Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Google Communications Privacy Social Networks Your Rights Online Technology

Schmidt: G+ 'Identity Service,' Not Social Network 417

David Gerard writes "Eric Schmidt has revealed that Google+ is an identity service, and the 'social network' bit is just bait. Schmidt says 'G+ is completely optional,' not mentioning that Google has admitted that deleting a G+ account will seriously downgrade your other Google services. As others have noted, Somewhere, there are two kids in a garage building a company whose motto will be 'Don't be Google.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Schmidt: G+ 'Identity Service,' Not Social Network

Comments Filter:
  • There it is (Score:4, Informative)

    by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Sunday August 28, 2011 @11:49AM (#37234072) Journal

    [Google CEO Eric Schmidt] replied by saying that G+ was build primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they're going to build future products that leverage that information.

    Straight from the horse's mouth:
    You are the product, not the consumer.

  • Misleading (Score:5, Informative)

    by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Sunday August 28, 2011 @11:57AM (#37234134) Homepage

    From the summary:

    Google has admitted that deleting a G+ account will seriously downgrade your other Google services.

    From the article

    In both scenarios, downgrading from Google+ will have no effect on other Google services like Gmail, Docs, etc.

    So the article is at complete opposites with the posted summary. Did the OP just link to the article because they thought more links would increase the chance of story acceptance, or were they deliberately trying to mislead?

  • by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Sunday August 28, 2011 @12:41PM (#37234428) Homepage

    It's really quite possible that they already know exactly who you are so they have all the info they need,

    Then they would already have known that Violet Blue was really Violet Blue. This and other cases indicate that they (and Facebook) haven't the foggiest idea exactly (or even approximately) who you are. And don't care.

  • by duhorg ( 818939 ) on Sunday August 28, 2011 @01:01PM (#37234598)

    Statements from Google which are on record and verifiable, versus anecdotal evidence of what happened to some undefined person. I somehow think I'm going to choose to believe Google on this one.

    The current side effects of a Google Profile suspension, with confirmations by Google staff in various G+ posts, are:

    • The Profile is removed from public view.
    • Existing Google+, Google Buzz, and Google Reader shared items/posts are removed from view (whether they were originally public or limited).
    • Access to Google+ is blocked (more correctly, limited to only viewing public posts).
    • Access to Google Buzz is blocked.
    • Access to Google Reader (not just its sharing features) is blocked.

    ...It's hard for me to find the confirmation right now, but there is _some_ effect against Picasa. I cannot remember the exact detail. I think (but cannot yet confirm) that it removes public albums from public view.

    Any other side effects reported until now have been labeled bugs and were not experienced by everyone consistently. Of particular note, a Profile suspension currently does NOT (modulo reappearing bugs?):

    • block access to Gmail, Google Voice, or any other top-level service;
    • block or unsubscribe from Google Groups;
    • force the use of Google 2-factor authentication (which would entail providing an identifiable phone number);
    • prevent the use of Google Checkout (or by extension, prevent the purchase of Android apps);
    • prevent the use of Android features unrelated to the three major services mentioned (+, Buzz, Reader).

    So that's the state of the world today. Whether it stays that way is up to debate, and I posited that question in my post [] that clarified the name policies as being an artifact of Profiles (including a reference proving that users can be banned without even having access to Google+ to begin with).

  • Re:bing (Score:3, Informative)

    by starofale ( 1976650 ) on Sunday August 28, 2011 @01:22PM (#37234748)
    Try DuckDuckGo []

    I've been using it as my primary search engine for months now and it's working well.
  • Re:Seriously! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Emetophobe ( 878584 ) on Sunday August 28, 2011 @01:47PM (#37234916)

    It's David Gerard, he's been spreading FUD for a while. Look at his last 3 submissions: []

  • by akboss ( 823334 ) <akboss@suddenBAL ... net minus author> on Sunday August 28, 2011 @02:49PM (#37235328)

    You think those guys on the side of the road with the orange jumpsuits have a choice about what they're doing? Or the ones making license plates, etc?

    Where in the world do you get this stuff from? The Internet??? I worked in the prison systems and very few states have mandatory prisoner work rules. I would say 98% of the inmates work only because they like money and privileges that come with working. I know where I worked kitchen inmates ate better than non kitchen workers. I know that the industry workers made twice what any others made. I know that a ton of inmates refuse to work and sit and watch TV all day too. Most work because they want to.

  • by Dark$ide ( 732508 ) on Sunday August 28, 2011 @03:39PM (#37235742) Journal

    It's worse. [] had the perfect first post.

    Google is building the Microsoft Passport. I DON'T WANT THAT SHIT.

    Does anyone else see the irony.

    Google owns Blogspot/Blogger.

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.