It's funny, I thought G+ could be the social network to replace FB and now it looks like I'll probably leave Google to avoid it. Weird.
This seems fantastically unlikely (one might say FUD-ish) given their numerous public statements to the contrary, e.g. in this article: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/google-revises-google-r...
http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.shtm
"Ask age information in a neutral manner at the point where you invite visitors to provide personal information or to create their log-in user ID. In designing a neutral age-screening mechanism, you might consider:
- Making sure the data entry point allows users to enter their age accurately. An example of a neutral age-screen would be a system that allows a user to freely enter month, day, and year of birth. A site that includes a drop-down menu that only permits users to enter birth years making them 13 or older, would not be considered a neutral age-screening mechanism since children cannot enter their correct age on that site.
- Not encouraging children to falsify their age information, for example, by stating that visitors under 13 cannot participate on your website or should ask their parents before participating. In addition, a site that does not ask for neutral date of birth information but rather simply includes a check box stating “I am over 12 years old” would not be considered a neutral age-screening mechanism.
- In addition, we recommend using a temporary or a permanent cookie to prevent children from back-buttoning to enter a different age."
There's no worse way to handle this. It teaches kids to lie and there's no reason a less-than-13yo shouldn't have access to email anyways. Yes, it is the law, but it's just wrong.
And yet it's worth enough that it's a law that you must attempt to trick the children.
> Plus, there are few kids out there who haven't had the idea to lie about being 21
Of course not. Because it's not a secret restriction. So anyone any everyone can dream of bypassing it. And it's easy - you can get a drunk to buy booze for you anywhere.
But instead of tricking people we still say it outright. We know some will be driven to crime but it's worth it that the law-abiding get to choose their path.
Lying makes the law just an annoying obstacle to be bypassed instead of a healthy warning and in doing so starts to erode any trust its victims might have had in a just and reasonable government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childrens_Online_Privacy_Protec...
But they do not say, and would have to to make me comfortable, "we will not force any G+/real-name policies on users of other Google services".
They're just saying they won't just suspend you over it, not that they won't force a transition at some point. I don't fear for my data with Google like I would with other companies, but the continuity of that address is its value. If I'm forced to change it I won't bother coming back.
Google has reportedly closed other accounts that predated G+ for G+ problems. I don't know if they'll push that to gmail too but they haven't said they won't.
I'm not calling them bastards based on no evidence or anything but I'm not using gmail for anything important because I can't really count on it.
Rather than G+ driving me into Google's arms it drove me out.
"A method is described for tracking information about the activities of users of a social networking system while on another domain." – Facebook Patent application dated September 22, 2011
Creeps and liars.
Google must be shooting for just sincerely creepy. Competitive advantage there.