making
people want to use their services ) game of determining whats a "real" name
before we're asked of all things to show our ID? That's a little absurd for a
social networking client.

We get why you're doing this, you're fighting this the wrong way.

~~~
joe_the_user
That's it. Google's policies are more aggressively invasive than Facebook.
They were a company I had some sympathy for. No longer.

~~~
nextparadigms
Facebook will delete you if you have fake names, too. Mark said at e-g8 too
when asked why isn't he allowing people to be anonymous on their network, and
he said he knows anonymity can be a useful thing, too, but he's trying to make
a social network where people use real names.

I fail to see how Google+ is any different. Use your own name and you'll be
fine.

~~~
rjd
You are totally wrong about that, most of my musicians friends use there stage
names, and recently I've been working in big media and all the journalists and
writers use fake names as well. Quite common for high visibility people to do
this.

Facebook seems total fine with it (or turns a blind eye) as long as its
actually you (and not a troll account).

I used a nick name myself as I wanted to see if any spam started heading my
way with that name. None so far, been using Facebook since it went public.
Never a peep out of them.

~~~
joe_the_user
Up vote this point...

Facebook pretty much allows pseudonyms in practice whatever they say. If
Google+ is actively stepping on the pseudonym accounts of people with well-
known names, it's a problem - seriously.

------
dstein
Welcome to what I call Google's vision of an "Orwellian Computing Age". Your
every action & communication will be monitored, and your entire digital
identity can be deleted by a centralized, seemingly autonomous authority.
Better comply with the TOS or you might get yourself "ungoogled".

~~~
forkandwait
Why I downvoted you: Objective discussion which leads to new ideas and
solutions is generally hampered by name calling and over-generalization, which
just leads to "my side is best, your side sucks" ... "no, my side is best,
your side sucks". Add in the emotional charge, and people forget to think
about what they say before they open their mouths.

I think you might have a point lurking in your polemic, like "I am afraid
Google will start to monitor and try to control its users and content too
closely, and as evidence I present their behavior on x, y, z." Why don't you
rephrase with evidence, specificity, pragmatic alternatives, and scrubbed of
ad-hominem name-calling?

(One of these days I am going to write a "Rhetoric for Hackers"...)

~~~
dstein
Well I didn't intend to write an essay proving something's that's fairly
obvious. I think Google's intentions look harmless on the surface, but there
may be some sinister consequences if they continue down this road. And at the
very least, they have a bad PR problem on their hands because I can't be the
only one left with a bad taste in my mouth about this corporation.

Google's strategy is to entice you to give up all concept of personal privacy.
Yeah, nobody's forcing you to sign up for their services. But since Google
gives away it's well engineered products for free, they are purposely making
it difficult or impossible to build competing services that are capable of
making money. They don't need to even compete in the marketplace based on
price because they've adopted a "burn down the forest" strategy that's
subsidized by their advertising revenue. Want to develop an online
calendar/document editor/spreadsheet system? Better find a way to make it free
to compete with Google.

If you want evidence of Google's vision, let's go step by step through
Wikipedia's definition of "Orwellian":

    
    
      Invasion of personal privacy, either directly physically or indirectly by surveillance.
    

If you use Gmail, Android, Google Search (all free products), Google will
track and process your actions. I don't need to prove anything here, this is
their business model.

    
    
      State control of its citizens' daily life, as in a "Big Brother" society.
    

If you were to use every Google service including Android, ChromeOS etc, they
would be able to curate every piece of information you consume. This is what
the Google Filter Bubble concept pointed out very clearly.

    
    
        Official encouragement of policies contributing to the socio-economic disintegration of the family.
    

(not applicable)

    
    
      The adoration of state leaders and their Party.
    

There was no end of media coverage about Larry Page taking over for Eric
Schmidt. And even here on HN there are an awful lot of apologetic Google-
fanatics and employees.

    
    
      The encouragement of "doublethink", whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used, are "doublespeak", and "newspeak"
    

I quite often hear people say "My data is safe with Google", and very clearly
this turning out to be wrong.

    
    
      The revision of history in the favour of the State's interpretation of it.
    

Google's censorship cooperation with China was fairly despicable. And they
only started changing after they were publicly humiliated by PBS.

    
    
      A (generally) dystopian future.
    

This is somewhat subjective. But I can't think of a better example of dystopia
than if Google were to become an even more omnipresent part of the internet
than search/advertising.

    
    
        The use of euphemism to describe an agency, program or other concept, especially when the name denotes the opposite of what is actually occurring. E.g. a department that wages war is called the "Ministry of Peace" or "Ministry of Defence".
    

"Don't be evil".

~~~
clobber
I bet Google probably doesn't care all that much. Users are product sold to
advertisers.

~~~
protomyth
Thinking about it, wouldn't a user who doesn't want to give his/her real name
be less valuable to an advertiser?

------
michaelpinto
If you think of a social site as a party, the rules you set create the
environment. And to be fair to Google what makes Facebook good to a degree is
that people are anchored to a real identity — this prevents flame wars and all
sorts of other noise. Honestly part of the spam problem on Twitter is the
ability to setup a fake profile via robot and start spamming everyone within
seconds -- fake IDs also are part of what made MySpace feel like a collection
of misfits (not that that in itself is a bad thing, but it doesn't lend itself
to marketing to a broader audience).

So yes I'd expect Google to want you to be real -- on the other hand that may
give room for Twitter or someone new to do something more interesting. Just
don't expect said site to be mainstream if you're using 4chan rules for your
party!

~~~
sedev
The flip side of that metaphor, though, is that most of us go to lots of
parties without necessarily taking the same identity with us to each party.
Further, using people's legal names (if this fiasco demonstrates anything,
it's that the concept of a "real" name is kind of a crock) doesn't _guarantee_
better interactions - at the Facebook party I run into objectionable relatives
all the time, but it's not really my party and I can't kick them out.

------
csomar
I like what Google is doing, but I don't like how it does it. I live in
Tunisia, where almost all of my friends and family members uses Facebook. It's
important to recognize the right person, because sometimes some friend add you
and it's not really your friend. There is also e-militia that browse pages and
comment to create false political ideas. These are two problems that needs to
be solved.

It's good that Google is making effort on this, but disabling one user account
is WRONG. It only happens with Facebook when you spam. Why not create an
algorithm and mentor how it works? It's necessary to get this feature now,
especially that it's not accurate.

And also, if you are making this feature, make sure you have a stellar
support. G+ has just started and blog posts like this will KILL it.

------
tty
I wonder what Google intends on doing with people who simply use a fake name
for their Google account/Google+ persona. Will they also get banned/have
etheir Google+ accounts disabled? What about people from foreign countries?
For example, if someone uses a name that basically means John Doe in a not-so-
well-known language, will that also be considered misuse of the G+ service
(use of a fake persona) or will it remain ignored because checking whether
that is indeed an actual person's name or not would take too much resources on
Google's end?

~~~
patio11
Cost of a false negative here: nothing.

Cost of a false positive: I suppose Google could lose its hard-won reputation
for conscientious individualized customer service.

------
celticjames
I'm not sure I understand the real name policy of either Facebook or Google+.
Isn't the whole point of a social graph that it is personally curated by me?
The identities of my friends/circles are verified by me.

~~~
rimantas
What if I want to find someone I met ten years ago and have no idea what
nickname they have chosen? What about friends of my friends?

If one does not agree with the policy—just don't sign up. I find fake names on
Facebook really annoying.

~~~
saurik
OK, and what if I want to find someone I met ten years ago, and I have no idea
what their real name is because no one ever uses it? A ton of my friends in
high school and college went by nicknames the entire time anyone ever
interacted with them. I had a good friend in college whom /everyone/ called
"C.C." (as in, "see see"): her name was "Corrine", but I don't really know how
to spell it and I'm one of the few people who ever actually bothered to learn
it.

~~~
dedward
The simple answer is: The internet, and society, does not owe you the right to
identify and find anyone you've ever met. People are entitled to their
anonymity and privacy.

Just because someone went to school with me, or was buddies with me in school
doesn't mean they get to know what I'm up to now or where I am, or even how to
get ahold of me.....

~~~
pzxc
That is begging the question. What if the person WANTS you to be able to find
them, but they have always gone by a nickname that they can't use because
facebook's policies is real-names-only?

------
Astrohacker
I like being able to create new identities for different purposes. Why
wouldn't Google+ allow that?

~~~
vladd
Eric Schmidt:

    
    
      The people who built the Internet did not get a stable
      version of identity; You need identity, in the sense that 
      you are a person, this is who you are these are your
      friends and so on … The issue on the Internet is not the
      lack of Facebook, the issue on the Internet is the lack 
      of identity. 
    

(from [http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/09/eric-schmidt-on-gauging-
goo...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/09/eric-schmidt-on-gauging-googles-
success/) )

See also <http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/how-to-implement-rel-author> .

~~~
autarch
Identity is not the same as "name on your birth certificate". Skud's
_identity_ is Skud, not Kirrily Roberts.

I'm all for having stable identities on social networking services, but that
has nothing to do with legal names vs pseudonyms.

~~~
murz
The G+ names policy doesn't say "name on your birth certificate". It says "the
name you commonly go by in real life", see:
<http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271>

Even if Skud does go by that name in daily life, I don't see how it comes as
any surprise that he is suspended pending review for that name. He even says
it himself:

> I knew I was at risk of my account (under the name of “Skud .”) being
> suspended

~~~
sedev
The policy that they are _enforcing_ is that you must use your legal name,
leading many people to the obvious conclusion that the policy is bullshit.

------
RexRollman
Sounds like I won't be signing up for Google+ any time soon. I don't do
anything on the Internet under my real name (and that includes Hacker News).

------
simias
Well the good point is that google lets you delete your google+ profile easily
(without losing your gmail or other parts of your google account).

I've never used Facebook because I value my privacy and was naïve enough to
think G+ would be the white knight that would save us all. Way to kill your
hype, Google.

Please don't think I'm bitter or it's a ragequit, I'm just glad I leave now
before I become "addicted" to the service. I'd definitely be willing to try
the service again, if they fix their policies.

------
white_devil
Your move, Mr. Cutts.

~~~
zavulon
To be fair, I don't think Matt should be expected to respond to every
complaint about Google on HN. Nobody appointed him the official Google
spokesperson on HN, he's just another visitor here. Google is a huge
corporation and AFAIK, Matt has nothing to do with Google+.

~~~
white_devil
_Nobody appointed him the official Google spokesperson on HN, he's just
another visitor here._

Probably not, but he's sure behaved like a Google PR/damage-control-drone
here, pretty much any time it looks like "Don't Be Evil" might not be
accurate.

------
draegtun
Also see this post: _Preliminary results of my survey of suspended Google+
accounts_ \- <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2806448>

------
donnaware
I get the whole "I would never join a country club that would have me as a
member" exclusivity B.S. but they are really being silly now. Is it time to
boycott Google+ ???

~~~
sixtofour
No need, Google chooses the people it wants to be boycotted by.

