Originally Posted by kennyparker1337
Ignorant just like 90% of the other people in this thread.
This service integration has nothing to do with privacy.
Your Google Plus account can be filled with all the fake data you want.
It does not require you to give a single piece of REAL info about yourself.
I'm tired of explaining this junk.
Youtube previously required a Youtube account because Google did not have their Google+ service yet and they thought it would be a needless change to change the name from "Youtube Account" to "Google Account" as no different functionality would be introduced,
Google owns many sites and they wanted you to have just one log in for all of their services (websites).
It's called Google+.
Google+ is fine.
It has some flaws right now, obviously not foreseen, when integrated with Youtube.
They need to be addressed.
1. No comment removal / hide / unlink from Google+.
2. No downvote system. (Upvote has been replaced by reply count).
That's a fallacy if I've ever seen one, text book example. Forcing a person to use a social networking website is a prime example of privacy invasion, privacy invasion isn't limited to who can see your personal information outside of the company who is holding the data or providing the service. Privacy invasion encompasses everyone and everything who is invading your privacy, companies included.
Are you trying to say that Google planned on integrating Google+ before they even owned Youtube? Do you really think their entire motive for something which has seen such a huge negative reaction is to make it easier for the user, how do you know it's not financially motivated or motivated by other means?
You're dodging my argument almost completely, it doesn't matter if Google+ is a good social networking platform or not, it's forced upon you which I addressed the problems with that earlier.
Also you mentioned that you can fill in fake information all you want. First of all, see my post about the legality of doing this:
Originally Posted by jawajawa
That's where you're wrong. By breaking the TOS you are breaking the law defined by the CFAA. Take the initiative to read up on the subject, here is some informative information to help you with that:
Here is a specific case which contradicts your claims and is proof in action:
By breaking Google's TOS of truthful and accurate information you are indeed breaking the law as defined by the CFAA. Of course it's a legal grey area and is open to many interpretations as a result, rule of thumb is that it won't get you in trouble as long as it's something which isn't questionable or related to some other reason for suspicion/criminal offense. You're right that breaking TOS isn't illegal in and of itself but the a TOS is much deeper than that and almost always is backed by federal or state law as it does in this case. I agree with you completely that it's very very unlikely that there will be any consequences in this case but that's not the point, the point is that it's possible.
If I stop using big words will you agree to answer the questions I've asked in my previous posts/replies instead of nit picking?
Of course free speech doesn't guarantee you immunity. Now that you've said that, will you offer a legitimate reason why anonymity is a bad thing in terms of protection (assuming it's not being used to hide someone's identity because they are breaking the law).
Secondly, you shouldn't have to lie about something to protect your privacy. That should be a right, not a bonus, especially in the case when something like Google+ or any other similar service is forced upon you. Yeah of course someone is going to argue that it's optional to use YouTube in the first place and it's a privilege, not a right, but that kind of thinking is what leads to these situations in the first place.
It seems more like you're arguing from the perspective of someone who has already submitted their data (or fake data) to a giant like Google or Facebook and you're trying to justify reasons for switching to a different, similar, service which is not what I'm arguing. By doing that you didn't even respond to my argument, you just side stepped it and wrote a self-satisfied justification.
Also, please fix the formatting of your quote, I don't want people to misunderstand who's saying what.