Google Begins Practically Begging You to Use Your Real Name on YouTube(betabeat.com)
betabeat.com
Google Begins Practically Begging You to Use Your Real Name on YouTube
http://betabeat.com/2012/07/start-using-your-full-name-begs-desperate-youtube-message/
25 comments
Wow. That is pretty terrible. Assuming you left the comment, did you try a browser in private mode to confirm the """"preview"""" was in fact limited to only you?
No, when you select "I don't know, I'll decide later", the account does stay pseudonymous. So there is a way out, it's just not easy, because you need to choose a "legit" reason for not using the real name (e.g. "my channel name is for a show or character"). You can't simply dismiss it permanently. I haven't been reminded yet, though.
This isn't about Youtube, this is simply use of a property with a massive userbase owned by Google to promote its strategic priority du jour, which is getting traction for Google+. This is hardly the first time Google has done this -- for example, they'll often bootstrap key products with "Oh yeah, we have a mortal lock on navigation on the Internet." That's why Google Video (and later Youtube) got such prominent billing in the search results, why Chrome has a front-page-of-the-Internet banner ad on the homepage of the company that doesn't do banner ads, etc.
+ Edit to add: A quick check of a few diverse searches show that Youtube is substantially less prominent than I remember it being.
+ Edit to add: A quick check of a few diverse searches show that Youtube is substantially less prominent than I remember it being.
Not necessarily just to get traction for Google+ but I believe that Google is also competing directly with Facebook to control your "Identity on the internet". Once one of these monolithic companies controls your identity they can then directly target you no matter where you are on the internet. It's kind of scary, and I believe that it's a fight that Google is destined to win.
Google does sell image ads, though I suppose they never put them on their own properties.
What is the rationale of such demand ?
This reminds me Schneir's objection to biometric identification. What do we do if it's compromized ? There is no way we could change it.
One should obviously be able to publish a video that we made without disclosing our identity. Supose I film my cat in my living room showing also the nice HiFi installation behind it. If it is published under my name, it would be like publishing my address on the HiFi.
If as a teenager I film and publish a party where I wouldn't be at my advantage, I don't want that my name is associate to it forever.
I must be able to reset my Internet image and reputation. Especially for young people. Google is already very reluctant to remove references on demand.
At least this now gives something competitors can differentiate with.
We need a place where we can create a virtual identity we can throw away. An identity that we can use as signature for publishing comments, articles and videos.
This reminds me Schneir's objection to biometric identification. What do we do if it's compromized ? There is no way we could change it.
One should obviously be able to publish a video that we made without disclosing our identity. Supose I film my cat in my living room showing also the nice HiFi installation behind it. If it is published under my name, it would be like publishing my address on the HiFi.
If as a teenager I film and publish a party where I wouldn't be at my advantage, I don't want that my name is associate to it forever.
I must be able to reset my Internet image and reputation. Especially for young people. Google is already very reluctant to remove references on demand.
At least this now gives something competitors can differentiate with.
We need a place where we can create a virtual identity we can throw away. An identity that we can use as signature for publishing comments, articles and videos.
(disclaimer: I work for Google, and dislike the Google+ names policy)
In this case, it's not a demand; the user has already entered a Google+ name, and Google is offering to show that name on the user's YouTube account.
The concern here is about privacy, not physical security. Thinking up unrealistic danger scenarios is not productive.
You ask for the ability to "reset" an identity, but this is impossible. You can't un-break an egg. Everything posted to the internet is public and potentially eternal.
In twenty years, the idea of posting something risqué under one's legal name will be considered as foolish as stapling bank statements and tax returns to a telephone pole.
In this case, it's not a demand; the user has already entered a Google+ name, and Google is offering to show that name on the user's YouTube account.
> Supose I film my cat in my living room showing also the nice
> HiFi installation behind it. If it is published under my
> name, it would be like publishing my address on the HiFi.
The concern here is about privacy, not physical security. Thinking up unrealistic danger scenarios is not productive.
> If as a teenager I film and publish a party where I wouldn't
> be at my advantage, I don't want that my name is associate
> to it forever.
>
> I must be able to reset my Internet image and reputation.
> Especially for young people. Google is already very
> reluctant to remove references on demand.
You ask for the ability to "reset" an identity, but this is impossible. You can't un-break an egg. Everything posted to the internet is public and potentially eternal.
In twenty years, the idea of posting something risqué under one's legal name will be considered as foolish as stapling bank statements and tax returns to a telephone pole.
> We need a place where we can create a virtual identity we
> can throw away. An identity that we can use as signature
> for publishing comments, articles and videos.
> it's practically impossible for a viewer to match a name
> (even your legal name) to your physical location.
Your premise is fine for single videos from someone named Mike Jones, but surely you're familiar with the concept of "bits of information" needed to uniquely identify someone online?
Agreed. The book "how to be invisible" makes a good case for how easy it is to match a persons name to their address and why this is a bad thing.
Even if your name was James Dickerson or something like that, given any other context, it becomes much easier to find someone. I mean, this is Internet 101. I can't believe this is coming from anyone that works at Google. Really??
http://33bits.org/about/
33 bits (actually, 32.6) is enough to identify anyone personally.
As others have noted, there are multiple cases in which people have been identified through their online postings, even when not officially identified, by various disclosures.
It's among the reasons why those who take identity seriously are very, very careful about what they disclose about themselves online.
The Google, YouTube, and G+ names issues is really, really, really bad. It's quite specifically what turned me from a very positive booster of Google to a pretty deep critic.
And yes, while I make some use of Google's services, under various identities, it's an exposure I'm very consciously attempting to reduce.
33 bits (actually, 32.6) is enough to identify anyone personally.
As others have noted, there are multiple cases in which people have been identified through their online postings, even when not officially identified, by various disclosures.
It's among the reasons why those who take identity seriously are very, very careful about what they disclose about themselves online.
The Google, YouTube, and G+ names issues is really, really, really bad. It's quite specifically what turned me from a very positive booster of Google to a pretty deep critic.
And yes, while I make some use of Google's services, under various identities, it's an exposure I'm very consciously attempting to reduce.
> That's ridiculous. Unless you're also posting your address in the video description, it's practically impossible for a viewer to match a name (even your legal name) to your physical location.
I have an very unusual name, making me almost certainly the only person in the US with my first and last name. When I google for my name in quotes and "whitepages" it shows my home address.
I'm not personally concerned about physical security, but the idea that name -> address lookup is inconceivable is a foolish claim. Note that all that means for me is that my name on Google+ is my name-shaped nickname instead of my legal name.
I have an very unusual name, making me almost certainly the only person in the US with my first and last name. When I google for my name in quotes and "whitepages" it shows my home address.
I'm not personally concerned about physical security, but the idea that name -> address lookup is inconceivable is a foolish claim. Note that all that means for me is that my name on Google+ is my name-shaped nickname instead of my legal name.
The real name policy would tie in fabulously with google's now well established image search, who British Airways intend to use to spot celebrities boarding their flights. I'm sure over time that would progress to normal people.
Not many people appreciate the permanent nature of internet publication, I wouldn't agree that it's ephemeral and disposable, as it's out of the user's hands.
Not many people appreciate the permanent nature of internet publication, I wouldn't agree that it's ephemeral and disposable, as it's out of the user's hands.
>That's ridiculous. Unless you're also posting your address in the video description, it's practically impossible for a viewer to match a name (even your legal name) to your physical location.
Clearly you have not spent enough time on 4chan. Two instances off the top of my head:
1. Youtuber posts video of his room where he is being mean to his cat. Within 24 hours police are knocking on his door and making an arrest on account of cruelty to animals. 4chan got all his info from something as bening as a webcam's view of a teenager's room.
2. Girl throws puppies into river in bosnia. 48 hours later, police is knocking on her door on account of animal cruelty charges. 4chan had nothing to go on but a video of some average-looking wilderness.
Also a famous case of a few lads throwing a puppy off a bridge.
Now imagine how quickly all of those stories woudl unfold with a name attached! Unimaginably quickly.
Remember, 4chan is the kind of "guy" who tracked down Boxxy and harassed her so much she practically hid from the internet for ~4 years. All from videos of nothing but a face with a black background. They found her home address, her phone number, the school she goes to. Everything.
4chan is scary. I do not want my name on the internet publicly anywhere. Anywhere.
Clearly you have not spent enough time on 4chan. Two instances off the top of my head:
1. Youtuber posts video of his room where he is being mean to his cat. Within 24 hours police are knocking on his door and making an arrest on account of cruelty to animals. 4chan got all his info from something as bening as a webcam's view of a teenager's room.
2. Girl throws puppies into river in bosnia. 48 hours later, police is knocking on her door on account of animal cruelty charges. 4chan had nothing to go on but a video of some average-looking wilderness.
Also a famous case of a few lads throwing a puppy off a bridge.
Now imagine how quickly all of those stories woudl unfold with a name attached! Unimaginably quickly.
Remember, 4chan is the kind of "guy" who tracked down Boxxy and harassed her so much she practically hid from the internet for ~4 years. All from videos of nothing but a face with a black background. They found her home address, her phone number, the school she goes to. Everything.
4chan is scary. I do not want my name on the internet publicly anywhere. Anywhere.
> Clearly you have not spent enough time on 4chan.
What's fun is that, thanks to the fact that 4chan happily embeds the Analytics/Recaptcha combo, Google may already know your creepiest fetish (along with your real name) in an instant. They can know what you say in 4chan by matching timestamps.
Unless, of course, you are a so called "nerd" and you stay behind 7 proxies and have a clean, incognito browser. dredmorbius' mention of http://33bits.org/about/ definitely applies here.
It's scary that having a name attached to other signals normally found in public profiles (schools, desires) will instantly yield an address for anyone determined enough.
It's scary that it became so ubiquitous. Sometimes, I really miss the old internet.
What's fun is that, thanks to the fact that 4chan happily embeds the Analytics/Recaptcha combo, Google may already know your creepiest fetish (along with your real name) in an instant. They can know what you say in 4chan by matching timestamps.
Unless, of course, you are a so called "nerd" and you stay behind 7 proxies and have a clean, incognito browser. dredmorbius' mention of http://33bits.org/about/ definitely applies here.
It's scary that having a name attached to other signals normally found in public profiles (schools, desires) will instantly yield an address for anyone determined enough.
It's scary that it became so ubiquitous. Sometimes, I really miss the old internet.
Not to be flip, and I'm a huge privacy guy, but all of that does matter less if you're not being mean to cats or throwing puppies off bridges. I imagine Google is cool with that. It's not like this is a free speech issue.
Not to single jmillikin out but the fact that people like him work at Google and fail to consider being able to match a name to location (it's not that hard especially for people with a high amount of uniqueness) is what really frightens me.
Similarly with FB, even if we assume for a second that they are not overtly malicious, the fact that there are myriad reasons why using a real name is a bad idea but yet we are constrained by the life experiences of what is usually a pretty young engineer that has limited interaction with bad use cases. Brushing this off as not important as Zuck has is very alarming.
Similarly with FB, even if we assume for a second that they are not overtly malicious, the fact that there are myriad reasons why using a real name is a bad idea but yet we are constrained by the life experiences of what is usually a pretty young engineer that has limited interaction with bad use cases. Brushing this off as not important as Zuck has is very alarming.
Making multiple google accounts would be much more reasonable if they didn't demand a phone number (on every gmail login now), real name, etc. with every one.
It's distressing to see Google people really are this out of touch.
>That's ridiculous. Unless you're also posting your address in the video description, it's practically impossible for a viewer to match a name (even your legal name) to your physical location.
The concern here is about privacy, not physical security. Thinking up unrealistic danger scenarios is not productive.
What?? Do you really work for Google? I mean, I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but when you say "work" what do you mean? Is this Google, the "search engine?" You know what it does right?
I've regularly used Google to match names to addresses, in fact many many people do this. I find this hard to take seriously.
What?? Do you really work for Google? I mean, I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but when you say "work" what do you mean? Is this Google, the "search engine?" You know what it does right?
I've regularly used Google to match names to addresses, in fact many many people do this. I find this hard to take seriously.
> At least this now gives something competitors can differentiate with.
I never thought of it this way. This makes me a lot less annoyed, now.
I never thought of it this way. This makes me a lot less annoyed, now.
this is for commenting, not for posting.
Am I the only person who really enjoys YouTube comments? It's obviously not the place to go for high-brow discussion.
But the fact that it's a no-holds-barred space means that occasionally some genuinely hilarious and unexpected stuff pops up. I really wouldn't want that to change...
But the fact that it's a no-holds-barred space means that occasionally some genuinely hilarious and unexpected stuff pops up. I really wouldn't want that to change...
I like their blunt feel. If people don't like something, they will say so. Loudly. I find that a good thing. Plus, in my experience, they are not so bad. The number of rational and moderate people is quite higher than, for example, in newspaper websites comments.
On even moderately successful videos, they accumulate really too fast, though. They quickly become impossible to follow.
On even moderately successful videos, they accumulate really too fast, though. They quickly become impossible to follow.
That's only because they added rudimentary voting a few years back. Do you remember what it was like before that?
Personally I think YouTube should have HN/Reddit-style threaded comments, but I wonder how well that works for videos seen and commented on every day.
They sorta do now with the in reply to link now. Its pretty bad though.
Actually some subjects on YouTube do have high-brow discussion, they're just not the millions-of-views kinds of subjects. I did a bunch of videos on quantitative finance, the discussions on those often involve talking about calculus, questions about assumptions in financial models, etc. The comments actually add a lot of value to the videos.
One nice thing is that the anonymity means that real finance people can comment without worrying about their employer finding their comments. All the best financial discussion areas have to have good anonymity for participants to get people from industry involved.
One nice thing is that the anonymity means that real finance people can comment without worrying about their employer finding their comments. All the best financial discussion areas have to have good anonymity for participants to get people from industry involved.
Any chance you could provide a link to those videos? I'd be interested in checking them out.
I found his YouTube channel with a little Googling. He's NathanWhitehead: http://www.youtube.com/user/NathanWhitehead.
I'd be interested in checking out your videos if you have a link lying around.
See my reply to ImprovedSilence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4284419.
What kills YouTube comments is the same thing that kills Ars comments, along with pretty much every blog ever; there's no threading and no peer moderation or ranking. No one wants to sort through a river of random comments.
Yet for some reason this model works well on Fark (and, I agree, nowhere else.)
The entire point of Fark is to make off-topic, off-color remarks. So yes, for that, it works well :)
This also explains how Reddit works so well
reddit has peer moderation and ranking. Which is why it works well, it's nothing like flat fark or youtube comments
I came here to say exactly the same thing...
If you ask me, the legendary reputation of trolling on Youtube comments is largely a relic of the past - you still have trolls, to some extent, but nowadays most videos' comments are closer to the trolls' comments on more mainstream subreddits, whereas before they seemed more like the fringes of 4chan.
I don't like this change. If you look at the top two comments on most videos (the two highest-rated comments), they tend to be funny at best, and lame-but-harmless jokes at worst. Not the crown jewel of the Internet by any means, but they've developed a culture of their own, and I dislike the idea of disrupting that with seemingly no reason (other than to create a "unified" identity).
I don't like this change. If you look at the top two comments on most videos (the two highest-rated comments), they tend to be funny at best, and lame-but-harmless jokes at worst. Not the crown jewel of the Internet by any means, but they've developed a culture of their own, and I dislike the idea of disrupting that with seemingly no reason (other than to create a "unified" identity).
I think it is a good reminder how awful and diseased humans really are. Nothing makes for a better case for the concept of letting humanity go as YouTube comments. I think if we lost YouTube comments as they are, we would lose that reality check and begin deluding ourselves. :)
YouTube comments on videos where there's a new page of comments every time you refresh are awful, and not worth paying attention to. On a lot of types of videos, comments add absolutely nothing.
The one exception I've found is for music, where the plays on the video are between 10,000 and 500,000 or so. The discussion is pertinent and sometimes interesting, and I've had a couple of good back-and-forths on those kinds of videos.
I'm not sure if adding real names will help expand the number of videos where discussion is decent, but I don't think it will hurt.
The one exception I've found is for music, where the plays on the video are between 10,000 and 500,000 or so. The discussion is pertinent and sometimes interesting, and I've had a couple of good back-and-forths on those kinds of videos.
I'm not sure if adding real names will help expand the number of videos where discussion is decent, but I don't think it will hurt.
There's a Jerry Springer quality to the comments, which isn't all bad. Sometimes I'll go to read them for a laugh.
> UPDATE: A YouTube representative got back to us and said: YouTube users with existing Google+ profiles see this option when they comment or upload a video.
I am glad that I decided to delete my G+ account when news started to float that Google was forcing everyone to use real name in G+ and was closing accounts in cases of un-cooperation, which unintentionally affected someone's gmail account.
I am glad that I decided to delete my G+ account when news started to float that Google was forcing everyone to use real name in G+ and was closing accounts in cases of un-cooperation, which unintentionally affected someone's gmail account.
> I am glad that I decided to delete my G+ account when
> news started to float that Google was forcing everyone
> to use real name in G+ and was closing accounts in cases
> of un-cooperation, which unintentionally affected
> someone's gmail account.
I clearly remember closing my G+ account to protect my gmail account.
Did a quick google search for the news articles of that time, and these were the first links. Spending a few more minutes would have given even better results.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/201...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-deleting-ac...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-un...
The Picassa incidence was a later happening.
Did a quick google search for the news articles of that time, and these were the first links. Spending a few more minutes would have given even better results.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/201...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-deleting-ac...
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-un...
The Picassa incidence was a later happening.
Why does this keep coming up? Google seems to not learn.
1. There is no such thing as a real name. You might have a legal name, but they'd need to validate it somehow if contested. Up until now, Google has just been suspending names that didn't look "real" to them.
2. How do they validate this? Do they expect you to send a copy of an ID? What if you photoshop it? What is their data retention policy? Do they have procedures in place for handling sensitive data?
3. Most important, using a legal name does not somehow make the conversation more valid, or more useful. I have yet to see a strong argument that using a name on a government issued ID somehow makes your discourse better. There are countless arguments against this.
I've had to deal with this before. Here's an idea of what happens to you if you run afoul of this policy: https://plus.google.com/115896012705745653160/posts/Kdg2nPzM...
1. There is no such thing as a real name. You might have a legal name, but they'd need to validate it somehow if contested. Up until now, Google has just been suspending names that didn't look "real" to them.
2. How do they validate this? Do they expect you to send a copy of an ID? What if you photoshop it? What is their data retention policy? Do they have procedures in place for handling sensitive data?
3. Most important, using a legal name does not somehow make the conversation more valid, or more useful. I have yet to see a strong argument that using a name on a government issued ID somehow makes your discourse better. There are countless arguments against this.
I've had to deal with this before. Here's an idea of what happens to you if you run afoul of this policy: https://plus.google.com/115896012705745653160/posts/Kdg2nPzM...
What's the point of forcing "real names", when they're not forcing REAL names? Google will throw a fit if I use Red Ghost, but not if I use John Smith. What value does that actually bring? A weak perception of legitimacy?
Is there a "real name" that communicates "this is not my real name" but could just as easily be a really name?
Nathan Roberts (NR = Not Real)? Frank Nash (FN = Fake Name)?
Art Vandelay?
Nathan Roberts (NR = Not Real)? Frank Nash (FN = Fake Name)?
Art Vandelay?
Some ideas here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe#Other_variants
traditionally, John Doe.
they have explicitly said that they think the "feel" of an online community with name-shaped userids is qualitatively different from the feel of one with handle-shaped ones.
The real reason for this isn't to improve comment quality; it's so they can store information on you more effectively and then sell it to the government. Facebook has a leg up on this because of how it started, but Google wants to level the playing field more and more.
Sell it to the government? Using it to better target ads (which translates directly into more revenue for Google) seems a lot more likely them some secret government profiling conspiracy.
Certainly that's a motive too. And it's no secret that the government (in particular the NSA) has been amassing large swathes of data on what could be the entire population of the US.
Wow. That's a mighty impression tin foil hat you wear.
I'm sure the government can already tie people's names to their browsing history (including youtube) via the dns lookups and project echelon. I doubt they'd need anyone's assistance beyond the isp wiretaps, which they already have, for something as simple as this.
I'm sure the government can already tie people's names to their browsing history (including youtube) via the dns lookups and project echelon. I doubt they'd need anyone's assistance beyond the isp wiretaps, which they already have, for something as simple as this.
ok, what I said was based on something I heard Julian Assange said in an interview from about a year ago. Apparently he hasn't given any proof for his statement (namely, that Facebook has an interface for government intelligence to use). I tend to believe what Assange has to say, but who knows.
Two counter-arguments. First, it's not "sell", but "give for free under a subpoena". Second, it's not causation (they're doing it so they can gather info), it's correlation (they will gather info when they're able to).
The end result's the same, though.
The end result's the same, though.
But this doesn't collect information. It just displays something they already know.
I gave up commenting on YouTube at that point where Google forced me to auto login with my Gmail account. It is already bad enough that they can trace my viewing behavior. But I can see their side of the story. YouTube is holding a massive marketshare in the online video segment and they might have no problem with a few percent less comments when at the same time the overall quality of the comments might rise.
This reminds me of the time where Blizzard wanted to do something similar for their forums as people would troll often. From what I remember, there was a huge backlash. They seem to be trying to take a safer approach by suggesting you do it versus forcing you. I wonder if they had that incident in the back of their mind when taking this approach.
For those interested: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101916-Blizzard-Fo...
For those interested: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101916-Blizzard-Fo...
This is a little bit different because it's only giving users with pre-existing accounts an option to change their username to their real name. Anybody who registers a new account is forced to use their real name (or a fake real name).
Since when does real name equate to a better quality comment? Perhaps it is more about Big Brother tracking people's points-of-view on controversial issues? Or is it for better targeted ads?
I am uninclined to comment with my real name generally because my opinion changes, and I change over time.
I recently left a FB blog comment simply as "I like it" and felt almost uncomfortable with that. Does it matter what my real name is or what I look like? HN shows that anonymity works with just modding and the option to reveal one's identity. Why doesn't YouTube tally user comments and comment scores if they want to improve quality.. that's why I think this is a Big Brother or ad push.
Comments that self-destruct after a set period are another answer to comment quality, or ones that revert to a pseudonym, either fixed or random after a period of time.
I am uninclined to comment with my real name generally because my opinion changes, and I change over time.
I recently left a FB blog comment simply as "I like it" and felt almost uncomfortable with that. Does it matter what my real name is or what I look like? HN shows that anonymity works with just modding and the option to reveal one's identity. Why doesn't YouTube tally user comments and comment scores if they want to improve quality.. that's why I think this is a Big Brother or ad push.
Comments that self-destruct after a set period are another answer to comment quality, or ones that revert to a pseudonym, either fixed or random after a period of time.
Without the real names -- or at least names that aren't 'basketballstar69' -- Google won't have the same perception of authenticity as facebook.
They should reward 'real names' (first, last) with more Drive space and an opt-out of the nickname option.
They should reward 'real names' (first, last) with more Drive space and an opt-out of the nickname option.
The only thing stopping me from linking my channel to my G+ account is them changing my username to my real name. I've built an online brand around that username and changing it would mean i'm harder to find on Youtube. (funny enough that name is different from my HN name, since I can't change my HN username and don't want to lose my Karma.)
Youtube has had many issues lately that should affect its popularity, from legitimate content disappearing because of some (non-)copyright holders having tools to "delete first, ask later", to issues with Google harrassing users to do things of no benefit to them. I am also getting "this video is currently not available" messages frequently because I don't have a browser with H.264 (which Google was supposed to drop in favour of free alternatives? Go convert uploaded video then...). Youtube has reached a dangerous annoyance level, seems like a good time for competitors to grow.
I surf using Chrome for the latest and most secure Flash. I like being up to date and secure. On YouTube Flash crashes in about 50% of trying to load the videos. Really annoying. And even more annoying is that if I disable Flash altogether there are quite a few videos on YouTube that can't be played.
I'm beginning to see the bundling of Flash as a negative thing, it only prolongs the life of that hell-hole called Flash.
I'm beginning to see the bundling of Flash as a negative thing, it only prolongs the life of that hell-hole called Flash.
"Real" (heh) names don't improve comment quality. What improves comment quality is moderation (approve/decline/delete), enabled by default for every single user.
I moderate when I answer the door, who I answer the phone for, who I hang out with, and which mail I open. Who wouldn't moderate their YouTube comments? Sheesh.
Yes, it can be abused. To prevent "damage to the community", users who misuse the moderation system by deleting too many comments, declining only specific users, or declining polite (negative) comments, can be flagged as moderation abusers.
I moderate when I answer the door, who I answer the phone for, who I hang out with, and which mail I open. Who wouldn't moderate their YouTube comments? Sheesh.
Yes, it can be abused. To prevent "damage to the community", users who misuse the moderation system by deleting too many comments, declining only specific users, or declining polite (negative) comments, can be flagged as moderation abusers.
I don't feel they begged. They asked, I said no, they then asked why, and then I answered. Man that was simple.
I applaud Google. At least they don't do things without your permission. I'm looking at you Facebook.
I applaud Google. At least they don't do things without your permission. I'm looking at you Facebook.
I never got the prompt, just a broken reply button that took no action. Searching for others with the problem revealed it's due to wanting my real name. I went through my settings looking for an option to use my real name, since I don't care, but couldn't find one. On a screen that was supposed to contain that option for other people, it was not there for my account. Solution? Delete all G+ data and log out and back in to Youtube.
Youtube has problems lately. It has suddenly started to send me notification emails everyday non-stopped. The unsubscribe links had no effect. Even after I have unsubscribed a number of times, the spam kept coming. Finally I deleted my account but the spams kept coming in anyway. Of course marking the spamming emails as spam in GMail doesn't work. Worse there's no way to contact Youtube to report the problem.
comments on youtube are a cesspool?
why not remove the comments feature?
why not remove the comments feature?
I use my real name online for professional work-related things.
I use a username for non-work related things like posting a videos of toy animals to youtube.
The way things are headed, I guess I need to invent a "real name" for my online personal persona, to replace my username.
I use a username for non-work related things like posting a videos of toy animals to youtube.
The way things are headed, I guess I need to invent a "real name" for my online personal persona, to replace my username.
Related to this: http://www.wired.com/business/2012/06/youtube-commenters/
YouTube comments may be the lowest common denominator of the internet, but at least they're a common denominator.
Personally I am not for a real name policy, but I do prefer that people post under their real name if possible.
Often the simplest solution is the best: don't comment on YouTube videos.
I have a youtube account in my "real name".
I use only to satisfy my particular taste in videos. I have stale old accounts for other Google stuff but I never use them and don't care about any of it except to browse videos. Google still keeps demanding my cell phone number. constantly. I use my real with the youtube account but I actually don't want anyone to see anything I do there.
Google's opinion that it should be my world is quite obnoxious.
I use only to satisfy my particular taste in videos. I have stale old accounts for other Google stuff but I never use them and don't care about any of it except to browse videos. Google still keeps demanding my cell phone number. constantly. I use my real with the youtube account but I actually don't want anyone to see anything I do there.
Google's opinion that it should be my world is quite obnoxious.
I really truly wish that there was an option for "No, I don't want to give you my cell phone number, and I NEVER want to give it to you."
Also, I used to love making throw-away Gmail accounts for various spam purposes. Now, my cell phone # is associated with 3 accounts so I can't make anymore.
Also, I used to love making throw-away Gmail accounts for various spam purposes. Now, my cell phone # is associated with 3 accounts so I can't make anymore.
I wanted to quickly fire off a comment, something I almost never do. Instead, and completely unexpectedly, I get a scary modal dialog "Start using your full name on YouTube". Really, that's bad enough as it is. I didn't interact in a way that'd make me expect any kind of dialog (e.g. logging in/out or a major account modification). And there is no easy way to dismiss the dialog without making a decision, no X in a corner, clicking the background does nothing. Also really, really bad. Opening another YouTube window doesn't help, either, you just get another copy of the dialog.
But the reaction to declining the request -- which is the non-default, non-highlighted option -- is just outrageous. Instead of simply going away silently, or maybe telling me where to activate the feature if I change my mind, it tells me it'll show my real name anyway, but just in a preview mode that's only visible to me, if I just click the default, highlighted button. That's not exactly the opposite of what I wanted it to do when I declined their unprovoked offer, but it's pretty damn close. And again, there is no easy way out, you have to chose a reason why you dare refuse them, with none of the options being "I decline to answer" or "Go to hell"; the closest thing being "I'm not sure, I'll decide later", which I chose and which I expect will just mean I'll be assaulted again in the near future.
This is the kind of hostile user experience I expect on cheap travel websites and other scummy parts of the net, but not on a Google property and certainly not on a website I visit a lot.