Google+ Officially Open To Teens 93
hypnosec writes "Google+ made a landmark move and opened itself to users who are over the age of 13. Google+ did not initially target the younger crowd and kept itself available only for users above the age of 18. While opening up to youngsters over the age of 13 the social network also added improved safety features to keep the younger crowd protected. Now it features more rigid default settings for privacy, but they can be overridden nonetheless. The vice president of product management at Google+, Bradley Horowitz, in a Google+ post stated, 'With Google+, we want to help teens build meaningful connections online. We also want to provide features that foster safety alongside self-expression. Today we're doing both, for everyone who's old enough for a Google Account.'"
And nothing changes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell a thirteen year old they can't sign up for something they want and you'll see how many of them were born in 1990.
NCLB (Score:1, Insightful)
They only know to put 1990 because they read it on an intertweet. Most of them couldn't do the necessary calculation.
Even with a calculator.
Re:And nothing changes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell a thirteen year old they can't sign up for something they want and you'll see how many of them were born in 1990.
Yep. Sure fire way for your club for young people to go out of business is call it "Teen Club" they won't just avoid it, but flee.
Call it something innocuous and they'll show up. Don't even mention it's for teens though.
Re: (Score:3)
"As a matter of fact, we're only opening the site to younger users under extreme protest. We don't feel they can handle the amount of cool involved with G+." --Google Marketing
Re:And nothing changes... (Score:5, Funny)
At first I thought, "yeah, so?" and then I realized that people born in 1990 are no longer 13, they're 22 now.
God, I feel old.
Re: (Score:2)
Yours,
- Samantha (b. 1988)
Re: (Score:1)
Hi there fellow little girl
Best regards
Max (b. 1974)
P.s. Not hiting, Im married and stuff
The January that never ended (Score:2)
Shouldn't they have waited 8 months?
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't really change much, there are probably more immature assholes over 18 than below 18 anyways. If they tend to show up in your facebook/google+ stream then that should tell you to either be more restrictive with whom you add or that you're hanging out with an immature crowd IRL.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh great! (Score:3)
core demographic (Score:5, Insightful)
So they've figured out that grown-ups don't drive the popularity of social networking sites?
Re: (Score:2)
indoctrinate early.
google takes a lesson from 'organized' religion.
(and apple: apple puts computers into schools so that they indoctrinate kids with the 'mac way' early).
on topic: g+ will be seen as the new myspace soon enough. nice going, goog. you're on your way to being irrelevant (again).
Re: (Score:2)
on topic: g+ will be seen as the new myspace soon enough. nice going, goog. you're on your way to being irrelevant (again).
What? This is utter bullshit. G+ isn't a millionth as shitty as Myspace was, and in fact has some nice features that Facebook doesn't (eg. Circles, Hangouts).
Re: (Score:2)
people swarmed to myspace. deny that? it was hugely popular.
until it wasn't.
the next thing came. hugely popular. and now it is on its decline.
g+ is no different. give it time, it will (already does, from what I've seen and read) suck as badly and people will leave.
this stuff can't be stable over long-term. my only bet is to not bet on this at all. time washes all this crap away, just like every fad out there.
'the internet' and 'social interaction online' will always stay; but this centralized company
Re: (Score:1)
Your post reminds me of MySpace - not because that's the subject, but because it's badly formatted, poorly spaced, uncapitalised, lunatic drivel with no factual content or coherent point. Seriously, your argument appears to be "I know of something that was popular but now isn't, therefore all popular things will become unpopular over time". You can't even apply that uniformly, because Facebook isn't declining at all despite matching your criteria for being a "fad".
You're either on drugs, stupid, or on drugs
Re: (Score:1)
So they've figured out that grown-ups don't drive the popularity of social networking sites?
They already knew this. The're just doing the Google thing of tossing a product out there early before throwing the doors wide open and implementing every idea or option all at once. Might as well get the product out there early, then start slowly adding in the features and opening up the access. You can do that with a "cloud" product if you want to. Kind of tough to do that with traditional off the shelf software.
I'd be shocked if they hadn't planned this from the start, and just decided to try and get
Re: (Score:2)
Today we're doing both, for everyone who's old enough for a Google Account.
So does this mean anyone younger than 13 can't have an Android phone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I was just shopping for phones. There are plenty of Android phones on prepaid providers. The only proof of age that's really required for a prepaid is your ability to walk into a store with cash. Buy the phone for cash. Buy a reload card for cash. Done.
They're also useful for sending out to your secret network of spies. "Well, the phones and cards were purchased with cash by a 15 year old kid in Podunk, Alabama."
Just kidding. No self respecting
Re: (Score:3)
It was a good run. (Score:2, Interesting)
The only appeal of G+ was not having all the bs teenage drama there, and people seemed a little bit less mentally challenged.
Good night sweet prince.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if you are concerned about the teenage drama, why do you associate with them? It's not like you're forced to add teens to your circle.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm just worried that all the worst aspects of facebook (attention-whoring, crappy games, internet-disease solarflare photos etc) will inevitably be ported to g+, either making it a replacement for fb or rendering it useless when it becomes a clone of it. "If you don't like it just ignore it" doesn't work when the developers are actively pushing that stuff to generate more ad revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
The abundance of crappy games is the only thing holding G+ back right now. Why would anyone even use it on a regular basis? There's no incentive for the general population.
Coolio (Score:5, Funny)
That's really cool, because I'm also a 13 year old teen (male) and am looking for cool online friendships with nice chicks. My hobbies are: /., programming microcontrollers with Ada, helicopter simulations, and long-term role-playing games (BDSM/TPE) over Google Video chat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Coolio (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That is Touareg's Platinum Excalibur, forged in the Mountains of Deutschland and lost in the hazy forest of Googleania. Legends, thus far unconfirmed, say that the ancient dragon Laripej has a 3% chance to drop it there after you publicly +1 the game's website.
realname policy (Score:2, Insightful)
the first thing, parents tell their children: do not give anyone your full name on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why do so many people use facebook and use their real name?
Should have done this a long time ago (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
All this crap empowers other adults (and their children) to interfere in my parenting. That shit pisses me off.
Because your parenting is perfect, right? You're not doing any of the terrible things your parents did to you, or that other parents do to their kids. So what if the kids are ostracized by their peers because they didn't see that hilarious picture everybody's talking about? They should be studying astrophysics, not participating in those silly social interactions!
Re:Should have done this a long time ago (Score:4, Insightful)
It worries me. More specifically, I worry that your child will grow up without the social interaction required to empathize with others, so they'll treat every slight criticism as a major offense. Perhaps worse, without understanding other people's thought processes, I worry they'll be unable to recognize the complex interactions of society, and will end up with extreme opinions on important issues, and thinking everyone opposing them is crazy.
Re: (Score:1)
That is the most blatant nonsense. Facebook does not facilitate empathy or understanding -- it's just another echo chamber. Do you posit that empathy and understanding are new to society, and are a direct consequence of technology? Indeed, children are more likely to use this technology to further their ability to bully others in their own home. Children are irresponsible, intellectually and morally deficient ... incomplete. That is why they are under the care of adults.
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook, Google+, and Neopets, and whatever other social time sinks are popular now, are only a part of the picture. Today they serve the same functions as Boy Scouts, football teams, and 4-H did in the 70's. They provide social interaction and reaffirm that the child is a part of society. It's the activity in society that contributes the experience that becomes the responsibility and moral completeness children lack. As children participate in society with their peers, they are increasingly shown that oth
Re: (Score:2)
They are not perfectly equal, and indeed, I believe both adult- and peer-led socialization is important. However, both provide the social interaction that allows children to experiment with social norms and understand each other.
Too little peer-led interaction, and children lack the recognition that they, too, can be leaders. Too little adult-led interaction and, as you seem to fear, children learn to disregard all authority. The key is balance, and the recognition that your child knows their own developmen
Re: (Score:2)
Shocking discovery: Anything in excess is bad.
Anything being completely cut out for paranoia is also bad.
Re: (Score:1)
Right back at you with: Little Johnny's parents let Johnny smoke. So, it's okay for Johnny to give cigarettes to my kid. Or porn. Or drugs. Hell, just let 'em do what they want.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, let them do whatever they want and let Darwin and real consequences sort them out.
Re: (Score:2)
The younger generation doesn't need social networking. Here is what I mean: I don't want my child to have a Facebook or G+ account. You can argue all you like, but that is my right as a parent. However, other fuck-head parents let their kids have these accounts, as well as smart-phones. Then their hell-spawn take photos of my kid, and open a Facebook account for them, all without my knowledge. All this crap empowers other adults (and their children) to interfere in my parenting. That shit pisses me off. Furthermore, there is not much I can do about it.
that's all good and well, but were you yourself really so stupid that you couldn't have had that(social networking accounts, ug-chats- everything) despite whatever your parents tried when you were 13?
btw. maybe you should move to the mountains and pull a pussy over your face as the expression goes. nobody "needs" social networking just like nobody needs friends, nobody needs to go out dancing, nobody needs to read classical literature, nobody needs to watch cars drive in circles, nobody needs to play compet
Re: (Score:1)
Given Google's "throw darts at the dartboard" and "swerve and skid all over the landscape" strategies for G+ to date - how can you be surprised? The only thing Google has done right so far was to give early access to niche net celebrities (like Thomas Hawk or Marc Spagnuolo).
Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
That headline made me think of an Onion piece: TIME Announces New Version Of Magazine Aimed At Adults. [youtube.com] Would help if I knew what Google+ is. OK, it's their answer to Facebook, got it. Wow. Why did they give it a name that sounds like a multivitamin?
Re: (Score:2)
Do they have to use their real names? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would think being able to use a nickname would add a level of privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
I would think requiring that they use their real name would add a level of restraint.
Sorry, couldn't help myself - I'm joking, of course. Nothing will lead to any sort of level of restraint in the 13-17yo crowd. :-)
Re: (Score:1)
a level of restraint. Sorry, couldn't help myself
Pot calling the kettle black? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
They now allow nicknames, but you have to tell bigGoogle your real name.
Re:Do they have to use their real names? (Score:4, Insightful)
Remind me, what part of joining a social networking site is about privacy?
I think it's totally fine (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Welcome to my HOSTS file!
Too late. (Score:2)
They told everyone under 18 to go away, they're not going to return. Google+ had the worst launch of any product I've ever seen.
Google to acquire Myspace? (Score:2)
Now what? Will Google acquire Myspace and pick up the kids still on there?
(Does Myspace still actually have members, or is it just a promotional site for entertainment now?)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now what? Will Google acquire Myspace and pick up the kids still on there?
(Does Myspace still actually have members, or is it just a promotional site for entertainment now?)
I just performed a quick survey of a dozen kids hanging out at my house (my kids and their friends)... and no one under 14 had any idea what myspace was. They're all on Facebook, even the ones under 13, and most are on Google+ as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmm... pheasant for dinner tonight.
Re: (Score:2)
I just performed a quick survey of a dozen kids hanging out at my house (my kids and their friends)... and no one under 14 had any idea what myspace was. They're all on Facebook, even the ones under 13, and most are on Google+ as well.
Ask them how often they check Facebook, and do they check it more, or less, than a few months ago.
Place Away From Parents (Score:1)
"10 mpg" fuel mileage comments don't belong here (Score:2)
10MPG for an H1? If that's all you're getting, you're doing something wrong. (Probably not running the turbo Detroit, I imagine, and driving poorly.)
Look folks. I'm tired of the "big gas guzzling beasts" argument being made, particularly where people are supposed to be educated.
The H1 was primarily offered in 6.5 and 6.2 liter Detroit diesel packages, both with and without a turbo. It weighs around 6500lb-7000lb and came with a 3 or 4 speed transmission. The vehicle has 4 wheel drive. These specifications a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is quite a difference in practicality between 12 and 10mpg - it's 20% better fuel economy.
In contrast, a 30mpg mini-sedan isn't even 100% better fuel economy than my van.
Boiling frogs has nothing to do with it. That'd be like arguing a negligible difference.
Re: (Score:2)
let's be a little more intelligent about our stereotypes and digs. Keep this up and it won't be long until we start seeing stupidity like "brown people don't work hard".
... and I'm still coming up blank, my apologies for vomiting in your direction; I'll try to be more careful in the future.
I do agree about the 20% improvement.
Cartman marketing in full effect? (Score:2)
"AND YOU CAN'T USE THIS!!! ONLY FOR DECENT HONEST ADULTS!!".
first let nobody in and then start allowing everyone.
they're not doing the cartman marketing trick quite right though.. maybe that's because they're not running an amusement park.