it looks like I'll be leaving G+

[elke_tanzer]

(I've just posted a similar version of this post in my G+, and the following is crossposted to my DW.)

I had been looking for an official confirmation from Google that both Pseudonymous and Identified use of the G+ service was fine, as I had understood the TOS I signed up under. This appears to be clear indication that Pseudonymous use of G+ is unwelcome and/or against the TOS.

I'm going to give this situation a couple more days, hoping that Google as a company will catch a clue. If not, then I'm out of there.

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2011/07/google-profiles-pseudonym-avatar-names-suspension-policy.html is not good news. Google as a company appears to still NOT understand the fundamental notion that some people have persistent pseudonyms which we absolutely require to NOT be associated publicly with our legal names.

Google, how is it that such a smart company does not understand these basic concepts of identity and safety concerns? How many times do people need to send feedback linking to http://geekfeminism.org/2011/07/08/social-networking-requirements/ and
http://geekfeminism.org/2011/07/08/anti-pseudonym-bingo/ ?

Sigh, indeed. More news on this can be found at http://geekfeminism.org/2011/07/10/the-status-of-pseudonymity-and-privacy-on-google/

(And oh, look, I have a tag already in use in my journal for how I feel about this: google can eat my shorts)

Comments

[montanaharper]

The only real concern I have with sticking around until they decide to TOS me (if they do) is whether I'd just get TOS'd from G+ or from the whole of Google. Because it'd suck for me to lose my gmail; I have four years worth of email there.

:-\

[elke_tanzer]

I have been on Gmail as Elke Tanzer for a very long time.

It is my current understanding that a G+ suspension does not disable Gmail.

The one exception to that I know of is if the suspended person is under 13 years old, because of COPPA -- once Google is informed that someone is under 13, they are obligated by law to close the account; there was a ten-year-old who lost two years of email and is locked out of Gmail about a week ago because of that, despite having parental permission.

The bottom line for me is that I refuse to provide content to Google (because it is a free service, we and/or our content is the product, don't forget! they've gotta make money somehow!) while my standing on the service can vanish at any time with no warning, subject to the whims of anyone who wanders by my G+ presence and decides to report me.

Re: :-\

[montanaharper]

The bottom line for me is that I refuse to provide content to Google (because it is a free service, we and/or our content is the product, don't forget! they've gotta make money somehow!) while my standing on the service can vanish at any time with no warning, subject to the whims of anyone who wanders by my G+ presence and decides to report me.

I get that. It's not a stand that I'm really invested in making, but I totally support anyone who does want to.

I hope we get some answers—the right answers—soon.

Re: :-\

[elke_tanzer]

The other thing is... if my friends, my real social network, cannot participate in G+ because they are unwilling and/or it is unsafe for them to have a presence using their legal name and a photo of their face... I can't support the service.

Any social network which TOSes my friends? Does not work as a social network for me.

There's an activist/social justice component happening here (I try to only participate in businesses and services which I can in good conscience philosophically support), and there's also a functionality issue here (why would I want to hang out somewhere where my friends can't hang out?).

Sigh.

Re: :-\

[montanaharper]

There's an activist/social justice component happening here (I try to only participate in businesses and services which I can in good conscience philosophically support), and there's also a functionality issue here (why would I want to hang out somewhere where my friends can't hang out?).

*nods*

Personally, I find that I have to balance my activist tendencies with specific-to-me real world concerns; I'm just not in a position to be able to afford to make some of the stands I'd like to be able to.

Oddly (and as you've probably noticed), I'm feeling far more reactionary about G+ from the soapbox of my IRL name. That was kind of a surprise to me.

Re: :-\

[elke_tanzer]

/nods nods

[shiyiya]

Godsdamnit google. I like google plus I want to use google plus I categorically refuse to wave my legal name around online. Virtually nobody I interact with online knows what it is anyway, so it wouldn't be goddamn useful in your purported WE JUST WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHO YOU AREEE~ usage. My partner knows my legal name. My friend I've sent money to on paypal knows it, because that was inescapable. That is pretty much *it*.

Damnit google I want to like you. Nice job breaking it, hero.