Shared publicly  - 
Keeping the community safe and secure

We understand how much you value safety and security online. It's why we've built tools like comment moderation ( and hangout controls ( into Google+ to weed out bad behavior. But we're always looking to do better. Today we're excited to roll out new controls that will ensure our community remains a place where people look out for each other.

Reporting content in the stream
You’ll now have more options when reporting bad posts, comments, profiles or photos. This will mean we can deal with misconduct more quickly, and prevent abuse from happening again.

Reporting people in public hangouts
If you ignore someone in a hangout, we immediately mute their audio and video to keep you safe. Now when you report someone in a public hangout, we’ll also automatically record a small snippet and notify the room. We can then check for bad behavior—and once we've done that we’ll delete the clip. 

Thanks to millions of community members worldwide, Google+ is a secure and inspiring place to spend time. With today's improvements, and your help, we'll keep it that way.

Thorby Corvin's profile photoUrsula Zandt's profile photoPeter Strempel's profile photoarm onmission's profile photo
Whatever you pay those people who sit for eight hours a day watching clips of people behaving badly, it isn't enough.
Great work +Google+ team. Keep it up and thanks for everything that you guys do!
Thank you!!!!! I stopped doing hangouts because I got fed up with immature people who flash themselves during my hangouts and affected my viewership. This will help
Or You Can stop Using The Internet and hang out With You real Friends, I bealive They call it...
Ryan Ng
That is really helpful. Now at least I know what to do now with people who post non-helpful comments or do inappropriate stuff during hangouts. Thank you so much.
sorry madam but I want to be polite to you I wanted to say hello
I wish there were foul language filters or suchlike on G+.
I'm sure this has been discussed by developers, but I'd really like to see a "-1" alongside the "+1" on posts and  comments and a way to filter each post by an average setting (something I could enter like "suppress anything lower than -10"). I think this would help with trolling on some posts. Or maybe I'm crazy :)
I am happy to see how well received these features are by all the plusers - I will be passing on kudos and thanks to our spam team and our hangouts team.
Agree with the -1 button. Also I would prefer allowing people to say and be as free as they want (rude swear whatever). It would make more sense to have a profanity or adult setting where if activated those comments or posts just don't show. Let people decide for themselves  Maybe just blanked out  *** instead. Do go reporting or censoring/removing posts for people fuck that. ooops...
I'd rather have all the profanity and have the community kind of + or - things. Then I could screen based on a score that would vary based on the "channel" I was following. In some cases that screen would filter out some foul language because of the context and in another context it would be screening trolls (leave foul comments that are germane).
i agree Mme adult to adult communication should be in a separate place, all you have to do is create one and also add an option to be able to lable hangouts using already established ratings systems that people know with maybe a verification tag or something to make sure no children sneak in ( even though they probably will figure it out anyways).
It does rather seem like a shame that Google should focus on political correctness and censorship ahead of improving the functionality and ease-of-use of text posts.  I guess this means that Vic Gundotra thinks we are all morons, or there is no advertising value to be had from in-depth discussions on this forum.

For whatever it may be worth, I am appalled at the pettiness of the censorship here, which sees even acknowledged great works of art being pulled down because of some cracker or Muslim zealot objecting to aesthetics neither could ever understand.
No kidding! I've only posted a few times, so no issues with problem material. But, from what I see, we do a pretty good job of policing ourselves. If you object, move on. I imagine another social network is just around the corner for you. Users can run it or ruin it as we see fit. Feed me the raw meat out there, not sterlized baby food. If I can't chew it, I know enough to spit it out!
+Cameron Harris You may be on to something. Rate -10 to +10 to voice approval. But, a personal filter with the same scale. Set what you can stomach. Maybe I'm crazy, now!
Something else that may escape California bubble developers and execs is that the Western world outside the USA is far less puritanical and hypocritical about the naked human form in art, and about aesthetic expression in general.

Google may choose to deliberately ignore all but American users of G+, but there is a limit to the market in the US, and sooner or later competition with Facebook or some new upstart, will begin to equal big bucks in places where the US is already being regarded as the least free and open Western society due to the enormous influence of the religious right, and the crude censorship and surveillance methods of the FBI/Homeland Security.

That's a matter for Americans to sort out, but it may blindside them to a completely different way of thinking about life, art, freedom of expression, and the domain of the 'social' in general.
Something that really concerns me is that Google is quick and "efficient" in blocking and banning benign nipples on the stream while letting actual malicious behavior continue on.  By malicious, I mean behavior from bullies who are explicitly, intentionally trying to defame or insult a person.  In this sense, I agree with the new image reporting options since they may allow a person being bullied to fight back.  There are predators (I know them personally) in hangouts who will screenshot both intentional and unintentional embarrassing poses and then threaten and harass the victim with posting their picture publicly.  However, will Google actually ban the cyberbully?  Not that I know of.

+Stacy Frazer and +John Fanavans .... you should check out this thread.
This is my full response to these features can be found here as well as responses to what I've said from other people:

A segment from that post: 

"Isn't this getting a little ridiculous considering you can just block the person and solve most of these problems? If you have the ability to block someone, why not use it? 

Also, what do half of these even mean? Where do you draw the line between a heated argument and bullying? What's the difference between opinion and hate speech? How illegal is "illegal"? What about promoting smoking pot now? That's legal in some areas, but not others. And what about deceptive behaviour? Does that include GIRLS? Is it people pretending to be Nigerian princes? Where does personal responsibility and common sense come into play? 

Seriously. Just use the block button. This is getting ridiculous."

In addition to this, why not just have an 18+ filter? DeviantArt and Tumblr both have this option and it's working fine for them. In addition to that, you already give the option to have 18+ hangouts as well as 18+ and 21+ pages. So, why not an 18+ option for viewing a post or an entire account?
+John Fanavans That, good sir, is called "libel" and is punishable by law. This is very different from most of the things on that list. Obviously legal issues such as copyright infringement, libel, distribution of child pornography, etc. should be dealt with by more than a block, but the rest of it is just stupidity that people choose to see.
So is +Pavni Diwanji busy or just avoiding the comments on her own thread?  Hey... come check out your can of worms over here..
posting nudity
posting pornography
internet impersonation
having a profile that doesn't represent a person
if you think they've been hacked
if they're engaging in and promoting dangerous activities
if they're manipulating rankings
if their behaviour is "deceptive"
if their name is fake
if they're trying to sell something

None of those activities are legal issues and that's 12 of the 17 things I've listed that you can report someone's post or account for.

As for hate speech, copyright infringement and harassment, those only become legal issues at a certain degree. If the copyright issue is some fourteen-year-old's doodle that someone took from DeviantArt, no one's going to care. If someone's stealing a photographer's work, charging money for it and claiming it's their own, that's a legal issue.

So, with that in mind, 15 of the 17 things I mentioned are not guaranteed legal issues.
Australian laws are irrelevant. 

Bullying is not criminal. It becomes criminal after a certain degree when it escalates to harassment/assault.

Internet impersonation is rarely ever punishable by law unless is escalates to the point of actually affecting someone's life and that turns into things like fraud. In other words, using someone else's name and picture randomly on the internet will rarely ever become a legal issue without some other crime involved.

It's a breach of the ToS which would just get thrown out of court because it's asinine. No one would suffer legal repercussions for making a G+ account for their dog or couch.

Deception is not illegal unless it has moved on to something like fraud.

We're under a nebulous ToS, not a contract. None of these are legal issues.

And yes, we do have to draw a line somewhere. Google is drawing new lines constantly and with no consistency. If they can't have a standard set of what's okay and what isn't, they need to let us deal with things ourselves because they're not fit to.
If you ignore someone in a hangout, we immediately mute their audio and video to keep you safe.'s just a video chat.  What harm is someone from a distance in a video feed going do me? Spit on me?  Be physically violent toward me?  While I don't disagree that these might be effective controls in hangouts for some, I probably won't use them.
They're irrelevant because Google's an American company. 

No, that's not a legal repercussion. Here's a section from a conversation I just had with a lawyer friend from Virginia:

And I think your solution is terrible. Leaving things up to algorithms is ridiculous and usually causes more trouble than it's worth, especially if it's for something as simple as someone being a dick. If someone's being a dick to you, then block them. If someone's committing libel, then report them for that. Or, better yet, if someone's just being a dumbass about it, then ignore it unless it's actually going to affect your life. Most people won't have their lives affected by one internet idiot calling them a pedophile in a random post on Google+.
Yes, but that was if there was a problem with the algorithm. 

>I never said it was illegal to post nudity, but it is a breach of contract, which is a legal thing!

You said that aside from the first issue, they were all legal issues. You can clearly see that my friend explained it's not a legal issue, nor a legal repercussion.

>You are making some semantic distinction

Yes, because the semantics are essential. 

> The point remains, that google is able to decide what goes on in its private space subject to certain limitations through a contractual agreement with you. 

And I never denied that. What I denied was that most of the things listed were illegal, like you claimed they were and I said that Google's response to you breaching the ToS is not a legal repercussion.
The problem with libel isn't that it's a "breach of contract", it's that libel is illegal. It's a criminal offense that is punishable by law. That's the difference. For something to be a legal issue/result in legal repercussions, it must be against the law.
But they're still punishable by law. In California, libel falls under defamation which is punishable by law. Disregarding a ToS is not because it's not considered a formal contract.

Either way, this has completely derailed. My entire point was that, with the exception of a few cases, most situations can be dealt with by blocking a particular user.
Love the fact that G+ is a place where people can disagree and have a spirited debate that sometimes includes passionate speech, sometimes not appropriate for everyone. I also love the artwork that is done and sometimes shows a person nude, I mean art not porn. There are plenty of places for that. We need a better censor system to appeal to the most conservative among us, however, please don't limit speech here. There are several great ideas in this post that could work. Thanks for all of your work +Pavni Diwanji 
I sincerely appreciate time you all have put in to give us feedback and full range of perspectives here.
Any updates on how you plan to utilize our feedback?
It would be very good to define what is "Pornography or sexually explicit material" in Google's mind set. As the simple human form nude is not considered either in many communities. It is what the form is doing or suggesting that makes either "Porn or sexually explicit". If a person comes across a display of a nude human they can block or un-circle that person, but to classify it as "Porn or sexually explicit" it not correct.
+Selina Elizabeth Kyle  I agree with your comment.  I also control what I see by who I choose to have in my Circles.  I have not seen anything I would consider offensive yet.  I do see where it could be a problem on a public hangout.  I think Google is trying to do a good thing by adding controls.
And yet Pavni never replied  I'll tag her from my own profile, maybe she muted this post.  Or is she perhaps trying to manage something she never even uses?
She has made other posts since this one.
What? Google employees ignoring what the users want? 

I'm just going to link this post on every other post she makes from now on until she gets her shit together.
Ah, but +MOAN LISA, you have such a mesmerising presence about you, That's what probably got you blocked.
That's a great work. Keep it up, I like it because it's very bad to feel insecure. Congratulations
Add a comment...