Shared publicly  - 
So, it appears that +The Colbert Report has decided to have a little fun with us. (Clip from the show here: He's asked his viewers to post the following message on YouTube channels around the world, in protest against the imminent threat of actual conversations happening on YouTube.

I’m sorry, Mr. Colbert, but I can’t quite hear you over the sound of our spam filters. You’re just going to have to try a little harder if you want to get millions of people to say identical, contentless things on the Internet. In the meantime, check out this cool channel, buy cialis cheap & legal: Have a nice day.
Chris Woodley's profile photoOak Morandin's profile photoMichael Atkinson's profile photoPhillip Ressler's profile photo
Apparently, the speed of information is too fast for Colbert to spin....
This is the first time liquid has passed through my nose since grade school
You're moving with your auntie and your uncle in Colbert-Air!
Yonatan, I think I can speculate freely here since I never looked at filter or quality code: when comment quality first got brought up, I wondered how mostly content-free "I don't agree or support so am not posting a comment in lieu of a +1, but am stating the same opinion as dozens of others" comments should be handled. I mean, they aren't quite content-free, as their entire point is the quantity of them.

We can say that speech whose quality is irrelevant ("loud, not smart") is speech we don't want to encourage, but that doesn't make it spam or its analogue. Like, would a filter that suppressed all those "you don't own me Facebook" faux-legalese posts from a few years ago have been a good thing? Seeing how many people reposted it showed that there was a privacy interest there, one we were responding to with Google+.
+Trey Harris Well, this particular post was a large number of text-identical copies of a post with a link to an unsubtle spam site in it, so let's just say that it was slightly less ambiguous than normal. :)
So if you work from home and lose belly fat then you're a proud member of the LGBT community and Ron Paul will become president a year back? 
<grin> You know I was ruminating; I don't think this one was a particularly hard case, I was just thinking about ones that an incomplete AI might see as the same as this one.

The FB legalese post was text-identical, too, but it did have a greater level of content in its mere existence. (Though satire is always a tough one; we tend to agree that, in the realm of viral speech, "political speech > humorous speech" in terms of being deserving of consideration and protection, but satire can maddeningly blur the line.)
A wonderful window on human "thought" is closing. Too bad. 
Wikipedia had to shut down a page to edits and block new users from registering for a while due to a similar stunt Colbert decided to ask his viewers to pull.
I dislike the idea of forcing people to sign up for G+ in order to comment (I get the purpose, and like the integration, but) when you force people into something they don't really want (or think they don't want) they will either resent it and/or go elsewhere. It also looks to them like Google is only making the change to boost numbers, and does give "Ghost Town" fodder for every extra inactive account it creates.
That is hilarious! In my opinion cleaning up the YouTube comment streams is a big deal and I am looking forward to it.
+Patty Rose I've disliked every single service integration that Google has forced on their users (the ones who didn't quit in frustration, that is) ever since Page took over the company.  But they're not going to budge.  Resistance is futile.  You will be assimilated and "social"ized.
+Patrick Leonard It's not a DOS attack. Flooding the congressional switchboard isn't an attempt to deny opponents the ability to contact their congressman, it's an attempt to make a point about how many people agree with you.
+Noah Friedman I actually love the integration, I hate the "forced" bit. Some of my friends have deleted their YouTube account already over the whole thing.
Yeah, I've had friends delete their gmail accounts too, after the 'nym debate and the linkage of gmail accounts to G+ accounts. 

I regret having used the same account for my android phone as I use for G+ as I use for gmail as I use for youtube, because of the risks associated with account suspension.  I don't think my behavior comes even close to violating any TOS, but who knows.  Even when it's a mistake, the appeals process is slow and unpredictable and in the meantime you are totally hosed if you used your google account for things like two-factor authentication on other websites.
Personally, I've been so amused by the herp-derp Chrome extension that I will probably just continue to use it, and never see these new and improved comments. herp derp derp. 
Hate is an emotion I reserve for stuff I have to pay for which sucks, like Microsoft bloatware.
Google should at least allow people the option to see regular comments and not be subject to censorship by the youtube user or some algorithm.
Eh, even though I'm not a fan of the forced integration, almost anything will be better than the current cesspool that youtube comments are.  I welcome the change.
+Tony Bonavera Channel owners have the right to kick things off their channel, but not to shut down the discussion overall. That's one of the advantages of the fact that, in the new system, comments are also G+ posts: it means that, no matter what the channel owner says, you can keep having your discussion and talking about what a prat the channel owner is.
+Lisa Borel If you don't, spend a while reading through the Internet. You'll find more than you ever wanted. :)
+Patty Rose I don't think it's quite correct to be thinking about Google+ as being a separate Google product .  It's becoming more and more the case that complaining about having to sign-up for Google+ to do X is just as nonsensical as complaining about having to sign up for a Google account to do X.  Google+ is just Google's new account management system.  The social networking features are complementary.
+Lisa Borel +Yonatan Zunger 
actually, "prat" is an old Anglo Saxon word for "wise man". The negative connotation was introduced by Norman overlords, just like "churl" (ceorl) means "free man". "Prattling on" is a related word. So you probably know quite a few useful prats, as well as other annoying ones.
Well, you killed Youtube comments for some people. I don't wanna use my real name on silly Youtube videos. I don't wanna create a separate Google account only to comment on silly Youtube videos. I'm not spamming/trolling in my Youtube comments, but I don't really believe EVERYTHING you do on Internet should bear your signature (and I'm talking about little stupid and harmless things, not hacking/spamming/hate speech/etc). Remember Blizzard's Real ID controversy?
+Patty Rose well you wold be forced to creat an profile on youtube to comment, whats the diference to create one on g+ to comment? just make it private and be done with it, the way you say it, it seems that by just creating a page on g+ you are obligated to share things and that you are going to show your face and etc, but thats not true, as i said, creat a profile put a picture of a cat and done, the same way you wold do with a profile on youtube, or any other platform to comment...
Obviously, I already have a g+ profile. The problem is with people who already have a YouTube profile, and don't want a g+ profile (in addition or instead). They don't want to be active on g+, and they don't want to have a social media profile for a platform they are inactive on. And like I said, I get what Google is trying to do (one profile/password for all of Google, using g+ as a central hub). It's not a question of them being forced to be active on g+, it's the fact that they don't want people to go looking for them where they won't be. Some of them are leaving YouTube as a result (not just commenters, but content creators as well).

Again, I like the integration, I don't like that it's being forced.
But if you use your real g+, people dont get to see nothing from you, your profile is particular, and as i said, its the same thing to do a profile on g+ just to comment as it is to make a profile on youtube just to comment. to make a comment on youtube you have to have a profile as so with every other site, so that is forced too.
+Magnum M my real G+ profile uses my real name. I don't want to use my real name everywhere.
If I ever knew Google will force us to use our real name everywhere, I would have created a fake Google account (e.g. use a fake name) and use it everywhere they forced me to use a real account. Unfortunately, now I have too many things on my "real name" account (Google Play stuff, Google+ stuff, pictures on Picasa etc), so I can't easily switch to a fake one.
So to comment on youtube you wold like to make a profile without your real name right? you HAVE to have some kind of user there, so waths the diference to make a user on youtube with a fake name and doing a profile on g+ with a fake name?
+Bogdan Sladaru you can have multiple accounts, and you don't have to use your real name (they changed that rule long ago).
Again +Magnum M , they don't want a g+ profile because it connects them to a social network they don't want to be on, they don't want an inactive profile. They already have a YouTube account, they don't want it linked. It's not a question of difficulty, or being signed in to something, it's about being signed in/connected to something they don't want to be part of (and didn't have to be before).
As I said, and again, g+ is not only a social platform, it is your google passport, you dont have to use the social part if you dont want to, simple as that, the same way you dont have to use the social part of youtube profile, like putting your picture and personal videos. I still cant see the problem here.
To bad you can because you will have to use for all google services :)
I know I can create a different account for Youtube, but you can be logged in with a single account at the time, so if I'm logged to G+ and then open a Youtube page I'll have to log off and log in with a different account. That's too much hassle and that means I'll never comment on Youtube again, and I'll never use Youtube to upload movies, I'll use a different service that doesn't link to my current Google account. That's simple...
Real life case: I have an account somewhere and I posted pictures and movies with my cats. I don't wanna use my real name there, not because I'm trolling or posting something offensive, but I simply prefer to use a nickname. With the new rule, the new movies I would upload on Youtube would appear with my real name (I know, I can create a new account. I don't want that, and I doubt Google wants 5 different accounts for each user...). That's why I'll use Vimeo or God knows what other service in the future.
Or you can use another browser to use youtube with another account which is esasy enough and stop tring to find trouble with this...
Or buy a different computer only for Youtube uploads, right? Or go to a friend's house and upload the movies from his computer.

Why should I use a different browser for this? Do you even know how absurd this sounds?
you are really trying to make this sound dificilt when in fact its not, dont you have two browser in your computer? everyone does, the default and probably chrome, use the other one to use your anonimous account, no trouble, done.
No, I'm not trying to make it difficult, the solution is just absurd. I use one computer for all my needs (I don't have a computer for playing games and one for Internet browsing), I use one wallet to store my money and cards (I don't walk with 2 wallets), I use one device to talk, write messages, read emails on the go (I don't carry 1 phone to talk, 1 phone to write SMSs and 1 device to read emails when I'm not at home). Why should I use 2 different browsers? Everybody wants to make things SIMPLER, by unifying things as much as possible, and you suggest me to do the other way?
+Yonatan Zunger The problem is that the most positive side of the ecosystem is the most negative. It's good when people won't dare spam and send some trash to others on popular sites, profiles, channels and etc because they will lose the ability to use it properly in case of ban.
But with reputation of Google in this field it's a little scary to have possibility to lose everything. Google account now is too big thing to continue to treat it like an usual profile on the Internet. All devices, almost all services everything relies on this one account. That by expirience of old Google, when it served basically workers (ad sellers, content providers and etc), company is dead serious and really not nice when it comes to bans accounts.

Would be really good to hear some features based on not stolen account but banned ones either. Maybe then people won't argue so much by this centrally trend of Google ecosystem.

Google Takeout isn't that good to get some proper backup and be sure that tomorrow i still will be able to continue use all of my stuff here.

ps: Sorry for my awful English.
+Bogdan Sladaru I sugeted you use another browser, with one click you open another brwoser, you are the one triping saying about another computer... gezz...
+Magnum M I thought it was obvious that was just an exaggeration (same as "going to a friend's house") meant to enhance what I was saying: that it's absurd to suggest using another browser (or computer, or whatever) to do a single task.
I suppose there are Chrome plugins that can help you switch the account with one click, but why should we do that? Every improvement should help us be more efficient and help us, not impair us.
Ok I see now... well the fact is that to me is not a problem, I dont troll and I dont watch stupid videos like the lates miley cirus clip, so I think I am no in danger by using my real name there. But if you like to troll and call other people names because you are anonimous them these people are kinda of in trouble and will have to make another account.
If by "real name" you mean Magnum M, then yes, you're using your real name. And I don't troll, call people names or whatever. I just don't want to use my real name everywhere.
Yes, thats my real name, and I did not said you troll I said to people who do that.
+Bogdan Sladaru +Magnum M Just to clarify one thing: with Chrome, you don't need to use a second browser for a second set of accounts, cookies, etc. Just add a user profile (chrome://settings/createProfile is the direct link). User profiles are sort of like Incognito mode in being a separate sandbox for all account and pervasive browser data, except unlike Incognito mode, they don't get thrown away between sessions.

(You can also use multilogin for your Google accounts by clicking your photo in the upper-right on Gmail, YouTube, etc., and switching between them, but I suspect you'd be more comfortable with completely separate profiles.)
I know that, but most users don´t that is why I said to use a new browser if he is afrad people will see his comments on youtube... even though I do not have him on g+ but can see his name here...
+Magnum M People not knowing about stuff like multi-login and user profiles and being able to link YouTube to Pages is part of the problem here. Education about these features will help dispel the FUD.
+Magnum M I honestly doubt your full name on your ID card is "Magnum M", but it really doesn't matter.
+Yonatan Zunger, +Trey Harris maybe if Google would explain that when they're making changes, people wouldn't overreact. Everywhere I read about the change it sounded like it will forced sooner or later, even if you choose not to do it right now.
+Bogdan Sladaru "Full name" ≠ "real name". A name and an initial is perfectly valid. But let's not derail into another nyms argument, okay?
+Trey Harris he said he's using his "real name" and when I say "real name" I understand the full name from the ID card. Bogdan S is NOT my real name.
Anyway, I'll mute this post, so there's no need to answer, I already spent too much time arguing over a stupid change.
I already deleted my Youtube account and I won't bother creating another one, I won't comment on YT and I won't upload videos. I'm not a celebrity, which means nobody cares if I comment/upload to Youtube. However, judging by the comments I read on various sites/forums, I'm not the only one that did this. Too bad Google failed to clearly communicate that this change is PURELY OPTIONAL and you're not forced to use you real account name (if that's your real life name or just Bilbo Baggins it's another discussion); a lot of people assumed that this change will be soon enforced to those users that refused the change.
Wow—did he really just admit he was arguing with a different policy than the one that actually exists, and then announce he's muting the post? Keepin' it classy there.
On a serious note i kinda are with colbert. Youtube comments are the freeest speech there is. I personally like them even if people argue. (only exception is the working from home spam) Please clean up the spam like you intend on but leave the ron paul 2012 ect, i enjoy them. Further more it helps fuel the internet and sites such as 9gag
+Bogdan Sladaru You do? do you live in my country? do you know me? hahaha people go to so much lenghts to try to prove they are right...
Add a comment...