Shared publicly  - 
This is a shame. +Brandon Campeaux with more than 1/4 million followers leaves G+ because of repeated death threats and no action at all by Google to interfere. G+ needs to be a safe place irrespective of your religion, gender or opinion!

He has been outspoken about censorship on G+ as well as on religious issues. In both cases he was quite moderate by posting fashion shoots which would be on every coffee table in New York or any European city. His religious view was quite simple: he was an atheist and not ashamed of it.

He has afaik never posted anything against the policy nor has he ever done more than post his personal views in his own time line. He didn´t comment and actively advocate his personal views in other peoples topics. He was just feeding his large audience with daily posts of which a tiny fraction consisted of his views on nudity in fashion, censorship as a principle and his belief there is no god at all. So anyone who felt offended could just uncircle him if their religion made them feel uncomfortable.

But that didn´t happen. Nor did the G+ team interfere while they were in contact about the censorship issues, so he wrote:
Tonight I received 4 separate death threats through Google+. That brings the total for the month of December way over 10. I’ve reported each account & flagged the individual death threats. Google responded by doing nothing. Not one account suspension

It´s as shame nobody at Google did anything with these death threats which he duly reported. While some of images were manually reviewed and subsequently reinstated or sometimes taken down because of the remarkable ´tea party like´ attitude of the photo review team, nobody at Google cared enough to do something with the reported death wishes. As Google has a real name policy they have an extra responsibility as hunting people down at their homes or work place is easy. He has mentioned my name in his last post as he knows I will take action. But he also mentioned +Natalie Villalobos the G+ community manager who should have stepped in. See his linked last post.
*EDIT: the post you are reading now has a follow up*

I hope that we can have a public debate with input from the G+ team how this could have happened and how this can be solved. +Brandon Campeaux was a great guy who mostly highlighted the best of photography in the world and got it to a huge G+ audience.

I was aware of the build up of frustration and stress as he had to battle with +Brian Rose over photos which just showed two man with naked upper bodies. The images were taken down just because some people are zealots by nature and on purpose subscribed to his stream to flag down images. The same happened with his religious stance. Everyone is free to believe whatever they do. As a global platform G+ will represent hundreds of different gods and belief systems. If you don´t like an atheist and really feel offended an incidental post about it, you can uncircle, but no that was not enough.

People started following him to flag down his posts, to threaten him and finally the real zealots came up with death threats. If the G+ team had the time to manually review photos on the slim chance of finding a nipple somewhere they could have spend some of that time to actively help this public figure on G+.

How can it be that a poster with more than 250.000 followers who is clearly being harassed doesn´t get all the help from the G+ team.

I got to know +Brandon Campeaux since we both began on G+ and we have kept in close contact ever since. I have personally witnessed how much this haunted him and how desperate he became after asking for help from the powers that be. I haven´t spoken with him before posting this so it´s my post and not his. Check the link for his last message.

He never got decent support from the G+ team and I can´t understand why it had to end this way: a really popular poster with a large following withdraws all his posts from G+ because the G+ team fails to act

Please share this as much as you can to cause the needed uproar and get the G+ team to take action
Commenting can be done on this original post at

+Brian Rose +Natalie Villalobos +Louis Gray +Vic Gundotra
Matt Nelson's profile photoMelissa Daniels's profile photoCharles Profitt's profile photoPeter Harris's profile photo
I'm getting that sinking feeling. Maybe G+ won't live up to our hopes. This is terrible.
This is really sad.
And the saddest part is that it's not surprising. (At least not to me).
The +Google+ team is more or less invisible.
You don't build great communities by just letting people govern themselves.
For +Brandon Campeaux This is a terrible shame. I really enjoyed your posts and your views were/are a value-add to the G+ community. It's really a shame that we have an element in society that insists on living in the year 1850. If they didn't like your content they could have not followed your posts. Rather than make that decision they've caused a community asset to go dark. I hope you come back to the level of engagement we've had the pleasure of experiencing from you as a person but with death threats I can certainly understand your actions. Be Well
There are plenty of laws covering threats to kill including cyber offences Brandon depending on where you live. The fact that Google have done jack shit about this concerns me greatly and I really hope you can find a way to come back to us. I'm appalled by what you've posted my friend...

Name and shame these miserable cowardly zealots seeing as Google seems to have lost it's cojones...
+Charles Profitt because he says so. His word is enough for me. I he doesn´t get an answer from the Google team while they do look at the flagged down images there is something completely wrong. It´s not that they were not aware of +Brandon Campeaux. There has been communication before this as well.
Yes +Jacob Moen that´s the issue.

The thing is not even that it happens as that´s to be expected on any large social network but that no action is taken after he reported these people. Every large communities has weirdos and it´s impossible for an individual to judge how serious they are. I ran a large forum a long time ago and as the owner and chief admin I got a few death threats. At one occasion it was very specific mentioning my work address as well as the school my 8 year old visited. And I have always made sure I never posted that kind of information, so that´s scary.
I can´t judge the threats against +Brandon Campeaux but I nor he should have to do so. Google has offices in most countries, a large legal team and the tools to find who´s behind the nick. But they didn´t; they spend their manual labor peering over possible nipple slips!
I've never heard of Brandon Campeaux before so I can't understand why a innocuous photographer is receiving death threats thus I assume the death threats were not serious, just trolling for a response. Is atheism or nudity really a contentious issue warranting deaths threats? The "block" function works wonderfully thus surely it would have been a simple matter to block the people in question. I am not downplaying the seriousness of death threats even if they are merely a sick joke, my point is that options exist such as blocking (which can be done instantly) to deal with unpleasant people. I have just Googled Brandon Campeaux and there doesn't seem to be anything controversial about him thus the motive for such threats is perplexing. Brandon's reaction seems extreme but I do sympathize - people can be very stressful but when they are behind the barrier of cyberspace their ability to induce stress is limited.
Can't comment on the original post :(
Can You ask +Brandon Campeaux to post those death threats? I have never seen such a message. Thanks
+Singularity Utopia read my post above yours for an answer. He has been blocking and fighting this for quite some time, but with over 260.000 people following you it´s not as easy as you think. He expected Google to act, they didn´t.
+Lark LaTroy read my post just a few above you. Death threats can´t always be laughed away.
It seems Google is rather slow to act, if they do at all, as in the case of the theft of photos by a community member a couple of days ago. I find the death threats, or any threats, totally uncalled for and those people should be, at the very least, banned and probably arrested for those threats. I also find your negative reference to the "Tea Party" a totally unnecessary and unneeded association, when there is nothing to particularly tie them to this. And, No I do not belong to the Tea Party nor do I agree with all their views, but why malign someone when you are complaining about someone else being maligned?
I myself am pretty much in agreement with +Brandon Campeaux's views on posting and I think Google should have clarified the differences between an expression of art and what is unexceptionable. It would be far better had Google banned those who were causing the problem rather than practically force Brandon out!
Yes, +Max Huijgen, Google should have acted. 260,000 followers means moderation is difficult but with only four death threats it would be easy to block those people, or just ignore the morons. With 260,000 I don't think I would even bother looking at the comments so people could say what they like and I would never know. I would simply make a post which covered all possible counter arguments at the outset, and then leave the lovers and haters to fight it out. When you have such a large amount of followers you transform from a foot-solider fighting petty battles to a general safe behind the font-line where front-line skirmishes should not even enter your awareness other than the knowledge that the foot-soldiers will be fighting on your behalf.
I would say deleting all evidence of discussions from his profile was counter-productive.
Unless you know the exact nature of the threats, how much they know about you, your family and where you live etc. I'm not sure any one should be dismissing any kind of threat made on here so lightly. We all have different tolerances to perceived threat and perhaps it's best to have the whole picture before making a sweeping statement about how robust you personally are towards nutjobs like this? Just a thought.
I've been a community moderator for a long time (6 years), and do feel very uncomfortable when faced with psychotic community members. Fortunately, I've only had two death threats, but that was nauseating..
Even if you know that it's the intorwebz and probably not really real.. Sometimes you cannot reason with feelings.
Oh well, let's hope Google does something about it but I personally would probably ignore all comments and messages if I had such a large following.
That's not how verify users work: you need a large following first.
+Jacob Moen And that is bad! It's not about numbers, but behavior, credibility, responsibility. As I said before, Google should verify most users quickly.
Why? At the time they have your credit card number You simply don't do this stuff
Chalk another loss up to silly mythos and religion's myopic, prejudiced worldview. None of this would have happened without religion being the platform from which people could become 'offended', report +Brandon Campeaux comments to Google, and, you know, hunker down and write death threats.

I'll stop and let the hypocrisy sink in.
Brandon needs to go to the police, death threats are serious matter, these idiots should be handled by police. Google should not play police and hunt down anyone. Brandon needs make a formal complaint to the police, Google then can assist in the investigation. Facebook and google are just platforms, you shouldn't live under the illusion they have the power to protect you from death threats, hate speech, bullying.
Zabi D.
You know guys, you dont just get death threats for nothing, I dont know that dude, but if you offend people with something that goes beyond freedom of speech then this is the result.

Again, I don't know that man nor I have seen his posts.

But ya, don't take it too serious.
+Jerome A. F Agreed! But how to hunt a few empty Google+ profiles created from some faked IP...
+Jeff Ventura "Chalk another loss up to silly mythos and religion's myopic, prejudiced worldview."
That stinks just as much as any bigotry, religion or not.
And you are right, and they are wrong? And you are not prejudiced in any way? :)
Did you read the post +Zabi Dehqani? No he never violated the policy and he is on the Google recommended list I believe. And yet you want to believe he called this upon himself?
+Zabi Dehqani You admit you've never read his posts, and you don't know what content he posted as a matter of fact, but you go and suggest that death threats are the result?

Just like a rape victim had it coming for wearing a tight shirt, huh?

Takeaway: it's impossible to understand what's happening here unless you're familiar with +Brandon Campeaux posts.

The real irony here is that I found Brandon because he was recommended to me by G+ itself.
+Jacob Moen Agree. Unfortunately, a great percentage of bigotry in the world comes from religion.
Zabi D.
+Max Huijgen yes I did, but often when it comes to religion issues, people say bad things and lable it as freedom of speech..but I don't..i dont claim he did said bad things...and people who send death threats over google are losers anyway;)
Zabi D.
+Jeff Ventura people who tall sh#t and call it freedom of speech yes, but I said that as an example, don't take it too serious;) have a drink and chill..;)
I'll be reposting this. This is an outrage.
I hope some more people will spread this. The Americans are just waking up but Europe should be capable of doing the job. +Kol Tregaskes +Gabriel Vasile +Ayoub Khote +Arvid Bux +Brendan Thesingh +Haydn Shaughnessy +Nicolas Charbonnier +Maya Posch +Jaana Nyström +Klaus Herrmann are European and have a substantial following. If you know more mention them here to draw their attention.
If there is enough of an outcry the G+ team will kick into action. Maybe it´s too late to get +Brandon Campeaux back, but a clear statement to prevent this happening is needed.
Zabi D.
I see you guys got something against you guys offend religious people +Jeff Ventura ..thats the same shit when a extremist talks bad about guys talk bad about people who are religious, he +Jeff Ventura ?

Have a good day fellas, I'm done here now I know whats up;)
BTW: In a much less threatening situation a photographer was found to be using other people´s work as his portfolio. He did so on G+ and people were upset. I have suggested getting in touch with +Brian Rose who is the photo mod on behalf of Google here. When he got word of it he immediately responded that he would put Google´s legal team on the case. So the first line of response is Google as they are obliged to stop death threats. Plenty of US laws make them responsible hence their T&C. If Google doesn´t act Brandon is free to go the police who subsequently will have to demand the details of these people from Google. They will be obliged to hand them over.
So yes, he can do so, but wouldn´t you expect Google to do so?
Offending religions is not 'nice', but it pales in comparison with personally threatening people (with violence and death).
+Jeff Ventura It's funny, but since I'm not particularly religious, I feel I can mention that I see far more criticism of religion from the atheists and the agnostics than the other way around. Just would seem to be a trend.
Those criticizing Brandon are total nut jobs and while they may be extreme far right, they are probably just sick little minds out to try grabbing a little bit of imagined glory with their cowardly threats.
While I consider myself more conservative than liberal, I am totally against censorship, either government mandated or by sick little minds. Art is art and porn is pretty much easily recognizable to the majority. It is a simple thing to block someone with whom you don't share views without threatening them and these people need to be eliminated from Google+.
I believe Google should not be regulating any of this. Focus on spam and let the community handle everything else. Adult material(perceived or real) should be handled like it is on Youtube and everything else is a free for all. Death threats and such should be handled by the authorities responding to a complaint and Google should comply with the authorities' request for information if the complaint is legit. Any other way of policing will just get Google in trouble.
This is plain wrong. I just can't understand why people would do such things. Why threaten if you can easily ignore. Why aren't other people allowed to stick with their believes? People, and those nut jobs in general, should look at their selves first. They probably don't like what they see and bother others with it.

As far as Google's job in this....I think Google shouldn't be regulating like +Denver Lobo stated. But when it comes to death should be reviewed and the people banned from every Google service they're using as far as I'm concerned.
+Max Huijgen So, unless Google told +Brandon Campeaux that they gad done nothing we are just guessing. I am not sure if Google can legally tell people what they have or have not done. While I feel the threats are deplorable I see no evidence here that would lead me to condemn Google,
I wonder why no one has made a comparison with facebook. As much as I despise facebook and its culture, I must admit, when it comes to matters of privacy and security, they are very swift to respond. It may be that Google is notoriously lacking customer service, from its AdWords to Google Apps program, but this can't go on forever.

It was only a matter of time that Google+ got its fair share of legal and criminal issues. Now it is the death threats but soon, we will see child molesters, celebrity stalkers, racists etc, and I wonder how Google will respond then.
Personally I find +Brandon Campeaux views intriguing. I loved ALL the photography. Even the atheist perspective is educational. But there were posts beyond those two topics that will also be a loss to the G+ community.
+Peter A. Saldana III thanks for letting us know that Natalie is on holiday. I have written at length before this about the fragile structure G+ is by having just one ´community manager´. I have pleaded for round the clock availability of a team consisting of people from multiple areas of the world with different value systems to get a more professional and less US centric view on things. And the added advantage would have been the 24/7 presence.
This guy seems to be not comfortable in this World, while having more than 250k followers, and saying: "Thanks to the extremely small percentage of people (<0.001%) for leaving positive and insightful comments", but for him "It was a fun experiment"; thus what problem?
+Kürşad Urungu Akpinar agree with you that FB handles this much better. See my comment above about my earlier proposal for 24/7 presence from people with different backgrounds. +Anton Tikhonov you don´t understand how frustrated Brandon was.
I get 4 a week :/ They do remove hate posts, but never block the user. Strange it is.
Death threats +Jasmina Nellestijn? If I found even one I would immediately post it, name and shame and go to Google as well as to my local authorities.
+Anton Tikhonov the problem is that death threats are illegal. Those that perpetuate the culture where it is 'allowed' are legally also culpable. It is google's best interests to get on top of this. I believe they will. This particular case highlights an urgent need. It appears to me that swift action needs to be taken. It could be anyone..... for any reason.
Yes, well I consider people who want to slit my muslim throat or set me on fire as a death threat. I do report them to Google, but they mostly send it private, so not sure if Google can do anything about that....
I'm not surprised he gets death threats, he was a total idiot, I sat there once and watched him accuse my friend of lying, saying she had deleted comments and all along it was his lying whore of a friend A.vflox who didn't want the truth about her hypocritic lifestyle making the light of day... He consistently accused her of lying despite the thread being Av's and it was A.v.flox who had been deleting them all along...

Besides which he was a shit photographer...
Some people shut themselves in their tiny box and don't venture past the walls. Moreover some of them express clear aggression towards those who actually do climb out from the box and begin to see the world from birdview perspective. What's more hypocritical is the fact that those people can't grasp how can anyone NOT like their set of world perception, while at the same time pouring buckets of [un]intellectual vomit on his/her neighbour's opinions. C'est la vie de merde.
So were these death threats on plus? If so, where? If not, what does it have to do with google?
+Jennifer Roe I don´t understand at all what you´re saying about Brandon and +A.V. Flox And why are you fuming about her here? You seem to be an example of what I despise.
Appearences are deceiving you Max... There's a very good reason why i'm angry with him, I'll not make assumptions about you, since we've never really met, this is not a good subject through which to make acquaintence since we're on opposite sides on our opinions of this "gentleman"
I just think that death threats are an ignorant thing to do. I mean, no matter how much a person is hated, killing them without due process and them having actually committed a crime is illegal.

But, trolls will be trolls.
I'm sorry Max, this isn't aimed at you at all, I remembered his name when I saw it in your post, and tried to post on his wall but I wasn't allowed to, presumably because he's closed it down... He and I had never had a run in directly, I was just mortified when I read everything that had been said about my friend who was really upset about it all and she was blocked by A.v. before she could defend herself, It was A.v. who was really in the wrong, as she was the one who was deleting the posts, and Brandon was cosistently accusing my friend who reposted it only to have A.v. remove it again, and block her... Brandon, played no small part in upsetting her.... But it's unrelated to you...
+Wendy Bandurski-Miller no argue that death threats are awful and illegal.
But they do not give him immunity from being accused as obvious intriguant, as well do not prevent me to suppose that this particular noise is served only as part of his "show".
There are some people who believe so deeply they cannot bear to have anything interfere with said beliefs at whatever cost. Those people scare the hell out of me. .
i think we should all pile on and hate on an awesome service and the people who make it be that way FOR FREE over a single instance, whilst ignoring the total success they have with everything else, including several other censorship battles.
(clear sarcasm i hope)
My question to all of you is this: how many of you have bitched about stuff vs. how many of you actually SEND FEEDBACK?? You know, that tiny button so you can directly shape the google+ experience anyway you feel like? I speak with Googlers almost daily to improve this program, and all of you with issues or concerns should too. Tagging people in posts doesn't accomplish this as most of the googlers have thousands and thousands of followers, but feedback goes to them directly. they go through every single one. i also must note that Google doesnt have a cohesive single plan to handle censorship, because they are dealing with a multitude of international regulations, some of which deal with obscenity, free speech, and a host of other mitigating circumstances we on this topical post cant even begin to imagine. there will be growing pains from any new and quickly adopted service, as well as awesome people and total punks. learning to identify and weed those latter ones out is they real key. and feedback :-)
+Max Huijgen I don't think anyone deserves to be threatened with violence - bullying is currently a hot topic in the US - but I cannot say that I am surprised that +Brandon Campeaux has incurred such rabidity. I am a follower of his, and quite a few of his posts have been offensive to me and I've considered making a comment on many of them stating that freedom of speech doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it. I consider myself to be a left-leaning moderate and I don't think you need to be very far to the right to consider many of his posts to be objectionable.

I would love to link to examples illustrating my point, but he deleted all his posts so that is not possible. Just because a post isn't against policy doesn't mean it isn't offensive.

That being said, I've considered him to be an "artist" expressing views as a dimension of his "art" and I haven't uncircled him because I value diversity in the viewpoints that I read in my G+ stream and Brandon provided a considered point of view.

As far as how to deal with the threats, I would just forward any such threats to the G+ team and share with his circles. With 1/4 million followers, I'm sure a healthy backlash to the original threatener would be a humbling experience... I'm sure he/she (probably he) might even get a taste of his own medicine (not that I'd wish that on anyone).

My $0.02...
+Cassius Wright and +Edward Bartel Brandon has reported to G+. And yes I know how to use the Feedback button and I have often used it. I have also on numerous occasions responded on requests on G+ itself by +Natalie Villalobos and have done so with constructive proposal. Both Natalie and Vic have responded on topics of mine, but this is not about me but about Brandon.
+Cassius Wright Feedback is great but we need "feedback on feedback" :) I never know IF or WHEN the issue is resolved. And that is the reason people don't trust feedback system and they don't use it as often.
There should a page where we discuss those issues or at least a board where all resolved issues are posted. Do you know what I mean?
In general, not just this particular case
+Max Huijgen From my post on this: I'd have to know more before indicting someone for failing to act. This could be an activist organizing different people in different countries or something. And I'd want to see exactly how inflammatory the posts were and whether they were likely to encourage random activists spontaneously which would be impossible to stop beforehand. Not enough info. And all the evidence has been deleted. Shame. The guy is a brilliant photographer.
I've heard a few bad things about this guy, so don't assume he's completely innocent. It seems a lot of people here are annoyed at Google+ but have never even read his posts, so don't jump to conclusions.
+Max Huijgen - fair enough, but my comment wasn't directed towards what you should do in this situation or about you in general. It was more a comment about the nature of Brandon's posts and maybe a bit about how I would respond to the type of threats he received.

I won't comment further as I don't want to clutter this thread with OT comments.

With kind regards.
+Gary Evans and +Paul Brocklehurst both seconded +Peter Bailey statement that people are no longer innocent unless proven otherwise! Serious? 99,9% of his posts were photography related. He was a man of pictures not of words. How can one state that he was not possibly not innocent when death threats arrive? Does it mean I should prepare for death threats if I post opinions other object to?
Speaking as a right wing nut job this is just wrong. A nipple or two can get you suspended but a death threat is OK. A death threat, even a interwebz death threat should get you banned and a visit from your friendly local cop.
OK, I'll admit right wing nut job = libertarian but that just means that right wingers think I'm a right wing nut job.
I have seen your post now +Jasmina Nellestijn and one of these is far beyond acceptable and action should have been taken by the G+ team.
+Max Huijgen I've never read any of his posts and it looks like he's deleted them all, which is curious, but doesn't let me or anyone else really judge. I'm just making the point that I've never had a death threat on here and I know no one else who has. I don't want people to ditch Google+ without the facts and to me it looks like you'll almost certainly not get a death threat on here, like some people make out.
A question in general: how does Facebook handle this?
This stinks +Max Huijgen I appreciated his postings, if I did not like it I just moved on. Hopefully he will return.
Wouldn't simply changing the three "who can interact with you and your posts" settings to "your circles" solve the problem rather than completely removing his G+ presence?
Thanks for re-posting this.

It is a shame. I think +Brandon Campeaux is great. I hate to see free-thinking artists that share their thoughts and works shut down by 0.01% of the intolerant people that don't share similar beliefs.
It's sad his photography and art was removed because of this. "It is a shame" indeed.
+Keith Johnston He has too many people following him. You can add only 5000 people to your circles. Besides, why should he have to hide in circles?
I know this isn't the first case of threats on G+. I can't remember who else had received them, offhand. But, if Google chooses to do nothing about this it will become a worthless platform, IMHO.
This reminds me of the superbowl wardrobe malfunction. See how quickly the FCC will step in because you might have seen 1/10th of a second of a boob (nipple covered) on TV. I thank god every day they're "protecting" me (/sacrasm). Go ahead and threaten to kill people while media and service providers will continue to rip us off. TV commercials playing at 3 times the volume of the show you were watching. Now they make use of surround systems that they know everyone has these days and pump the audio thru every surround channel to get the most volume out of it. Where's the FCC? Oh, yeah, keeping us safe from Janet Jackson's boob! This is no different. G+ censorship is just like the FCC. God forbid someone should share something or say something that offends someone.....but it's ok to threaten to kill them. Violence is much more acceptable than opinions or scary stuff like art (you can call it porn if you want to but it's still just naked people and I don't think that ever hurt anyone).
+Max Huijgen, Peter made the valid point that many of us do not know the nature of his posts (and discussion they generated),as for some inexplicable reason he has deleted them all. That is a reasonable point to make, and whilst whatever his posts were don't excuse the death threats (if they were made), I'd prefer to know the whole situation first. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us, as I'm guessing to elicit such strong opinions it wasn't just a stream of HDR landscapes?
+Trey Ratcliff good to see you backing a fellow photog. Brandons last post mentioned only three people, expecting some action I guess. As two of them are google moderators for G+ (pages and people) they should have taken action. My name was the third and so I felt compelled to do something to get the other two in action.
Brandon didn´t inform me in advance, nor did he ask me to do anything. We are not close friends, we just happen to have a similar taste in photography and we have shared some public posts with each other.
So I am not defending a close buddy, but someone who was here from the start of G+ just like I was and with whom you build up a virtual friendship. I jumped to the occasion because nobody else did. His opinions are his only and vice versa.
+Tim Tymchyshyn for gods sake. He was on the Google recommended list. Not the front man of a guerilla organization! He posted 99,9% of the time photos and the few other posts showed that he was an atheist and that he wanted the users to censor their own streams instead of having Google as the watch dog over what we are allowed to see.
And before this creates new confusion these 99,9% photos were not of naked women or pornography or whatever. An incidental nipple could be seen on a few occasions like in every coffee table magazine. Vogue is more revealing.
Google will break rules for itself - I was blocked by Brian Rose after pointing out that him bragging about how he brought 1.2 million viewers of the pictures he took at the San Diego photo shoot that he told me I couldn't go to was corrupt- which it was. I assume the people who issued these threats have lost their accounts? If not that would be a big issue. I have seem people lose their accounts here because Google didn't approve of the way people spelled their names.
+Morgaine LeFaye the number of people following him is irrelevant. If he changed those three settings, then only the people he explicitly approved by circling would be able to interact with him. He could go about his business publicly posting whatever it was that incited such hate and no one but those he circled could say anything to him about it. I don't see how that's "hiding in circles." I think it's exactly what those settings are intended for.
Max, I'm an atheist and I found him a bore and an idiot - but it's exactly these sorts of instanced that we should use to test our commitment to principle. If we can support people we find tedious and obnoxious when they're threatened then we'll be ok. Don't confuse the issue with the person, though. He seems thoroughly unpleasant to me.

Now, what exactly were the threats?
I think there are just a few issues here . #1 why did he erase all evidence ? Now no one can judge the situation #2 Why does google think nipples are more dangerous then danger itself ? #3 Does feedback go somewhere or is it just a small black hole to oblivion ? #4 Does God really want you to kill the Atheists ? ;-/ #5 When exactly does the kill button kick in ? ( A ) When one sees a nipple or ( B ) when someone talks bad about your God ? or ( C ) When someone questions your intelligence , or ( D ) None of the above .
#6 Is there anyone actually running things or is there just a large machine set on auto pilot ? ( mostly just detects nipples ) #7 Does the Block button actually work like a bullet proof vest ?
Way way too much missing info here..... way too much emotion.
Death threats are handled by law enforcement not Google. If this is legit and not just a massive attempt to gain even more followers by being even more controversial, then put your evidence where the sun shines and get it on the table.

Also you have to understand with heavy popularity and the consistency of controversal topics and posts from +Brandon Campeaux he is going to get haters. If you do not want them, you need to not be openly controversial about most topics.

There is no way to make everything safe.

There are plenty of law enforcement, lawyers and god knows who here that can look at real evidence. By erasing everything this becomes hype. is how you make your case, not over-reaction. There is much more too this.....
+Brandon Campeaux ...I'm so sorry to hear this. I think you're a great guy and a very interesting person. I'm assuming this had something to do with a religious post? Or at least that's how I understand it.

It's sad that people can't act like grownups and just let people believe what they want without shoving their own beliefs down other people's throats. This is why I keep my Paganism more or less to myself on the internet. Too many people who believe everything stupid thing they read or assume a Hollywood movie is the truth.

Anyway, I hope you don't let the crazies keep you away. (((((HUGS)))))

And G+ sucks for doing nothing about this yet censoring right and left any little nipple they see.
0.004% of his followers didn't like him and made death threats. I would have to see more of his posts to determine what he said, I have no idea on who he (Brandon) but according to klout and related sites he could only be looking for followers
The problem with conversations like this is that some of you - looks at +Jane Sheppard - do not use that filter people normally use when they talk to people they don't know intimately. That can be somewhat disturbing. Even rude.
Face to face, live conversations, with people you know, is a much better setting for unfiltered chatter.
But let's blame the medium: the intorwebz.
+Keith Johnston The problem is you can add maximum 5000 people to your circles. He would have to exclude all others. How's that fair?
Sure, +Morgaine LeFaye, exclude them from commenting, not exclude them from following him and his work. If he wants people to see his work and read his message without hearing from the haters, that's the solution. The solution isn't to remove all the haters from the internet.

Why does everyone think it's Google's job to police the internet? If someone from a Yahoo email address sends me a credible death threat, I don't go complaining to Yahoo to do something about it, I go to the police.
I have no idea who Brandon Campeauxis, but what's wrong with simply blocking anyone who makes a 'death threat' at you?
+Lester Barrows Actually I was just looking for of an overview of the situation from someone that knows first hand info.
Ugo Cei
+Lester Barrows As I've publicly reshared both Brandon's and Max's posts and asked my followers to reshare them again, I've somehow put a bit of my reputation behind this issue, so I would be very glad to have some evidence, if you can send it to me, just in case somebody objects to my defense of Brandon. Thank you.
Everything's been said here already. Just want to add my voice and show support for +Brandon Campeaux.
Why would people send death threats to a photographer? The only thing that should merit that kind of behavior is child porn. I guess this is a sign of the times. I'm sorry you have/had to go through this. As I say to my canine friends, "People are over rated". I do strongly feel that this should have been immediately and strongly dealt with by Google. Google, you really blew it.
A copy paste from a reaction in another share. It will repeat some of my earlier statements, but it´s a decent summary.

If I remember correctly after 120 shares I have answered +Dan McDermott by saying that Brandon was on the Google recommended list so he clearly was no gang leader for international activists. He had about 260.000 followers so it´s was not some obscure poster ´who had it coming´ He has deleted all the images (a photographer not a writer) but Google still has them of course so no evidence has disappeared.

He has asked the G+ community managers (+Natalie Villalobos and +Toby Stein ) for help. He has tried to communicate his worries to the G+ team but none of the accounts from which the death threats came were even suspended and he didn´t get answers. At the end frustrated and bitter he has deleted everything because he didn´t feel safe anymore.

Safe in the sense that you post on G+ with pleasure. The real name policy and the recommended user selection both by Google makes them responsible. Their T&C is also clear. It´s binding you, but it´s also a guarantee against others. No hate speech allowed. Facebook´s support team would have kicked into action, suspended these accounts, kick them off, send a letter to their provider etc.

Google can do the same as Brian Rose (moderator for photos here) promised to do in a case where a photographer stole other peoples work. He was clear he would get the Google legal team on it.
In Brandon´s case however they didn´t do a thing. Just nothing. And that´s neglect from their side. Death threats should trigger some action by Google if you report them.

Brandon is free to go the police, get the police to demand the records from G+ etc, but that´s a private matter. Nothing to do with us or me.

I just posted because he cried out to three people. Two Google employees and me. Don´t ask me why, but I felt obliged to get the other two into action. Or their superiors as Google has a responsibility and it would hurt their own future if they don´t stop this now and make G+ a relatively safe place. Just like the always ridiculed Facebook manages to do.

He had his freedom of speech and he used it to say that he was an atheist. So what. If I would post funny photos of holy cows and the Hindu community would be deeply insulted am I then game for idiots who know where to find me thanks to the real name policy? That´s not the G+ I envisioned so they need to get their act together and put a proper support team on this community. It´s not IRC where everyone has a nick and you can threaten each other just for kicks.
Regardless of what he posted, he should not be subjected to death threats. I hope G+ will start helping people understand they cannot bully others with whom they disagree. Allowing bullies to determine what is, and is not, permissible on G+ diminishes us all.
I got some video and photos of the Westboro Baptist Church picketing a concert this year. When I uploaded the photos to Facebook I tagged one of their members who I had met. Within a few hours I had enough death threats and vulgar comments to last a lifetime. I'm not easily shocked by any means but I read things I didn't think the human mind was capable of coming up with.
All plusses for this topic are valuable +Jon Henry and others as Google is run by engineers and they monitor importance that way. So please people share AND plus
+Emmett Lollis I know. I have been top dog in a large forum meaning that whatever the moderators did it was my fault and I was anyway to blame for everything that was wrong in the world. However I had a pseudonym which protected me and when people digged so deep that they found my real name and the school of my young child I was no longer amused. The real name policy of Google (at least at the start) makes it extremely easy to knock on Brandon´s door.
Opps, right on +Max Huijgen! Sharing and Plussing immediately. Thanks for the reminder.
If I thought for one second that some threat directed at me via the internet was legitimate, I'd go to the police.... But I'd also block them...
Threatening someones life based on anything is CRIMINAL and should be treated as such! No meter what your believes are there is no justifying death threats!
I'm going to share this on Twitter and Facebook as well.
+Jon Henry why not. Enough fun has been made of Twitter and FB over here but from what I heard Facebook does have a team at the ready for this kind of events.
We are not talking about one vaguely negative comment to a guy with some extreme ideas, but a Google recommended poster with 260.000 followers. If all was fair and square it would not make a difference as a death threat is a death threat but you would expect a team to step in if ´one of their own´ files complaints and reports these threats.
Even after the uproar of today I didn´t get one reaction from Google!
+A.V. Flox Some convoluted poster tried to hijack it. Not you. And my post claims protection for everyone and that includes the women who suffer from strangers approaching them.
I guess you´re not easily scared away but others do feel unsafe and it´s Google´s task to monitor that and actually do something instead of studying on 4 male nipples which were flagged down and has been reviewed by a complete team of Google engineers.
I find the idea extremely funny that engineers measured the nipples and declared them illegal, but they could do better things over here.
I keep seeing people saying that Google should not police the internet..
Well, this is not the internet, it's G+. It's a community forum, and it should be governed. FB gets it. G+ should get it.
With so many comments I am not sure if somebody wrote it already, but maybe we expect too much in short time from the G+ team. Just think about how much time G+ exists... Today I read about the rapidly increasing members number. Sure, a case like this is awkward and it is good that people talk about it, nonetheless we should be patient with G+.
So, it's exactly as it is here, +Lester Barrows? If you post something here that's public a person you block can only see it if they log out of G+. On Facebook, if you can post truly public content, then a person you block would be able to see it by logging out. How is Facebook better at that?
+Henrik Brandt there are excuses for G+ not being as polished as it could or should be. However there is just no moderator team. Brandon addressed the two only moderators and me in his last post. From these two one handles pages and mobile leaving one!
That´s not a teething issue that´s a major error in the setup. In earlier posts months ago I have mentioned this in response to questions by +Natalie Villalobos. There should be a a round the clock 24/7 team from several continents with different cultural backgrounds to properly ´manage´ a forum social network on which Google bases a large part of its future.
Campeaux doesn't only write about photography and he's not a reasonable person - I dropped him when he claimed the Tea Party was the equivalent of the BNP (for those who don't know the BNP is a UK fascist party that's avowedly racist). But even silly people are due the protection of the law; and Google's real name policy works both ways. He can easily identify the people who've made death threats, can't he?
+Max Huijgen, the analog and digital are not separated by an abyss no one can cross. This is why so many states have responded by creating laws to deal with these situations. The law is never as fast as the technology, this is true, but that doesn't make this behavior any more acceptable in places where the legal system hasn't caught up. These comments are created to breed fear and they destroy the user experience. If not ethics, then that should be Google+'s concern here. The user experience is at risk.

I have written about this topic before, in relation to events that unfolded on OkCupid (

OkCupid has expressed interest in working with the authorities, but this is contingent on victims filing a police report and being successfully assigned a detective to look into the case, which is not an easy task. The problem is complicated further by the erroneous belief that cyber threats are not as dangerous as real ones, a notion that continues to exist in law enforcement.

Law enforcement is estranged from the world of cyber-abuse and as a result, the compiling of digital evidence, tasked to people who rarely understand the technology, becomes the task of people who have little understanding of the law. +Erin Kotecki Vest, a political blogger and active BlogHer community member is familiar to what it takes to get a cyber-abuse case through to law enforcement. Recently, she was subjected to threats on her life, her family, and her childrens’ school on the social network Twitter.

“I hate hearing there's nothing you can do,” Kotecki-Vest said when she spoke on a panel about cyber-bullying at BlogHer ’11 in San Diego, California. She goes on:

Before it escalated to death threats on my end from my attacker, it was just harassment, typical online trolling that was making me very uncomfortable. But you need to document everything, even if you don't think it crosses the line. Document it. Keep it in a folder and when you get really uncomfortable, you take it to your local authorities. They may not be able to do anything about it, but they need to start a file. You must start a file and you must have them at least document it.

And then when the day comes where they do cross a line in your state that is considered a threat, you already have this nice big documented folder at either your sheriff's station or local police station and on your computer with all of your screen shots and everything else. They are ready to move on it. The detective has a little less work to do because in a way you have done it for him or her. So make sure you document absolutely everything. Even if you don't think it crosses the line. If it's just that troll that comes to your blog all the time and you don't even let those comments go through, screen shot it. Keep them any way and keep them in a folder.

You would be surprised, you do need those screen shots. Those detectives may not be taking all those screen shots you think they are taking. You need them all. You have to back yourself up. Don't think the police are going to do all that work for you.

Kotecki-Vest filed a report, and despite continuously contacting her local sheriff’s department, it was three months before a detective was finally assigned to her case, and it took the detective several months on top of that to begin piecing things together.

“In all the cases I have seen unfold between people who were being harassed and law enforcement, the victims have had to follow up and press for their case to reach resolution, often doing much of the legwork themselves,” Kotecki-Vest said. “This is impossible to do without cooperation between sites and victims.”

_ +Andrea Weckerle, founder of, has devoted her life to fostering an online culture where everyone can participate freely without fear of becoming the target of abuse, harassment and defamation. She thinks in cases of cyber-abuse, the best weapon is information._

“What you really want to do is go online and look at the language of your local statutes, even if they’re somewhat difficult to understand, to see if you have a case and move forward,” Weckerle said. “For example, in some jurisdictions you're going to find that intent matters -- did they intend to instill fear in you? In other jurisdictions, intent is not an element. Their actions as such have to be actionable. You really have to be well-versed in your statutes, to know what the facts are to be able to move forward. That's extremely, extremely important.”

Even if a case is not criminally actionable, there are civil remedies relating to defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, public disclosure of private facts, false light or appropriation of your identity. These options cost money, Weckerle says, but the option to pursue a civil case are there. But like Kotecki-Vest, she agrees that documentation begins long before that:

“Go ahead and start that file or see if you can open a file at your local sheriff's office or police department,” Weckerle said. “They may roll their eyes and say ‘here is someone overreacting.’ They deal with a lot of physical issues and they want to see extreme issues, so start by making them aware of the fact that you are fearful. You are not going in there to say ‘my feelings were hurt.’ You say ‘I am frightened, I am scared about this. These veiled threats are causing me severe emotional distress.’ The tendency people have is to wait too long to do it. We feel ashamed or silly and don't want to appear hysterical. We need to overcome that and start taking actions to legally protect ourselves.”

Kotecki-Vest paints a clear picture of what it is like to work with law enforcement on issues of cyber-abuse:

One of the first things I heard when I got the threats was: well, you asked for it. You're out there. You put yourself out there. You put your family out there. You talk about your illness. You talk about your politics. You talk about your life. Of course this is going to happen. This is just how it goes.

I absolutely refuse to accept that. That is not part of civil society. When we are all here face to face, you wouldn't be able to say to me that you are going to blow my brains out, not sitting right in front of me. Why is that acceptable online? Because it's coming from someone with an anonymous name? No, I refuse to accept that. I made my local sheriff's office refuse to accept that.

They didn't understand Twitter. They had no idea what I was talking about when I walked in with all of my screen shots and my iPhone. They had no idea, but I educated them and I made them learn. For a while I was at my sheriff's office every single morning for about eight days straight because every night, the night before I was getting attacked online and I was documenting all of it. They were going to take me seriously whether they wanted to or not. I just persisted. And I kept going in. Eventually they opened a case.

_ +Autumn Sandeen, a transgender blogger who also formed part of the cyber-bullying panel at BlogHer ’11 also suggested finding an abuser’s IP address and contacting their internet provider._

“Before I contacted their provider, I looked at their terms and conditions of service as to what behavior they allow their system,” Sandeen said. “We had the same provider because this person happened to live in San Diego where I live, so contacted my provider, which was their provider, and said they are violating this rule, this rule, and this rule in your terms and conditions of service and gave them the link to their own terms and conditions of service. The person had their account suspended. So there are a number of different options.”

This approach is complicated when you have social networks and sites that have the necessary information but do not want to reveal it.

“The first thing I did was go to Twitter,” Kotecki-Vest recalls. She contacted the social network several times to help provide her with information about her abuser. “It was like talking to a bunch of school kids about a serious problem. I was getting form e mails in response from them. It was extremely frustrating.”

She goes on to detail how she finally got them to pay attention:

Getting Twitter's attention is not easy. You have to continuously file and show them stuff. You have to literally go over their TOS [terms of service], pull out the line that applies to the tweet that came to you, show them the tweet, show them exactly what the terms say send these in together. Every single time I would report something to Twitter, it was always an immediate rejection: “we don't like to get involved in disputes between two parties.” But this wasn't a dispute between two parties. This person was saying they are going to kill me tomorrow. That's a really big difference. Eventually with the help of the community, we got Twitter's attention.

Twitter flagged most of my incoming reports once they knew that there was an open case in the sheriff's department, but my sheriff's department had to contact them. My detective was attempting to get information from Twitter, and Twitter absolutely refused to give him anything without a court order. When my detective was putting in emergency court orders from judges, saying “this is an emergency threat of life, you need to hand over this information,” their response was: “Fax us.” They wouldn't give my detective a phone number to call them. It was: “fax us with your information.”

My detective's response was, “what happens if this is a kidnapping and she's tweeting from the trunk of a car? And I'm doing my best as law enforcement to get Twitter to give me information and your response is: We don't give a phone number. Fax us.” He couldn't talk to anyone in person. Here he was with emergency court orders and everything else and he couldn’t get anybody on the phone. It's difficult. But you have to pressure them. And you have to use your community to pressure them.

I think we deserve more than that. Sites have a responsibility to users. They need to have a clear procedure in place for dealing with reports of serious abuse and offer contact information for law-enforcement in the event of a serious emergency. This isn’t just for dating sites like OkCupid, but social networking sites as well. If we’re going to ask the law to catch up with us technologically, we need to start by demanding that the services we use have a public policy in place and a procedure for dealing with these cases.

I think that Google+ has an opportunity here to show that it is different than other networks by taking action against profiles that are engaging in this behavior. The question of releasing information to the authorities is more complicated, of course, because with a real name policy in place, with access to thousands of e-mails and documents through their other applications, creating a precedent where Google gives out information to authorities like candy is not a good one. Certainly in the case of abuse it is, but what happens when a government is seeking information about dissidents? It's complicated, but working with users to put policies into place as it regards this kind of abuse would go a long way.
While I am not 100% sure how I ended up on this thread, I am glad I have. People have been talking about Google here as if it is a single uniform entity. It isn't. It is a giant corporation where one department has no clue what another department might be working on and/or doing. It is entirely possible that the problem was in the process of being addressed. We simply do not have enough information here to go by. Any judgement one way of the other is, by necessity, one born of ignorance. Sure the photo stealing issue might have been addressed quicker but could simply be because that department didn't have as much stuff ahead of it on their plate.

I don't know how many death threat complaints Google has to deal with on a daily basis, do you? Probably not. I interact with Googlers all the time (from various departments and countries not just G+), they are merely people doing jobs. They are not miracle workers (though collectively they work several 'miracles') they are people. Enough about that.

While I have +Brandon Campeaux in my circles, I do not recall anything specific about him. If he chose to leave, so be it. We all have to walk our own path.
+A.V. Flox Your long comment is spot on in showing the difficulties forums, providers, social networks and other virtual communities have to cope with. The law will at least in theory be on your side, but realistically it will be extremely difficult to enforce the law.
I have some experience in trying to get normal law enforcement to act on sexual harassment which was part of a real life show. The police nor the prosecutors knew what to do with it. They refused at first to take my witness account of it while I provided them with full transcripts. It took me quite some effort as the police wanted me to file at the place where the delict took place while I had to use all my legal knowledge to convince them that if you witness a crime from a travelling train f.i. you are allowed to report on the first station. Anyway a story too long to tell, but I have worked with women organizations to get this filed eventually.
People just giggled about it and kept saying, just like you write, that it´s not real world so it didn´t happen.
+Max Huijgen, understanding the law is essential. Much of this territory is uncharted and it is up to each of us to help guide networks and law enforcement in the right direction.
+A.V. Flox to continue on what Google can and should do:
you´re right that most of us would be completely opposed to automatic handing over to authorities of IP and personal information on request of f.i. a copyright holder who feels I downloaded a MP3.
However Google and specifically G+ have a user conduct policy which you have to agree to. This clearly forbids bullying so Google can be held accountable if this happens by members of G+. The minimum they can do is take these accounts down and track the IP to give them an IP ban for G+.
When death threats are made I would say we cross a line and not only the ´no illegal activities´ clause kicks in, but they should actively hunt down these people and report them themselves to the local authorities. Google has offices in many countries so they are in a position to do so.
+A.V. Flox Now the final issue. Should Brandon go to the police himself and force Google to cough up the records? Like you describe providers will want a a court order and to get that the victim has to file the case.
That´s the most stressful way to solve this and it can take years to resolve it. It can make sense to do in the case of a specific stalker, but random death threats are hard to get a grip on and before the case is filed another profile will pop up with the same threats. It´s practically unstoppable without Google reaching out and actively help the victims.
It will be clear that I expect them to do so. In Brandon´s case but just as well in cases where others are threatened or harassed. As I said before there are women on G+ who don´t feel safe, there is reported case in this thread of a muslim girl who got a death thread. All these cases should be actively pursued by Google to protect G+ itself.
If we give in to threats we lose our freedom and the bullies succeeded. That is the worst possible outcome!
+Cliff Roth if it takes a company with 19000 people weeks to respond on a number of death threats while they are celebrating their extra bonus because of the success of G+ as their leading product there is something seriously wrong in that organization.
To make it clear: I have not been approached by someone from Google nor is Brandon. So not only are all the reported profiles still active (I just checked) but even after today´s turmoil nobody even tried to get in touch from Google.
+Trey Ratcliff Brandon put up some very offensive images (cartoon porn involving Jesus and Muhammad). That does not condone the death threats, but this thread misleadingly omits any mention of the images. It seems he failed to anticipate the response he was going to get. Again, I don't condone the threats.
+Bryan Jones the photo mod on G+ has just responded on the post of Brandon. I mention it because it´s the first response from someone representing G+ and has made some contact now. Won´t comment on it except for mentioning it to be fair to +Bryan Jones
+Max Huijgen Max, I think you're confusing me with +Brian Rose, who is the photo community manager. I'm not affiliated with Google in any way other than as a grain of sand in this little social sandbox.
google implied responsibility for safety when they required true identities . Why else would they require your true identity ? Marketing ? ;- / They implied people would be safer and people would be more responsible if they could be identified . Seems to me they have set up something the opposite of that . A place where predators can collect personal information to do with what they please . Let alone companies mining for marketing purposes.
I think it's laughable when people make excuses for google . One of the largest most profitable companies on earth ! Facebook dwarfs G+ as far as members but apparently they can handle these issues . To me one of their biggest problems is communication . They say the are creating a place for communication , interaction . Yet they don't seem to be participants in this interaction .
What we are supposed to believe they have no time or money to deal with situations ? Or that it is over their collective heads ? If they expect someone to go to the police maybe they should send a little note saying so. A one sentence computerized form letter would do .Maybe something like " Your important to us , call 911 ! , Thank you for joining us best of luck G+ ;-) "
Kab Yaj

Further updates on +Karin Nelson 's re-share of the Campeux's death threat claims. According to +Christ Chabot, Google+ Developer Relations, Brandon has not cooperated with the various community managers from G+ who have reached out asking links to those threats so they can expedite the process.
Hmm things are starting to become clearer now .
+Max Huijgen, Brandon's part with Google has been done. He submitted the shots of the threats to them via feedback. Google+'s response should be to analyze the remarks and suspend the profiles that merit suspension. Law enforcement needs a complaining party, so Google+ cannot submit these threats to them for him. Brandon has to approach law enforcement with the problem and possibly walk them through how these statements are in violation of the laws in his state. If there are no laws in place, he may be able to pursue a civil suit, but you are right -- this is a very long process.
Yip +Bryan Jones I´m sorry for the confusion. I got an email stating that +Brian Rose had contacted him about the time you posted. Sorry for that.
Kab Yaj
Is it just me, or did anyone notice that Brandon updated his post at 1:38pm today, but claimed +Brian Rose reached out to him via email at 2:09pm? When did he originally post, last night before 2:09pm, I hope?
After reading the comments on +Karin Nelson reshare it would certainly seem things are innaccurate in this one. +Chris Chabot's comments directly contradict some of the comments you have made here +Max Huijgen.

Thanks for posting the link to it +Kab Yaj
+Kab Yaj Time zones. Your last post is made at 1.03AM in my view. I have no clue what time it´s at yours but probably a different one.
+Cliff Roth sorry but I don´t know which statement has logical fallacies. It it´s important please spell them out as I must have made hundreds of comments today and just don´t know what you refer to.
Kab Yaj
Oh, +Max Huijgen my apologies. I did not account for the time zones in my statement. I am in Hawaii' s time zone.
Sorry to hear that. Good lesson for all of us and for Google.
I have made the same mistake once +Kab Yaj when I referred to a comment of mine by time so I learned it the hard way like you :)
I hope you are happy now that Brandon clarified the statement of Chris? The problem is that once it´s written it will live forever on G+ as ´Brandon was a trouble maker and didn´t want to work with Google so he had it coming´
That´s why I tried to mail, post in three topics and respond again. Busy day this way...
Kab Yaj
It's great to hear that +Brian Rose is looking into the matter. Though, all G+ can do is banned users, they cannot nor do they have the authority to arrest these perpetrators. If in fact, Brandon was threatened and he thinks his life is in danger, he needs to go to the police, right away. I wouldn't waste time in letting G+ handle the situation...they can only do so much.
Of course +Kab Yaj he is fully aware of the options. But the accounts are still live. Just checked again.
Kab Yaj
I hope everything gets resolved accordingly.
+103 / 58 shares / 43 comments
That´s what it took today to get into the What´s hot stream.
This post at the time of writing has 89/ 171 / 174
Just in case people still thought the What´s hot stream was an automatic created stream ;)
+Max Huijgen this one " +Cliff Roth if it takes a company with 19000 people weeks to respond on a number of death threats while they are celebrating their extra bonus because of the success of G+ as their leading product there is something seriously wrong in that organization." though it really isn't important in the grand scheme of things.
That went relatively fast!!! I participated to some of Brandons controversial debates. Some of which were quite an entertainment!
But at some point I though to myself, something bad will eventually happen!

Googles reaction to look into the matter is rather slow, none the less it has its limitations. This is a virtual platform. If any threat are to be serious it is in the physical realm that Brandon need take action. however I believe Google has the ability to track the IPs of those who made the threats and should be the main priority as it will give Brandon, (by knowing the location of those threatening him) a Clear visual of how serious the threats are so he can deal with it swiftly and accordingly.

On the other end Google+ is in beta and free to use, meaning use it at your own risk! One can not expect such a large community to get along when sharing sensitive content! (Yes much of Brandon content was for certain communities) People are dying right this minute for being the wrong color! It is not all pink in some parts of the world! Must Google be accountable for that too???

No one should ever have to deal with Death threat! I know this too well. But I also learned the hard way that what goes around always comes back around with increased speed!!!
It's not the content of the message that we (sharers) should think about. It's the impact it will have on certain communities. Whether we've been circled or not as it will get re-shared.

I really admire +Brandon Campeaux freedom to speak his mind in it's raw form as it should be the only way. But because we have the power to do so does not mean we have to use it in it's raw form!

I hope Google will deal with this matter swiftly and will eventually come up with a better structure to protect all users, verified or not.
+Brandon Campeaux I hope none of those threats are serious, but a stop at the police station might be wise.

The idea that Google should or would hand over the IP addresses of those who issued the threats directly to Brandon is absolutely insane, +Gunther D. That's the sort of information that Google should and would only hand over to law enforcement.
+Keith Johnston
That's the sort of information that Google should and would only hand over to law enforcement
That is what I meant
Me<<<< non native English speaker! My apologies for the misunderstanding.
I´m extremely tired and it´s the middle of the night +Cliff Roth If you explain What was wrong with it I will check it tomorrow. Just repeating it doesn´t work.
You bring up two unrelated things (their alleged lack of response and their bonuses) and draw a conclusion based off of them. It's a false argument. However it isn't really important and I didn't mean to break the flow of conversation.
This has been a fascinating thread and I am glad I was led to it.
deleted as someone took offense with a lighthearted attempt at humor.
How about outting some of these people who are threatening other users and let the community see and perhaps take action of their own like mass blocking people who don't belong in a community but belong ostracized and shunned?
"Van Gogh worked with the Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which criticized the treatment of women in Islam and aroused controversy among Muslims. On 2 November 2004 he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim."
I'm sorry +Max Huijgen, but fundamentalists' aggression is a real problem of modern world, and I sure you that deleting accounts have nothing to help with it. In the same time, here I see something like an "Excellent occasion to push [some ones] short listed candidacy"... "on top followed"
I personally have no problems with moral diversity - my god is Nietzsche, but the "hero" of this story was too brave stepping on some ones feelings and too apprehensive when got consequences.
Well +Max Huijgen thanks for taking this thread on, you are doing a huge service to Brandon and the entire G+ community! I wrote this on +Brandon Campeaux' s initial thread, but I'm not allowed to post on it now, so I've cut & pasted to here!

Well I hope this gets cleared up fast, sorry to see whats going on +Brandon Campeaux. Just hang in there and make sure everything here gets dealt with. I must say I'm shocked about multiple threats, but not overly surprised. There are simply too many narrow minded self righteous people out there for anyone who's willing to be stand up for whats right to not become targeted. For those who proposed the threats, I really hope they are dealt with properly, and through proper channels. Do not let a G+ account be their only punishment for their actions Brandon.. People like this need to at the very least have their names documented on lists with your local Police and FBI or other authorities. Also G+ Community Managers... I was just taking a quick peak through my G+ and unless this thread had grabbed my attention I would have had no clue who to turn to for quick responses.. even in the support/help menu it took some time to track down where to locate the links. And as nice as using the feedback setup is.. when it comes to something like this, sometimes "send feedback" sure doesn't seem to do the situation justice.
Thanks +Shawn Manson for your kind words.
A quick update: +Chris Chabot from Google developers has made excuses for his post suggesting that Brandon had be at fault and he had not worked with the moderators to speed things up. "I jumped to that conclusion to hastily" He has also excused himself to Brandon per e-mail so that´s no longer an issue. These things can happen as long as G+ doesn´t have its own 24/7 response team to take of this huge community.
+Natalie Villalobos has written (while on holiday afaik) a text I will copy and paste in full as it´s an important one:

Hey Brandon - I am glad +Brian Rose is helping you out. Death threats against anyone are a serious matter. There should be no doubt - the Google+ team cares about this situation. Your post 15 hours ago was the first I've heard of your repeated death threats and believe that we (Google+) should look into our current processes and decide if we need to create a more clear escalation path/channel for situations like these.

I will write the Privacy, Abuse, and Community Manager teams this evening to discuss what can be done in the future so a situation like this can:

1) be examined quickly (so you don't need to depend on Googlers responding on a public post to feel taken care of)
2) potentially offer a response to the reporting user

Does that sound like a good start?

I think it's also important to note that I am not the only Google+ Community Manager. I have said this on numerous posts and on the About section of my profile. +Brian Rose focuses on Google+ Photos. +Toby Stein focuses on Google+ Pages and Mobile. +Katherine Gramann focuses on Hangouts. +Chris Chabot is not a Community Manager, but a Googler who leads the Google+ Developer Relations team and jumped in here to help out (as you've noticed, many Googlers like to extend themselves and escalate to internal teams if they can). Thus, +Max Huijgen and +Brandon Campeaux, I am not the only person responsible for the Google+ community - and if you ever asked, I'd say it's up to the entire community to discuss, report, add me when appropriate (in this case you did, I just happened to be on vacation). I am thankful that +Brian Rose stepped in. I also think he was the most appropriate given his closeness to the subject of +Occupy Gplus Censorship, your extensive previous communication with him, and because his focus is on Photos.
A few quick conclusions: great that she responds while being on vacation (afaik). It shows this post and the numerous comments and shares by the G+ community were effective in drawing attention to an important matter. I think it shows the team really need to expand to a multiple continent spanning team with different cultural backgrounds but that´s a matter for an evaluation.
Responding 15 hours after you are aware (natalie´s word) that a major poster on your network reveals that he feels threatened and disappears is extremely slow in terms of customer service and way too long in cases like this. A quick phone call to a substitute could have been made within minutes. I wouldn´t have posted if something had already been done.
Natalie´s first proposal is a good one and makes sense. The problem is that within Google commuity managers f.i. for the sake of our privacy don´t get to see the filed reports which makes solving abuse cases like this one more difficult. That´s a good thing but slows them down on occasions like this so her proposal has more depth than some people may think at first glance.
Like she says a good start

The provided information about the other managers was known to me but I have duly copied it to make everyone aware of it.
A quick review of the last reactions which merit a response.
+Gunther D the core of what you´re saying seems similar to +Gyan Gather and +Anton Tikhonov ´What goes around comes around´ . Sure, if you insult people you will always get a backlash. However on a global platform like FB and G+ you will always insult groups. A Dutch lifestyle magazine recently described Rihanna´s clothing style as ´niggabitch´ and Rihanna took offense. In the end the chief editor had to resign ( The sensitivities of other cultures are not always understood. I´m shocked if I see granddaddy teaching his six year old grandson how to shoot, yet in his own circles this American will not be aware of the shock it creates in Europe. The examples are endless.
So accepting the fact that you will always insult someone make the environment in which you air your opinions as safe as possible. That´s where facebook comes in with allegedly a 24/7 team to take care of threats. I´m not sure if this is true, people just told me so. However that´s the only thing Google can do and it can do so very effectively. Act swiftly, delete profiles, offer repeat offender to access to any of Googles services including email and maybe even its search engine. Google has terms of services and the right to deny these to everyone who violates them.
Of course this will not stop a real terrorist attack on a target. I make no illusions about the world and have seen an acquintance of mine stabbed down and die on the streets close to me due because of his writings. (Theo van Gogh indeed). So I know how real danger is, but also how important it is that G+ provides as safe an environment as possible. Wannabee killers are lazy: they bully more than they actually kill but by doing so they kill the free word. G+ should prevent this from happening.
I will remove my ´wind down´ post about voting for me in the Dutch G plusser of 2011 election as it offended someone. It was just the last post after a very long and tiring day and I wanted to get some perspective back to talk about something silly.
+Robert Dallas - 'if you start a fire'?

Look, we know where the problem lies really, don't we. Did Rushdie 'start a fire' with The Satanic Verses? Did Van Gogh start a fire with Submission? You don't have to be unreasonable to attract death threats from this death cult. The death threats come because of their unreasonable demand that we should do what they say and their unreasonable response to being disappointed.

I refuse to kowtow to ludicrous fantasies and primitive superstitions because of someone else's insistence that I be sensitive to cultures that promulgate nonsense. And I am not content to expect death threats because of that.

On a different matter I found +Brandon Campeaux to be an uninformed and predictable bore. My response? I uncircled him. That's all anyone needed to do, uncircle him. He didn't start a fire - the idiots who threatened him, if they were in fact real, credible threats, are the ones who need to be castigated.
I did not circle +Brandon Campeaux . Those who don't like him could have left him/his page like any other person could have. The problem is with the sick people that have no other option than threaten some one. I've had my share too. And I just go on. Like I do with people out on the street that wish me terminal diseases, death etc. Though I understand +Brandon Campeaux's decision, to me it would feel like giving in to the demands of the sickminded.

BTW this is not G+ related. Happens on FB, happens on Twitter, happens by email.
Seriously Google is not the organisation anyone should be going to with this sort of stuff. The police should always be your first port of call for death threats if you believe them to be serious. Anything else that goes on is just noise.

That´s where facebook comes in with allegedly a 24/7 team to take care of threats. I´m not sure if this is true, people just told me so

Statements like that have a habit of becoming "true" and just add to the noise
The guy posted cartoon depictions of Christ engaged in sexual acts with Muhammad to a crowd of more than a quarter million people.

It would be far more surprising if he didn't receive death threats. It's not a case of "always going to offend someone," it's a case of trying to deeply offend as many people as possible.

I don't condone death threats and I'm all about freedom of speech and expression, but come on.
+Gyan Gather So you're offended. Well, diddums. The people who didn't like +Brandon Campeaux 's remarks could have simply stopped reading him, as I did. They could have uncircled him. They could have blocked him. Why would you wish to prevent his speech?

Threatening someone's life is clearly a different matter from mocking a religion and the law in most civilised countries reflects that difference. I'm surprised you can't get your head around a very, very clear distinction.
+Gyan Gather allowing the free, unthreatened exchange of ideas is vital to the proper functioning of an open, liberal democracy. This means, for example, I have the right to point out to you that you don't even understand your own religion's injunction to turn the other cheek (and that goes for Islam, in which Isa is a prophet, as well as Christianity)

If you don't wish to live in such a society then leave it.
I think it might be a bit that + is a side project from Google. They can afford slow follow up, if there are too many problems they can close it off and people will continue to use other Google products. The requirements for the Hot Page seem pretty low for millions of active accounts or am I wrong.
+Gyan Gather : ' To insult another person's beliefs is just as insulting as threatening them'

Well, no. You can take insult at many things: the (arguably anachronistic) observation that Muhammad was a paedophile, for example. You may take insult that I have chosen to describe the fact that he married a 9 year-old girl. Should I not talk about certain facts because of your feelings?

On the other hand, your threat to my life for offending you attempts to shut down discourse and promises me that you will attempt to kill me.

Why not just insult me in return? Why not do as you religion demands and turn the other cheek? Or are you as hypocritical about your religion as so many of your fellow believers?
Hi +Max Huijgen I tried contacting +Brandon Campeaux yesterday regarding this but he has his post restricted and I'm certain he has been supersaturated with posts. I'm glad +Natalie Villalobos got in touch with you all yesterday after-all. We all are here for you guys and take death threats seriously.
+Gyan Gather I'm not deciding what's offensive to you. I don't care what's offensive to you. You may well value your religion more than your life: that seems not uncommon among some adherents to a particularly weird strand of Islam, for instance.

You're just wrong in fact that until an action is taken there is no threat: wrong in fact and wrong in law.

I suggest we stop goading each other on this thread. I'll just block you because you're a very silly person. Bye.
Requiring people to use their real names is simply preposterous - and this is a "best case" (sorry, can't think of a better term here) reason why. Everyone has enemies, some deserved, some not so deserved. Some of us have pasts that we prefer not to share and/or have discussed every day - for good reasons and for bad. Once a person's real identity is known on the internet, it can never be made secret again. What goes on the internet is never lost.

I'm not a convict, not wanted by the FBI or any other law enforcement agency - but I still prefer not to have my real identity published on the internet. Especially on a forum through which my home address, as well as the address of some of my children can be ferreted out.

Think Google is private? It isn't! Google sells advertising. Advertisers track stuff. Someone who wants to find YOU might advertise things that they know you are interested in, and watch to see who buys. It's a very simple matter to track a person down after that person makes a purchase from you, using his real name, and supplying a shipping address.

Yeah, I know Google has a privacy policy, and that they don't forward "personally identifiable" details to advertisers. Even so, an unscrupulous stalker may very well know how to beat some or all of Google's protections.

Sorry, Google, but you're wrong on this count. Your policy makes us all more vulnerable to phishers, stalkers, or whoever. Anonymity is extremely important to some of us.

I challenge Google. When Google flat out states that they CANNOT find any of us, via any and/or all the records they maintain, then I'll reconsider my attitude. If, in reality, Google could not find me, then I wouldn't worry about anyone outside Google using Google's own tools to track me down.

While I believe that Google is much more professional than those clowns at HB Gary Federal could ever dream to be - I use them as a reference regarding how easily Google COULD be infiltrated.

I supply here, a list of people who MIGHT hate me enough to track me down:
White Supremacists
Muslim activists
Azteca racists
Westboro Baptist

Less likely, but possible
Gay activists
Women's lib activists
Black racists

You will notice that each group is a rather large pool of people. Each group probably includes one or more whackos willing to kill another person for having opposing views. In fact, the first three groups listed most certainly DO have such members!

And, guess who is more dangerous than the whacko who makes death threats? That would be the dedicated whacko who doesn't bother to make a death threat. He just jumps on the bus, or in his car, or on the plane, and heads out to take care of business, with no warning!

I would most definitely hate to lose my Google account. But, I feel that I must sound off here, on this issue.

Thank you for listening, folks!
And, feel free to share my post, far and wide.

Paul Lastname
Yip +Paul Lastname I´m aware of both threats. The killer in the dark who skips all the hate mail is usually the one to be really afraid of. An outspoken columnist in my own country (Theo van Gogh) who I knew well, was killed that way.
That Google knows everything about you is a certainty. They do have some internal firewalls blocking unneeded access to all employees of course, but if they use their collected information they can produce a file about you with facts even your spouse was not aware of. Some anonymous Googlers have told me that even my worst nightmare is just a glimpse of the profile they can build.
If they wish they can found it who is Paul Lastname and automatically substitute your real name. But they won´t as it would kill Google.
There is NO SENSE in escalation situations with those people, UNTIL it’s justified by primary values. And if Theo van Gogh’s tragedy is what happened in sake of women's rights, which suffering under specifics of some traditions; in opposite, here we have the-story-of-reckless-mind that came out of desire to be free to make senseless jokes on certain matter.

Nevertheless I'm staying to be sceptical on Brandon’s behavior, I’m not in a bit to excuse those who threatened him. He is absolutely right saying that no one should deal whit it; but please, there is no Google's magic that can eliminate our responsibility. Life is not a video game.

to everybody and kindly to +Max Huijgen +David Jones +Wendy Bandurski-Miller +Brandon Campeaux
I hope Google announces a more robust process to resolve these sorts of issues soon. I think there's more cyber harassment/cyber stalking going on than they may realize, not to mention more mundane things like libel.
More robust +Jeffrey Sullivan I think they hardly have a system in place except for algorithmic spam detection and the flagging system. The flagging system however doesn´t seem to do more than get the post owner to delete it. You cant file a report as the owner of the post, f.i. mentioning it was harassment or a threat. It just gets deleted.
What you would like is that real people step in and f.i. contact women who have reported more than three harassing posts and start some pro-active actions to avoid this in the future to keep these women on board. The same for threats: you would like to see an extended hand from the G+ team instead of having to shout in the dark and hear nothing back.
+Max Huijgen You've given good examples of functionality and process changes needed. In addition to a harassment reporting process and human followup, it's important to understand that simple deletion may destroy important evidence or at least hinder the initiation and progress of criminal investigations.

The functionality needed may be more like a combined, mute, hide, and freeze function, which leaves the content visible only to the perpetrator, the person who was the target of the harassment, Google, and potentially investigators until the matter can be fully investigated and resolved.

The resolution required is also not simply limited to criminal vs. non-criminal; I think there's a reasonable expectation that Google should maintain and enforce Ts & Cs regarding reasonable minimum community standards of behavior to prevent many of these issues before they reach the critical or illegal stage.

I've avoided reporting harassment so far partly due to a lack of response from Google on the topic in the past and a resulting expectation of no action on Google's part, and this issue of reporting potentially destroying or masking key evidence critical to the investigations which Google seems inclined to pass these issues off to.

I don't think Google should avoid either the responsibility of community curation (staying involved, with adequate staffing) or the role of facilitating the preservation and presentation of evidence.
Add a comment...