I already said it. Because if Facebook bans me, I only lose Facebook. If G+ bans me, I lose multiple services, including 1 that is integral to my online identity.
If your profile is suspended, you will not be able to make full use of Google services that require an active profile such as Google+, Buzz, Reader and Picasa. This will not prevent you from using other Google services, like Gmail.
From the zdnet article, it sounds like the Gmail lockouts were unintentional.
Because using G+ at all is vaguely risky to a vague subset of your Google services. People who have followed the rules to the letter have been suspended. Sure you can appeal. Maybe most people who do so win their appeal. But there is risk.
Comments
I already said it. Because if Facebook bans me, I only lose Facebook. If G+ bans me, I lose multiple services, including 1 that is integral to my online identity.
I thought it was clear that a G+ ban does not affect gmail/docs/calendar/etc.
It's far from clear. Everything I've seen says otherwise. Please provide a citation.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-un...
If your profile is suspended, you will not be able to make full use of Google services that require an active profile such as Google+, Buzz, Reader and Picasa. This will not prevent you from using other Google services, like Gmail.
From the zdnet article, it sounds like the Gmail lockouts were unintentional.
[1] http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271
That seems orthogonal to me. How is putting all one's eggs in one basket related to a pedantic requirement upon registration?
Because using G+ at all is vaguely risky to a vague subset of your Google services. People who have followed the rules to the letter have been suspended. Sure you can appeal. Maybe most people who do so win their appeal. But there is risk.