Shared publicly  - 
 
(Shareable version.)

This happened to me -- I said "NO" every time Google tried to connect my G+ name/profile (thankfully, I don't use my VERY identifiable and unusual legal name), and then I "liked" a comment on a video and responded to it, and it flashed through a quick screen (I did not click on anything) that said something like "Connecting to G+ profile" (without any type of "You cannot leave a comment without connecting" or even "By leaving a comment, you are agreeing to connect" opt-out), and the "like"/comment was suddenly connected to my photo and G+ username.

Google, there is a REASON that I didn't want to connect my G+ profile, or any identifiable profile, to my fucking YouTube account -- THE COMMENTERS ON YOUTUBE.  I don't want them following me to other social media platforms, trolling, harassing, and abusing me.  I don't want to have to be blocking sexist, racist, homophobic, sophomoric, monosyllabic jerks every time I log in.

And I did NOT WANT TO CONNECT MY PICTURE to freaking YouTube -- the name is bad enough, but unless I want to change my G+ icon to something other than this photo of me (which I happen to be quite fond of), I'm now going to have to deal with crude sexual passes whenever I want to leave a comment on YT (which, btw, I'm quite disinclined to do at this point.)

Why do they not understand that shit like this makes (especially female) users feel UNSAFE??!?  If your name is "Bob Smith," you're a face in the crowd.  If your name is "Eleanora Rashid-Feldman" (to pull a random name out of a hat), you've just been identified as female, as someone who may be a member of one or more minority groups, as someone who may be interracial or in an interracial marriage, and YOU'RE SUDDENLY REALLY, REALLY EASY TO FIND.

If your name only has one or two shared namesakes in the world (or, as in my daughter's case, none -- I apparently have one, but he's a man in Eastern Europe), someone can very easily find out where you live, your phone number if it's listed, your address with a little effort.

If your name is "Jennifer Smith," you're less vulnerable, because your name is more common -- but, frankly, is Google's point that it's okay to treat people with less-common names differently, by sharing their legal-name data whether they like it or not, since they don't have the ability to get lost in a sea of people with similar/identical names?

Whatever the case, if you're a battered spouse or a trans woman or an ex-Mormon or an out queer teen who hasn't had The Talk with all of their family members yet, or ANY NUMBER OF OTHER REASONS WHY YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO BE TRACKED DOWN BY SOMEONE, having your name linked in this fashion, without asking permission or giving the ability to rescind permission, creates an unsafe and frankly appalling environment of privacy infringement.

My daughter already has to worry about potential employers being able to Google her with ease due to her unusual name (Google didn't exist when she was born), so she has asked me not to be my usual outspoken self under my legal name, because it's too easy to connect us.  And she's very careful to never use her legal name online, other than in activities directly connected to her university, because she doesn't want to deal with political, sexual, or religious discrimination from someone who might otherwise hire her.

So, thanks, Google -- I guess "Don't be evil" went out the window a while ago.  Your "real names" policy, and particularly the way you went about linking YouTube with G+ profiles even for users who had specifically declined to link them, multiple times, is evil.

The worst part is that I can't even delete my damn YouTube profile now, even if I wanted to, without deleting my entire G+ account and profile (and probably the Gmail account associated it, which I've used for about a decade.

Uncool, Google.  Uncool.
201
49
Yan X. Z's profile photodan phrawzty's profile photoCorwin Brence's profile photoJulian Dockhorn's profile photo
58 comments
 
So glad I have an ultra common name. I really ought to use a generic non-face picture for my profile now, and not the same non-face picture that I may use on sites that actually recognize the importance of privacy.
kat a
+
3
4
3
 
Thanks for reposting this again, Andi.
Andi S
+
3
4
3
 
No problem!  Sorry for having to do it repeatedly, but I appreciated the request and the intent to share it, so I was happy to do it.  Does this one work for you now? :)
kat a
+
2
3
2
 
+Andi S  Oh, you were being super-accomodating. Thank you. And, yes, it works and I've reposted it.

I just wanted to be sure that everyone knew the comments were yours.
 
I was able to keep my youtube nickname, "rouster", and it created a google+ "page" for it, that doesn't link to my real name. It seems odd that other people were forced to use their real name. The only issue I'm having is when I go to youtube I am not signed in (despite being signed in on google), and I have to click sign in, then click on "rouster" when it asks me which account to use.
 
I did as Adam Rouse did. My Youtube name is as it ever was, it's just a "page" now, & I'm reasonably happy with that. The mechanics of Youtube comments are now much better - there's no limit on comment length & there's a level of accountability now so that if you're abused on YouTube in the comments you have some comeback via Google. Don't use YouTube as your main G+ identity - only ever use it as your pseudonymous "page".
 
I think the "real name" thing is fairly recent or at least didn't exist when I signed up. Ironically I went ahead with real name anyway! In my case I've been wandering the Internet for a long time and since my website deals with family genealogy, my name, user and actual are too well known now to hide. That said, I'm an old man and have no trouble understanding the risk of being a known individual on the net. I wish it weren't so but it is. Jesus should have said "assholes are with us always", not just the poor.
 
Real name was never a thing with YouTube but it always was with G+, so now that they're getting people to link their G+ to YT it becomes a factor: most people don't know to, or how to, create a pseudononymous page for their old YT identity & link that to their YT page, so by default they end up outing themselves as their real identities on YT.
 
Uncool, maybe. Evil? I'm sorry, no.
 
That said, YouTube will keep suggesting you change to your main G+ account, and will log you out repeatedly when you're in YouTube under your page ID & in G+ on your main G+ ID.
 
Maybe I'm lucky, but it hasn't bugged me at all since the first couple of times +Matt Moran
 
I'm beginning to accept that our online identity and our real identity are eventually going to be one and the same. It's a luxury we used to take for granted and sharing our personality is something that if you want to do it with full disclosure, you need to be very deliberate. However, a social networking site such as G+, Facebook and even Youtube are not the places to attempt this. 

I'm more frustrated that my previous comments on youtube are not grandfathered into my new merged account.
 
The greatest irony is that I'm looking at a banner at the top of the screen saying "Share just the right things with just the right people".
Andi S
+
2
3
2
 
+Chad Miller Heh -- it was showing up on my G+ feed, right next to a big red square asking me to give them the name of the town where I live.  NOPE!

+Matt Moran I was able to link my YT account to a dead-end G+ "page," after doing a bit of research.  But that should absolutely have been the default, rather than having to opt OUT of using my G+ identity, "real name," photo, etc.  

(I don't have a problem with demanding some level of accountability for comments, but I think that requiring persistent pseudonyms, having a mechanic for banning multiple accounts, and having a reputation system where repeatedly-downvoted commenters are muted -- that last one would require some work, though, to avoid abuse and harassing downvotes of people with unpopular or controversial opinions.)

+Richard Magnano, I don't want to accept that.  I've used a persistent pseudonym for more than a decade (I'm wryly amused that it isn't the name I use here, because I wasn't allowed to use a mononym), I'm well-known under that name, I have friends who call me by that name IN PERSON on occasion, my nametag at events has both my real name and my nym, etc.  

However, I'm very cautious about sharing information that would enable people to track me down physically -- I'm EASY to find, because of my rare surname.  I'd prefer NOT to have YouTube randos showing up at my door, thanks -- or randos from anywhere else on the internet, for that matter.  

I want to be able to participate in discussions, enjoy my fandoms and hobbies, share personal information in filtered posts (NOT on this site), etc., and it's important to me to be aware of what information is being shared with whom, and in what manner.  

I didn't consent to being outed as female or to have my picture shared on YouTube (in fact, my YT profile is so bland as to be nonexistent -- I have a private list of favorite videos, and I've left a few comments over the years, but nothing of great consequence.)  With that said, it was a nasty shock, and a violation of privacy, to have an action performed which I had REPEATEDLY declined (Dear Google: No means fucking NO), to have my accounts linked in a trackable fashion, AND to have my YT pseudonym linked with this account, where I post publicly.  

I realize that companies are collecting and selling my data behind the scenes.  It's an uncomfortable fact of life.  However, I did not consent to having that information publicly shared with others on a site notorious for harassment and abuse, and I'm pretty fucking angry about it, to be honest.

I've rectified the damage, by connecting that account to a dead-end page.  But I'm hoping that Google listens, and that fewer people have to deal with that shock in the future -- and/or that people with reason to fear for their safety don't have a target painted on their backs by a company looking to maximize pageviews.

* * *

Since this is the version of the post being shared, I'll C&P a comment that I just left for +Edward Morbius:

Thanks for the heads-up!!  

I will say, if I understand the thrust of your argument correctly, I disagree about G+ not having plazas -- I've encountered so many people here, who would never have crossed social spheres with me otherwise.  And this is speaking as someone who has a pretty widespread network of friends all over the world -- this is the only site where I have extended conversations with complete strangers.  

I'm generally a walled-garden person -- I'm still a LiveJournal-using dinosaur.  I prefer deliberately choosing who gets access to my thoughts and personal information -- G+ is a space, to me, to talk about larger issues as well as minutiae.  

I think that the working hashtags are a step in the right direction, so that people who are following a particular topic can find discussions that they wouldn't have otherwise encountered.  And this is the only site where I regularly post on a public setting -- everything else is under my persistent pseudonym that I've used for a decade-plus, and Facebook (which I avoid like the plague, if I can, but there are people I want to keep in touch with, who have migrated there and aren't budging) gets a different persistent pseudonym, because I'm damned if I want random bio-family members tracking me down.

That's the direction things are going, though -- I'm deeply concerned that the days of the persistent pseudonym (which I do think allows for respectful discourse and earned reputation) are numbered, if Google has anything to say about it.  

It's a damned shame, because it's going to silence a lot of voices who would otherwise be heard . . . but who don't want to be posting under a name which is effortlessly accessible by family, exes, employers, government agencies, etc.
Andi S
+
7
8
7
 
Also, HELLO, HACKER NEWS!! *waves*

It was a surprise finding out that my post had made your front page, but it's sparking some fantastic discussions -- thanks for the upvotes and the thoughtful comments, and I'm going to have to set up an account there at some point in order to leave responses! :)

(BTW -- sometimes a strip of bacon is only a strip of bacon.  I swear! *grin*)
Andi S
+
2
3
2
 
+Chris Rosenau Ugh, that is terrible!! I already get weird looks for not sharing my phone number with businesses (I'm not talking about opening a bank account, I'm talking about buying a sweater), and I have an unlisted number for a REASON.  I get very few spam calls (in fact, I get wrong numbers more often than I get spam calls/texts), and I prefer to keep it that way.

I chose not to give Facebook my telephone number, because I frankly don't trust them -- and, great, now this company thinks that my financial status, trustworthiness, creditworthiness, etc., should be tied to how many of their customers have my phone number.  BRILLIANT.
Andi S
+
2
3
2
 
+Chris Kankiewicz, I've already seen G+ users complaining about YT comments spamming their feeds, especially since YT users are up in arms and posting prolifically at the moment.  

In terms of my YT experience "getting better" -- I use YT to watch videos, and occasionally to add them to my favorites.  I rarely comment, although I do "like" videos that I enjoy.  I actually have no intention of treating YT as a more social-network-oriented site, and I'd prefer to keep YT commenters off my social sites, unless they're interested in constructive conversation.  
And I specifically don't want the harassers and abusers following me "home" (literally or figuratively), which is why I was so appalled that Google decided to opt me in to sharing my personal information on YouTube, without notice or consent.
 
I never log onto YT to watch videos. I occasionally forget to log out of G+ to watch YT videos and so have an attached account there now. That doesn't freak me out for reasons +Andi S has explained. Lots of Henrys. What freaked me out is the phone I use is not in my name but my name appeared on a relative's caller ID from this number. WTF?  No anonymity anywhere is the future. I need to read more Philip K Dick. We can blame 9/11 and the Patriot Act for all this bullshit. There are marketing "tags" in clothing now that only transmit when exposed to certain "readers" in department stores and such. Anyone can get anyone else's info if they have a little savvy and the need/desire. Hate to be so negative but reality is a bummer sometimes. This problem will not get better until we reign in the Coporate Elite money and privacy grabbing motherfuckers. Kiss privacy goodbye.
Andi S
+
3
4
3
 
+Michael Henry That's disturbing.  (And, yeah, my phone was in my father's name for years -- in part because I couldn't be bothered to make the change, in part because I preferred it to be listed under something other than my current last name.)  

It's now unlisted, and I appreciate having that level of privacy.  Not sure how it appears in Caller ID, to be honest, since -- outside of businesses -- I generally am only calling people who already have me as a contact in their phones . . . but it would be nice if I had a choice about how it was displayed.

I'm definitely not ready to kiss my privacy goodbye -- and I know that I'm making a conscious decision to put a public face on discussions like this (which is why I value G+ as a platform -- I'm most likely to talk to interesting strangers here, whereas I tend to make more-personal posts elsewhere), rather than entirely existing behind an alias or nym . . . but I think there is value in having some of these public discussions, even though it does create exposure.

The key is that I've chosen what pieces of information are public-facing in this forum, and those pieces of information differ, based on the social platform I'm using (i.e., under my nym, I'm a lot more open about personal info, but I wouldn't put much of that on G+) . . . and I'm getting seriously annoyed with Google doing its best to remove my granular control of what information I'm sharing with the public.

I'm under no illusions that Google couldn't track me down if it wanted to -- but I'm not choosing to share everything with everyone, which is kind of the whole point of this.  

For safety reasons alone (as well as perfectly relevant privacy reasons), it's an unwise move on Google's part to start sharing customer information in unexpected and startling ways -- and the userbase is responding, probably more vehemently than they expected.
 
I hope Google backs off.  Until then, I'll be waiting for the Men In Black to show up at my door anytime. ( I used to love those old stories, apparently, they still happen )      :)
 
Very sorry to hear about this Sandi, I really hope someone from the appropriate team sees this (amongst many, many other stories like this) and takes some kind of action.
 
+Andi S  Just bumping my warrens/plazas comments over here as well (which, actually, is part of the whole warrens/plazas argument, come to think of it):

This is yet another part of G+ I've decided bugs me a lot.  It's part of the "warrens and plazas" aspect of the service -- ultimately it's all warrens and no plazas -- the whole site is socially engineered so that no significant discussion can really launch and take off.  Effectively, H/N is the plaza here -- it's a place (plaza) where many people can gather, and collectively choose what it is they wish to discuss.  Reddit is another such plaza, though there the main downside is that, as presented by default, what it lacks are the personal warrens -- an equivalent of a G+ Profile page on which people can simply post their own content.

The thing is, you need both warrens and plazas.  Warrens are where a lot of brainstorming and hashing out of ideas happens -- they're smaller and, if not necessarily private per se (though they can be), tend to make entry at least slightly difficult.  This means that the audience is selective (how it's selected has a lot to do with the level of conversation that happens), and ideas can be developed.

G+ has lots of warrens.  Every post and profile is a warren.  Heck, even most Communities are warrens -- they're not widely shared, you cannot "follow" a user and see their Community posts to your Home Stream by default (though they generally show on their Profile page if public, unless they've disabled this).

But it's really difficult for a widespread discussion of a particular topic to develop. This post, for example, has some 19 total shares, 10 of which are private.  But if you want to see the conversation on those other shares, you've got to track them down individually (I've at least visited the public re-shares to give my upvote).

Oh, and neither this nor any of the other related G+ posts on this topic were showing in "What's Hot" when I reviewed it earlier (and again now) despite the plusses, comments, and shares.  Whatevs (though, too, hitting "WH" is more a curse than a blessing.

So, as with you, I've crossed paths with some really interesting people, and I'm going to miss some.  But among my other issues with the Plus has been the lack of respect it's shown for my time and interests, something +Homer Slated details in his post here:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/102946757503830834230/posts/Mim3MwZTrXc
(NB:  strong language).

Especially in this comment:

[W]hat Google is doing is, essentially, telling me that it's found a word in the dictionary that I might be interested in, that it's seven letters long and contains the letter "g", but rather than just telling me what the word is, or even linking directly to it, it simply links me to a dictionary, then expects me to spend hours trawling through that dictionary just to finds that word....

If there was a single word that could concisely sum up Google, it would be "vague". Google is deliberately vague, it's notifications are vague, the way it handles articles and comments is vague, its search results are vague ... and by no accident. Google is deliberately vague because it wants to steer you away from what's actually relevant to you, and what actually interests you, to those things it wants you to become interested in.

The result is an experience which time and again makes work (something a lot of the YouTube top contribs have criticized).  Among other factors, it's something else I'm sick of.

More:  http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1qsuuh/once_more_on_the_respect_my_privacy_point/
Andi S
+
1
2
1
 
*nods* I'm in partial agreement with you on the warrens/plazas issue (for example, following 3 re-shares of the same link, with 3 different discussions going on, and not enough information in my e-mail to know which thread the notifications are coming from, is a pain in the ass), but I still do think that G+ does provide some value in providing public space for shared interests.  With that said, its structure does make it difficult to follow, particularly from mobile devices.

I like the "7-letter word" analogy quite a bit -- Google's attempts to steer me in the direction of what it thinks I'm going to be interested in are . . . laughably vague.  (The targeted ads I get in Gmail are straight-up bizarre, since I blog about everything from disability issues to technology to nature to LOLcats, with frequent stops in anti-racist/anti-homophobic/anti-misogynist territory.  

A friend's response to a post about me being sick today resulted in ads for skin tighteners, key lime pie, and credit-score ratings.  At least the one about bathtubs referenced something mentioned in the e-mail? *boggle*

I'll check out your links tomorrow -- g'night! :)
 
I understand the reason of having a single Google Account to access Google Services.

But I do not understand the obsessive behavior of always linking all Google services to Google+. If it was a "private page" where it is only accessible by myself, and no one can follow it or view it, then that would have been much better. But instead of calling it page, they should call it "Identities" cause Page is a confusing term.

Does YouTube want to get rid of their profile and convert them to Google+ pages? Perhaps that is their end goal. At the end of day, I am using less Google+/Anonymous (or no commenting) on YouTube/and using Windows 8.1 Mail app to access Gmail. Because seeing that Google+ notification icon on every single Google service is distracting and annoying me
 
So make a page, name it Anonymous or whatever, upload a picture of a cat and leave comments as that page.
 
+Aleksandr Oreshkin Oddly enough, until recently my profile coverphoto was a cat.

As for creating a page, I don't see where that option is presented to me.
 
I recently sent feedback about the dark patterns they use to trick people into connecting their YouTube accounts to their google accounts. I connected mine accidentally once.. I totally agree that the "don't become evil" is a thing of the past, which is very unfortunate.
 
Anyone who works for Google has to think seriously about what they're getting up in the morning to do every day.
 
How to get a downvote button on HN: post two things that get a few hundred upvotes. So now you know.

I'm slightly surprised just how far down Google's stock is with the smart kids. HN is legendarily SV-focused startup-wannabe brogrammers, but they're also a pretty reliable weathervane for where technology is heading in the next year or two. Google has blown its cool.
 
Here is how I deal with not only this issue, but with Googles tracking: I pin to my taskbar 2 IE pages, one for G+ and another for Facebook.

This way when I'm using Firefox for daily work and/or surfing, I can use another account with no personal identification.
 
I'm the only one with my specific name. Though as I'm a white male, I'm in a better situation. It does still mean I am careful about e.g. political statements in a way I wouldn't be if I had a more common name, though.

That Google so totally fail to understand and/or respect how important the ability to choose an identity is, though, shows that they just don't understand people. Which is fairly worrying for a company with so much of our data.
 
Just so you know that you can delete your G+ account and Youtube account but keep your Gmail account.

Good luck in this lame situation…
 
After I said "No" enough times it let me use a pseudonym; I wonder why others aren't given the same option?
 
Google's definitely an evil company and definitely the most dangerous one considering the amount of information they possess on people.

I've been de-Googling myself for a while. Just quit using as many of their products and services as possible.
 
+Melanie Brands  Y'know, I sorta started this thread (Andi's linking to a post of mine here), and even I'd stop at calling Google "evil".  I'd settle for "soulless" and "broken culture", which are already fairly bad.

But Google do fight some pretty good fights.  Which is why I'm honestly torn about this whole thing.

But it's reached the point that I am distinctly uncomfortable with the amount of data they have, in particular, mine.
Andi S
+
1
2
1
 
+kestthewondergirl, I can see that you're female, I can see who has you circled and the people we have in common, and there's a link to your YouTube account.  So -- some amount of identifying information, although it's under a pseudonym.
 
Holy shit, kest cracked the s3kr1t G+ pseudonym code!
 
I just want to point out that Google's plan is to integrate ALL of their services to Plus.  Not just You Tube.

And yes, they don't want anyone using a Pseudonym.  Because they're still under the mistaken belief that real names make people better people online.

This goes back to just months after Plus originally launched, to a subject "Affectionately" referred to as the #Nymwars  
 
+kestthewondergirl What you should have is that name operating as a G+ page, as then there are no name restrictions, and no requirement to declare a gender.  Its likely your existing account will be flagged for a name policy violation at some point.

At the moment you're using a G+ profile.  They look nearly identical which I think is a big UI flaw, but there are some big differences in what you can do with them and how they operate.  
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2848323
 
Yay! :-) Pseudonymity at last...
Andi S
+
1
2
1
 
+Paul Brocklehurst She specifically deleted her account.  And yet, when she tried to use YouTube, she was reconnected to her "deleted" account, which included personal information like gender and friends.  Obviously, G+ doesn't actually "delete" deactivated accounts, or else that information wouldn't still be available.

(+kestthewondergirl is a friend of mine, and I remember when she DID choose to delete her account during the Nymwars -- so, yes, she did follow the instructions, and Google still retained her data, and made it public when she linked her YouTube account.  Guess it's a good thing, for her sake, that she WAS in realname violation, eh?)
 
Didn't Google promise at some stage not to keep data longer than eighteen months? Or was that just search?
Andi S
+
3
4
3
 
+Paul Brocklehurst Kest would have to answer that one herself.  Google is somewhat opaque about the process: https://support.google.com/plus/answer/3100745?hl=en

However, you would think that if the account were suspended and the page were disabled, the associated information about contacts/circles/gender would have been deleted/purged, yes?  And, obviously, that was not the case here.
 
I've been following #nymwars with some interest since it started. It's interesting because these are the exact same debates that raged on BBSes decades ago.

Anyway, I've noticed most of the people complaining about the real name policy, which they don't appear to my eyes to be enforcing anymore, are complaining about harassment from people who just keep generating new accounts after getting blocked or banned. Thing in that is you can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can have either verified real person accounts, or you can have the current situation where people can just keep generating stock puppet accounts. But there is no way to have it both ways. Those are the breaks. 
 
+Greg Santos  - exposing someones Personally Identifiable Information without their permission is evil because, as Andi described, it will expose some people to harm, and Google has no way of preventing that.

To give an example of how important this is considered by large organizations, Wikipedia views the exposing of someones identity as so important, that +Phil Sandifer was banned indefinitely from editing for identifying Cla68 on his own blog - not even on Wikipedia itself!
 
+David Gerard - Best of luck. I've been reading Phil's posts and I think they need a good old fashioned clue by four, and I think you could provide that.
Also, that example was intended to be a little spurious :-)
 
Isn't whether Google are evil or not a matter of opinion though, tied to public knowledge or ignorance of them doing harm?
Andi S
+
2
3
2
 
I think it's . . . hmm.  It's a matter of personal opinion as to whether certain acts qualify as "evil" . . . there are some things that are absolutely beyond the pale, and others that may differ from person to person.  I think that they're pushing the boundaries here, because they're pursuing a course of action that is going to result in someone being made unsafe because of their personal information being revealed to the wrong people, and despite ample warnings and feedback, they're doing it anyway.

To me, if someone says "You're endangering domestic violence victims, political dissidents, GLBTQ people, etc.," the non-evil thing is to reconsider your actions and to see if there's an alternate plan to violating individual privacy.

BTW, as an example of how important it is to be able to create and maintain walls between identities/nyms, and for the user to be in charge of whether or not to merge those identities in a publicly-facing way, here's an example of why Google's services can be particularly problematic when used to connect identities that were not intentionally merged -- some smartass decided to make a point about how "some people who claim they want privacy really don't value their privacy," and then proceeded to casually dox me on a public forum.  

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6755622

Very uncool, and a really unpleasant experience -- although it proves my point that women (and other marginalized groups) need the option to choose how much personal information they share with the world, and that Google's attempts to bind together disparate identities can be used to do real-life harm.

And, yeah, that's why we can't have nice things -- no more happy bacon picture, sadly.
Andi S
 
Yeah, I know.  I loved that picture, and since there was no way to make it private/friends-only, even though I'd already replaced it, I had to delete it, and all its associated comments.

Makes me sad that people have to be this way :/
Andi S
+
1
2
1
 
Oh -- and in regard to G+/YouTube -- it just got even better.  I switched browsers (this computer needs repair, and Firefox doesn't use as much memory as Chrome), followed a non-G+ link to a YouTube video . . . and at the top, it said "YOU ARE SIGNED IN AS ANDI S" again, with my (new) picture.

Dammit -- am I going to have to tell it to switch to the nym account (my former YT username) every time I use a different browser, or clear my cache, or log into another computer??  Before, I was either logged-in or logged-out.  None of this bullshit about automatically logging me in under ANOTHER NAME, one that I DIDN'T CHOOSE TO SHARE WITH THEM. 

Seriously, people don't necessarily want to have their "real name" and photo attached to YouTube -- and if I say to switch accounts, it should bloody well STAY switched . . . there should be no further occurrences of me being logged into YouTube under this user profile!!

*fuming*
Add a comment...