
“Google asked why I deleted my G+ account. So I told them.” - KuraFire
http://pastebin.com/T3DaPCVn
======
dasil003
Even though I don't have any particular privacy concerns with Google+, I'm
just fed up with Google abandoning their strengths to basically chase after
Facebook and impotently ram G+ down everyone's throats.

Google has great services, Gmail and Calendar are great, Android is a great
mobile platform, and of course there are dozens of other amazing services.
They've done some important work to unify the logins, but then they dilute the
whole thing by making a second-rate Facebook clone and hoping everyone will
flock to it.

Meanwhile though people are realizing that none of these companies really give
a shit about your privacy, and even if they do, they don't care enough to
really protect it, so inevitably trust will be eroded over time as Facebook,
Google and their younger brethren strip-mine the naive goodwill of consumers
in search of the new shiny. You already see teenagers abandoning Facebook
because it doesn't have the privacy they want (everyone and their mother's
mother is on there). I think this trend will accelerate over the next decade
and we'll look back and laugh at the pipe-dreams of these companies thinking
that they could consolidate and own the whole social graph.

The irony is Google is much better positioned for this future than Facebook
is. Let them have unified accounts, let them datamine everything, just stop
worshipping at the alter of Zuckerberg like he's the second coming of Steve
Jobs.

------
yeukhon
Disclaimer: I am not a guy who hate Google or have anything against Google+
and I personally am okay with Google showing me on search result, but on the
case of real name policy I am a nay-sayer.

Google, Facebook need to stop this real name policy or ease it. Having real
name real identity, a page that people can view as they search on Google is
great for some people. If you are celebrity or some famous programmer or
mathematician, you probably don't mind. And usually these people get official
"verification" if they are truly famous people. You see that a lot on Twitter
and Facebook.

Sometimes I can careless about people's real name and instead I pay more
attention to their pseudo identity, their username in this case. It's a choice
and we should be more willing to make this real name policy flexible.

I still use G+ for friend's communication but other than that it has no use
for me. I don't get 10000 followers like Linus does so why should I care about
having a real name?

If Gmail is happy with James Bond why can't I use James Bond (I am just making
it up)?

[http://elliott.org/problem-solved/google-plus-says-my-
name-i...](http://elliott.org/problem-solved/google-plus-says-my-name-is-not-
allowed-now-what/)

[http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebooks-forgotten-rule-
fa...](http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/facebooks-forgotten-rule-fake-names-
allowed/story?id=15509496)

Why would anyone need to provide some documentation to show that he or she is
who he or she claims to be?

~~~
horizon_breaker
I can see value in it for the individual in the sense of developing and
maintaining an online presence that parallels your real world presence. You
might have 10 followers, but if someone is interested in who you are -- such
as a peer, colleague, potential employer or what have you -- they can find
out. Don't want something attached to that persona? The web still offers
plenty of avenues for anonymity, I think.

~~~
yeukhon
The issue is that it is possible the user is telling the truth and now then
Google is deciding whether you are or not by asking you to supply
documentation. As Google is moving forward with integrating G+ with other
services, it seems a burden for existing user and future user to prove their
identity.

Yes, there is a value. I often find people I read on technical paper or
newspaper or from tweet and I can find out their contact information by
Googling their names. That's great, but I argue that they don't need to
"police" users. They shouldn't "police" users. The user isn't doing
transaction. It's just a Google plus profile. Plenty of people stay
"anonymous" with a pen name. Take Bitcoin's "inventor". Should anyone use that
name the second time, will Google just say "no, prove to me you are this guy?"
People who wish to be searched will always enter their real name. In fact, my
wild guess is most Google users always enter real name when they first sign up
for Gmail and therefore, Google doesn't need to worry about people provoding
fake name. I know Google wants to provide better social and identity graph,
but again, there is a limit to how much Google should "police" this real name
policy. I can call myself "Jesus Christ" and my guess is Google will not
accept that. I have a friend named "Mee You"....

Disclaimer: I am not a guy who hate Google or have anything against Google+
and I personally am okay with Google showing me on search result, but on the
case of real name policy I am a nay-sayer.

------
sergiotapia
I agree with the message but why is this nonsense on the front page?

~~~
smoyer
Google hating is the new Microsoft hating (there were three "Google Complaint
Articles" on the front page of HN today). I guess we need someone to hate
since we've moved to pitying Microsoft?

