Somehow, to me, this just makes it worse. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding the situation here, but are you saying the timeline was this?
1) user sets up account, "Adafruit Industries"
2) user's account is flagged by someone, unknown to user
3) user is reading online, learns more about the Terms of Service, and finds out Google is serious that they /must/ use their real name
4) user /changes/ the name of their account to fit the Terms of Service
5) at some undetermined time later than #4, Google decides to act on the now obsolete flagged data, to punish the user for a minor transgression that they already unilaterally corrected
Does this really seem like a good way to be treating users? I've now read enough about Google+ issues that I'm on the verge of closing my Google+ account, and I already have a ton of followers and never had anything but my real name in the blank (despite the fact that EVERYONE online knows me as "saurik", and VERY FEW people know me as "Jay Freeman", so arguably "Jay Freeman" is a fake name and "saurik" is real)... I just can't risk my Google account getting closed for some frivolous reason: it is just that important to me.
Also, by the way, this entire notion of putting your real name on a service whose very premise is about privacy seems ludicrous... I know a ton of friends, both famous (hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter) and closeted (barely use a computer), who simply don't like telling random people online their real name, much less connecting it to a picture of themselves. Why isn't this circled or something?
"Humorously" enough, I just went now to find MuscleNerd's profile on Twitter and Google+ to show an example of someone who people /love/ on Google+, /only/ know as MuscleNerd, and obviously are quite famous, and you know what? It turns out his profile was deleted today... I don't even think he's noticed yet, and I don't think his insanely large following is going to be very happy about it.
In case anyone actually reads this comment (someone, at least, upvoted it), I figure I will connect the post I just made on Google+ on this subject to link through:
saurik, I don't think the timing on #4 and #5 are right; the same day that Limor's profile was suspended, I think the account name was still outside the common names policy.
For the record, I do want Google+ to support pseudonyms. I think Bradley's post showed that we want to get there too. But it's going to take some time, and in the mean time, my impression is that the Google+ folks are trying to keep fake/spammy/business profiles from getting out of control.
Comments
Somehow, to me, this just makes it worse. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding the situation here, but are you saying the timeline was this?
1) user sets up account, "Adafruit Industries"
2) user's account is flagged by someone, unknown to user
3) user is reading online, learns more about the Terms of Service, and finds out Google is serious that they /must/ use their real name
4) user /changes/ the name of their account to fit the Terms of Service
5) at some undetermined time later than #4, Google decides to act on the now obsolete flagged data, to punish the user for a minor transgression that they already unilaterally corrected
Does this really seem like a good way to be treating users? I've now read enough about Google+ issues that I'm on the verge of closing my Google+ account, and I already have a ton of followers and never had anything but my real name in the blank (despite the fact that EVERYONE online knows me as "saurik", and VERY FEW people know me as "Jay Freeman", so arguably "Jay Freeman" is a fake name and "saurik" is real)... I just can't risk my Google account getting closed for some frivolous reason: it is just that important to me.
Also, by the way, this entire notion of putting your real name on a service whose very premise is about privacy seems ludicrous... I know a ton of friends, both famous (hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter) and closeted (barely use a computer), who simply don't like telling random people online their real name, much less connecting it to a picture of themselves. Why isn't this circled or something?
"Humorously" enough, I just went now to find MuscleNerd's profile on Twitter and Google+ to show an example of someone who people /love/ on Google+, /only/ know as MuscleNerd, and obviously are quite famous, and you know what? It turns out his profile was deleted today... I don't even think he's noticed yet, and I don't think his insanely large following is going to be very happy about it.
In case anyone actually reads this comment (someone, at least, upvoted it), I figure I will connect the post I just made on Google+ on this subject to link through:
https://plus.google.com/116098411511850876544/posts/4t8sFLLK...
saurik, I don't think the timing on #4 and #5 are right; the same day that Limor's profile was suspended, I think the account name was still outside the common names policy.
For the record, I do want Google+ to support pseudonyms. I think Bradley's post showed that we want to get there too. But it's going to take some time, and in the mean time, my impression is that the Google+ folks are trying to keep fake/spammy/business profiles from getting out of control.