If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   Three years after it would have made a difference, Google+ changes its policy on real names and invites Gene Masseth, Haywood Jablowme, and Weedlord Bonerhitler into its circle of friends   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 36
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

770 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Jul 2014 at 12:04 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-16 10:56:52 AM
Ah, is Gene is here, Heywood cannot be far behind.
 
2014-07-16 10:57:27 AM

DeaH: Ah, is Gene is here, Heywood cannot be far behind.


Dammit! If Gene is here. Not my day to type.
 
2014-07-16 11:13:23 AM
There can only be one American social media site, and that will continue to be Facebook, until it isn't.
 
2014-07-16 12:01:28 PM
LOL Gene Masseth
 
2014-07-16 12:06:50 PM

BKITU: LOL Gene Masseth


That still slays me every time.
 
2014-07-16 12:08:06 PM
Sweet!
 
2014-07-16 12:12:04 PM
How about no?
 
2014-07-16 12:19:50 PM
I've been seeing fake names on G+ for a long time so I don't know what the deal is with this.
 
2014-07-16 12:31:40 PM

Needlessly Complicated: I've been seeing fake names on G+ for a long time so I don't know what the deal is with this.


The deal is that fake names are now legit. That's it, really. Their "troll-smashing" efforts were ludicrous to start with, and so fake names were a mild, but acceptable risk for folks using G+.

The real problem is that G+ has become invasive to Google's other services, an intrusion meant solely to add identity to all the other data gathering that Google does on their other services - an internal primary key for their data warehouse. Any other "benefits" offered by G+ are paid for by the fact that Google can add an internal primary key to that lush, rich, verdant garden of data offered to their partners, advertisers, and other customers.
 
2014-07-16 12:43:49 PM
Now they artificially inflate their numbers (again)
 
2014-07-16 12:52:49 PM

Marcus Aurelius: There can only be one American social media site, and that will continue to be Facebook, until it isn't.


I think that the lesson from G+ is that you can't just replace Facebook with something that looks like a clone without adding much to distinguish it (the concept of Circles to the contrary). If there is to ever be a Facebook killer, it's going to have to be something genuinely new.
 
2014-07-16 12:56:33 PM
google+ is dumb
 
2014-07-16 01:01:18 PM
Presumably because they pretty much know who everyone is already anyway.
 
2014-07-16 01:03:11 PM
Still not going onto Google+. I'm still bitter about Google trying to ram that shiat down my throat like I'm 19, German, have a camera in my face and am very hard up for cash right now. First there was the YouTube thing where they somehow made the comments worse. Now, I have an Android phone and the fact I as a result have no means to get something I have no intention of ever using in any capacity whatsoever, even to the point that the native "Photos" app is just a farking frontend to Google+, feels like a slap in the face.

It's just pointless. I already have Facebook, and to the credit of Facebook they appear to be far more privacy friendly and run a far more competent and featureful social network than Google does. Why would I want Google+ again? It's like the Bitcoin of social networking - sure you can say how wonderful it is that you can do something really obscure nobody gives a fark about but unless you actually do something more useful than the established competition you'll never get anywhere.
 
2014-07-16 01:25:29 PM
Does this mean I can start calling people f*gs in Youtube comments again?
 
2014-07-16 01:38:31 PM
G*** M***** is really offensive to me.
I can't believe it isn't screened by the Fark filter.
 
2014-07-16 01:45:31 PM

PortsmouthFarker: I already have Facebook, and to the credit of Facebook they appear to be far more privacy friendly and run a far more competent and featureful social network than Google does.


Hey look, it's  Mark Zuckerberg's fark account.
 
2014-07-16 01:52:13 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-16 01:55:04 PM

Hiro-ACiD: PortsmouthFarker: I already have Facebook, and to the credit of Facebook they appear to be far more privacy friendly and run a far more competent and featureful social network than Google does.

Hey look, it's  Mark Zuckerberg's fark account.


Eh, say what you like about them, it's not like Facebook is actually technically a bad product in any way.
 
2014-07-16 01:57:45 PM

PortsmouthFarker: I already have Facebook, and to the credit of Facebook they appear to be far more privacy friendly and run a far more competent and featureful social network than Google does.


I'm pretty sure that "featureful" isn't actually a word.
 
2014-07-16 02:26:43 PM

Begoggle: G*** M***** is really offensive to me.
I can't believe it isn't screened by the Fark filter.


Okay, I have to confess I don't get it. To what is this name alluding?
 
2014-07-16 02:34:15 PM
Oh. So does this mean I can have separate Youtube and G+ accounts? No?

Okay. Continue farking off, Google.
 
2014-07-16 02:57:32 PM

Ishkur: Oh. So does this mean I can have separate Youtube and G+ accounts? No?

Okay. Continue farking off, Google.


Yup. I use a lot of Google products - gmail, Voice, Calendar, Drive, Maps, some Sheets and Docs. I let them keep my tracking history because I can go back and look and realize I worked 14 hours that day, I have a comp day coming and I can document it for the boss if necessary. I am aware that I am giving them data to mine.

However, G+ is just a bridge too far. If they force G+ on me, I may just have to switch to outlook.com and MS's offerings. Google keeps trying ("please, please, PLEASE activate Google+ on your account"). How about NO.
 
2014-07-16 02:59:22 PM

Nurglitch: Begoggle: G*** M***** is really offensive to me.
I can't believe it isn't screened by the Fark filter.

Okay, I have to confess I don't get it. To what is this name alluding?


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-07-16 03:10:10 PM
I might care about that if I hadn't already abandoned my GMail account (which I'd had since the early beta invite-only days) over the constant nagging to create a Google+ account with ANY name attached to it.
 
2014-07-16 03:31:28 PM

skozlaw: I might care about that if I hadn't already abandoned my GMail account (which I'd had since the early beta invite-only days) over the constant nagging to create a Google+ account with ANY name attached to it.


When they started killing people's Gmail accounts because they didn't like what they posted to Google's stab at social media, it was pretty obvious that they were on the road to failure.
 
2014-07-16 03:44:21 PM
FormlessOne:

The real problem is that G+ has become invasive to Google's other services, an intrusion meant solely to add identity to all the other data gathering that Google does on their other services - an internal primary key for their data warehouse. Any other "benefits" offered by G+ are paid for by the fact that Google can add an internal primary key to that lush, rich, verdant garden of data offered to their partners, advertisers, and other customers.

This. The name policy was never the major issue. The major issue is the integration of services. I tried last night and Youtube still insisted that I create a Google+ account before I can post. NO. I am not doing that. For precisely the reason you mention. If that means I can't comment, oh well, I am probably better off anyway not adding to the drivel.
 
2014-07-16 04:46:03 PM

worlddan: FormlessOne:

The real problem is that G+ has become invasive to Google's other services, an intrusion meant solely to add identity to all the other data gathering that Google does on their other services - an internal primary key for their data warehouse. Any other "benefits" offered by G+ are paid for by the fact that Google can add an internal primary key to that lush, rich, verdant garden of data offered to their partners, advertisers, and other customers.

This. The name policy was never the major issue. The major issue is the integration of services. I tried last night and Youtube still insisted that I create a Google+ account before I can post. NO. I am not doing that. For precisely the reason you mention. If that means I can't comment, oh well, I am probably better off anyway not adding to the drivel.


Can't stand Google+ either. I jut never understood people being irate about YouTube comments. Everything I see posted there is the most ignorant, hate filled, trollish garbage I've ever seen.

It's like being told you're not allowed to piss at the shiat party.
 
2014-07-16 05:06:14 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Marcus Aurelius: There can only be one American social media site, and that will continue to be Facebook, until it isn't.

I think that the lesson from G+ is that you can't just replace Facebook with something that looks like a clone without adding much to distinguish it (the concept of Circles to the contrary). If there is to ever be a Facebook killer, it's going to have to be something genuinely new.


That's pretty much a rule of thumb when it comes to anyone trying to break into an established market. You just can't match the competition, you need to provide something that is a quantum leap above what they are doing to make people move. Otherwise there is no incentive to go through the hassle of using setting up a new service.
 
2014-07-16 05:34:13 PM
This was a thing? I'd had a fake name Google+ account for years.
 
2014-07-16 07:58:41 PM
LOL Gene Masseth.  CLASSIC.  Still laughing.

/oh, I get it!  I get jokes!
 
2014-07-16 08:39:25 PM
F*CK GOOGLE!
 
2014-07-16 09:17:01 PM

MagSeven: Does this mean I can start calling people f*gs in Youtube comments again?


We don't care if you want to make fig jokes, but we do care that you make them funny.
 
2014-07-16 09:18:31 PM
I wonder if Google will extend this policy to their reviews page?

There are lots of businesses I'd like to comment on, but don't want to broadcast where I shop to seven billion people.
 
2014-07-16 11:35:20 PM

studebaker hoch: I wonder if Google will extend this policy to their reviews page?

There are lots of businesses I'd like to comment on, but don't want to broadcast where I shop to seven billion people.


For what it is worth, only  3 billion have Internet access right now.
 
2014-07-17 06:18:32 AM
i.kinja-img.com

Gets me EVERY time.

/lolz
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report