SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the arrows-buy-ennui-utter-gnome-our-crust-as-wheat dept.
According to the Google+ Page, Google is finally giving up on forcing everyone to user their real names to join Google+.
When we launched Google+ over three years ago, we had a lot of restrictions on what name you could use on your profile. This helped create a community made up of real people, but it also excluded a number of people who wanted to be part of it without using their real names.
Over the years, as Google+ grew and its community became established, we steadily opened up this policy, from allowing +Page owners to use any name of their choosing to letting YouTube users bring their usernames into Google+. Today, we are taking the last step: there are no more restrictions on what name you can use.
We know you've been calling for this change for a while. We know that our names policy has been unclear, and this has led to some unnecessarily difficult experiences for some of our users. For this we apologize, and we hope that today's change is a step toward making Google+ the welcoming and inclusive place that we want it to be. Thank you for expressing your opinions so passionately, and thanks for continuing to make Google+ the thoughtful community that it is.
I know many folks that refused to join Plus, just because of the restrictions and the fact that they *cough* suggest you to anyone in your contacts. They've given up on youtube comments, app store ratings, and a dozen other things that require Plus accounts.
Some might now join, though most probably won't simply because Google was so darn stubborn about this for so darn long.
What say the Soylentils?
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday July 16 2014, @10:18PM
"Don't be evil" was ditched for "Chase the almight dollar" and this week it is more profitable not to have real names. But what about next week? Would they bring it back? Or maybe introduce some other arbitrary requirement?
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 16 2014, @11:56PM
That is almost inevitable for a for-profit corporation (and not uncommon for non-profits as well, let the donor beware). No matter how virtuous the founders are, eventually it ends up in the hands of people who are looking to maximize return-on-investment as measured in dollars.
A good example of this: Ben & Jerry's. Ben and Jerry were a couple of hippie types who started the company on Jerry's credit card and basically wanted to make great ice cream while remaining ethical (as they saw it). But as they grew bigger and Ben and Jerry both wanted to spend less time at the company, they ended up abandoning their hippie policies. For example, early on there was a rule that nobody could make more than 5 times what the lowest-paid worker made, which was scrapped when they wanted to bring in a new CEO to run the day-to-day. In 2000, they sold out completely to Unilever, and while they still engage in the occasional hippie-inspired policies that's more to maintain the brand image than anything else.
The reason for the phenomenon is simple enough: founders eventually want to cash out and do something else with their life, and the people with sufficient cash to buy in are those who are rich, who tend to be those who are motivated by ROI measured in money.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Thursday July 17 2014, @03:04AM
If I recall correctly, the Google IPO prospectus stated that Google would never issue dividends and never intended to make a profit. If this is correct, Google doesn't have to chase profits aggressively.
I also understand that voting power from stock options dilutes by a factor of 10 when an employee leaves Google. This makes Google shares de facto junk bonds to anyone outside of Google.
Overall, it is a shame how ethical brands get diluted.
1702845791×2