
What happens when Google+ cuts you off? - mmavnn
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20096313-264/what-happens-when-google-cuts-you-off/?tag=topStories
======
anon1385
_Google: If your profile is under review, you will not be able to make full
use of Google services that require an active profile such as Google+, Buzz,
and some social features of Reader and Picasa Web Albums. For example, on
Buzz, you can't create content, on Reader you can't share items with other
users or follow other users, and on Picasa Web Albums you can't comment on
photos._

That's funny, I thought Google _"explicitly said the no other service of
theirs will be affected."_ [1] and that _"Other services aren't affected.
Period."_ [2]

Seems like the people who support this G+ policy have just been flat out
lying. Period.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2907098>

[2] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2907104>

~~~
masklinn
> Seems like the people who support this G+ policy have just been flat out
> lying. Period.

Of course they have, Google's goal has long been to coalesce all their
services under a single ur-account (hence youtube accounts being dead and the
complete mess when you have both "personal" and professional "google apps &
shit" accounts), when that account gets restricted/halfbanned how could the
restrictions be localized?

The more time passes and the more dangerous relying on Google's services gets:
if you or they fuck something up, half your online existence suddenly gets
unavailable. And since Google has proven twitchy with the ban button and still
provides no way to reach anybody unless you can make a _major_ splash across
the web, it's like playing russian roulette on your own with 5 chambers full.

~~~
ableal
Yesterday Google mail was having conniption fits about "invalid cookies" in
one of my machines (personal + business gmail). Trying to get to the settings
page only led to the same error page advising clearing browser cache and
cookies. Ended up having to clear all cookies - just the obviously googly ones
didn't work first time.

------
jasonkester
So the short answer is: If you don't want to use your real name on their thing
that requires real names, you don't have to use their thing that requires real
names. And you can back out of it in such a way that the rest of your Google
universe is unaffected.

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

~~~
masklinn
There are two issues with this:

* People have seen their G+ account restribanned while using their real names, with the restriban not lifted even after providing a governmental id, which was deemed insufficient

* When a significant portion of your ecosystem is moving to G+ (as is happening in the Python community for instance, many high-profile pythonistas now make significant use of G+ for info broadcasting and discussion) not being able to interact with them gets annoying, if not downright problematic

------
danh
A bit off-topic, but now you don't have to follow the G+ name rules if you're
famous enough. At least if "famous enough" means "being Madonna". [1]

I don't remember her last name, but I'm pretty sure it is not ".".

[1] <https://plus.google.com/101336441946387245415/posts>

~~~
cubicle67
pretty sure the rule is not that you have to use your real name, but rather
the name you're commonly known as in 'real' life. Madonna, in this case, is
fine

~~~
vladd
The de-facto rule is 'your real name' since they ask for government ID in case
your profile gets flagged: "Please select a clear, readable copy of your valid
driver's license, national ID card, or other photo ID. Our team will not take
action if you send a photo of anything other than your ID card." (from
[https://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/request.py?conta...](https://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/request.py?contact_type=identity_verification)
).

~~~
pbhjpbhj
From your link:

" _we need to verify that your identity matches the one on the profile_ "

That doesn't necessarily mean that the profile has your [full] legal name
attached to it just that it is properly associated with you. YMMV and probably
will.

------
SoftwareMaven
This issue is going to massively hamstring G+, and may even keep it from
growing period, and it has nothing to do with whether they allow gyms or not.

Technical people may understand what a disabled G+ profile means, but to the
average user, they are hearing, "OMFG, IF I USE G+ I WON'T BE ABLE TO USE
GOOGLE!"

Google is underestimating what these kinds of stories are doing to their
ability to grow G+.

