Looks like the almighty Google+ isn't so perfect after all...

So, despite all the swooning and fainting over Google+, it appears as though I’m not the only one who doesn’t get turned on every time the name is uttered. Previously I pointed out the seemingly boundless lengths some will go to tout the wonders of G+ (even if it means fabricating lies about its competitors). But a new Mises Daily brings up some new facts about the service (and its company)…showing once again, it’s really no different than Facebook. Definitely not to the extent some make it out to be. And certainly not “better”…

Network giants like Google and Facebook also oppose online anonymity. Advertising is their major source of income, and advertisers will pay considerably more for real names that are connected with data to be used in “market research.” In short, networks lose money on your privacy. Moreover, stripping anonymity would protect these corporations from lawsuits or other legal liability for their customers’ bad behavior — like bullying, stalking, or the abuse of children. But other factors may also be in play. These companies may be partly motivated by a desire to reap the benefits of aligning with government.

Thus, the e-giants are waging war on anonymity. In June, when Google launched its own social network, Google+, to challenge Facebook, it required people to register under “the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you.” Users with pseudonyms found their accounts blocked, allegedly to “serve” the electronic community by preventing bad acts like “fake profiles.” […]

Moreover, the customer policies on self-identification seem to shift abruptly. For example, numerous posters at ZDNet have commented on receiving notices from Google+ that required them to provide scans of a photo ID or to use only the names that appear on government forms. One poster observed, “requiring ID seems to contradict the stated policy.”

An article at info tropism entitled “Preliminary Results of My Survey of Suspended Google+ Accounts” offers a list of reasons why people chose online pseudonyms.

whoops.

(But lemme guess. This is “not a flaw but a feature”, something born out of “response to customer demand”, right? Everyone WANTS to be known online. They WANT to be protected from the ever present danger of anonymous hitchhikers on the unknown superhighway of the Internet. They WANT to be famous and feel like they are important. They WANT to be tracked and have everyone know exactly who they are, where they are, and what they are doing all the time. These darn kids and their it’s-all-about-me fads…RIGHT? )

Google+ suspended my account because i had an underscore in my name and they sent me the message that was asking for a photo ID. I just took the underscore out and resubmitted it and they unlocked my account. No submission required AND i still am able to use my pseudonym. I write and make posts and want them to be read. For that reason i choose not to identify myself. I don’t want attention. So, when i write about politics/philosophy/economics/etc, it allows for the Politically Correct shield to bear no blood. They can ostracize people only if they know who they are.

We all know that the NSA is basically a cartelized contract hub for military and bureaucratic research and spy projects. They want you to “volunteer” your information so they won’t have to snoop for it later. The NSA hires black hats to look for flaws in all kinds of things.

The concept of Social networking websites in themselves are not really about social networking…it’s all about the munay. “Goldman Sachs and FaceBook” or “DARPA and Google” sitting in a tree…

F_<% them both.

something born out of “response to customer demand”

It just brings to light the fact that capitalism is not a one-way street of supply=demand, but that companies also play a role in what they push to us.