yea google F*ck you
for making us sign into your free service and for trying to integrate stuff so its single sign on................................................
A futile attempt to convince Google to reverse its decision to lock its ID-tracking, data-mining Google+ product into YouTube comments has helped to generate more ad revenue on the vid-sharing site. A sweary, well-spoken young woman from Essex has had more than half a million hits on a YouTube video she posted just two days …
Indeed, it's becoming rarer and rarer that you can just leave a comment without registering. Number of websites use Facebook comments too.
I remember the astonishment, 15 years ago, at how wild people were behaving on the web, trolling newsgroups and the like. In general, anonymity was fingered as the reason. Are these days over? Will the times come when using your real name on the web will be the norm, and using a pseudonym considered the equivalent of wearing a mask in the street?
I have a YouTube channel that targets embedded engineers, most of whom are on LinkedIn and no other social network. I was getting about 20-40 comments a week. Since the YouTube integration with Google+, my comments have gone down to Zero. Zip. Nada.
More and more I'm learning that having your income depend solely on Google is dangerous.
Yet you have not issue giving all your info to The Regester to post comments!? The Regester wants to know my full name, email, what my occupation is, how many people are at my job, and if I make spending decisions. That seems a bit more intrusive to me, just to post a comment!
Why should Google get flamed for providing a free service? If you don't like it, don't post a reply. Frankly it might curb many of the spam & troll comments on YouTube.
"Yet you have not issue giving all your info to The Regester to post comments!? The Regester wants to know my full name, email, what my occupation is, how many people are at my job, and if I make spending decisions. That seems a bit more intrusive to me, just to post a comment!"
And of course you told them the truth, and don't use expendable accounts?
I think you win the "Matt Bryant" award.
That's not a good thing to win.
Yes, but now that they're under your real name, maybe everyone will think twice before leaving imbecile YouTube comments. Less Internet pocket lint.
I really hope you're being sarcastic. That or you haven't been looking at any of the comments since the Google+ bullshit started. Really, the crap that the apologists are coming out with is totally disjointed from reality. Apparently forcing Google+ onto people to comment on a youtube video will somehow, magically remove the trolls and kooks?
Just had a quick look and I'm getting "comment fatlos", "reply1", "reply2", "no wone [sic] cares", "first post"... all from comments in the last day or two, on random videos. There are worse, and they are very, very easy to find, especially the ones that declare "FROM GOOGLE+". Oh, and Google+ names such as "Nigger_Gangrape", amongst other less pleasant monikers. Oh and hashtags. Fucking hashtags everywhere, now. If this is your idea of change for the better, you can keep it.
Incidentally, it only takes about a gigabyte or so to make a 24 hour long, 360kbps, 640x360@30fps video displaying the text "FUCK GOOGLE PLUS", along with a 64kbit audio stream of whatever the hell you want (let's say a trololololol loop). Easy enough to upload to your Youtube channel before buggering the fuck off to any other video site on the Web, alongside changing your channel name to "Fuck Google Plus". Think I'll be doing just that.
"Yes, but now that they're under your real name, maybe everyone will think twice before leaving imbecile YouTube comments. Less Internet pocket lint."
Eh?, how does this change anything?, I have a g+ account, its full of bullshit false info. How am I more identifiable than i was before?
Trolls can just put false info into the g+ account and continue as normal, this doesnt solve anything.
Tbh, i think the comments are the most entertaining part of youtube.
Back in the Good Old Days, there were not sneaks trying to make you a crim for having a different opinion or attitude to life. Me and my mates have no wish to be bankrupted or banged up because some spiteful, jealous, greedy numpty (ex-so-called-friend) wants revenge or money.
Logic fail by Not that Andrew.
You have been able to use your gmail account to sign into youtube.
Now you are required to.
These are different things.
If you are having trouble with this, imagine you have been able to use your credit card to buy food at the supermarket. Now you are required to, no credit card, no service. Not to help consumers, but because it makes gathering marketable data on you easier.
Of course, expecting Google to do anything other than get more marketing info to sell is a bit like being shocked that BP want oil out of the ground and not left in it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. A free product means the consumer is the product.
How is this different from supermarkets who for years have required you to present a "club card" or be charged a higher price for your purchases? A card that required your real name, address and telephone number to obtain one? How is Google different here? Oh, yeah, you don't have to post a comment, or watch stupid YouTube videos to live.
You idiots act like the Internet was your god-given right or something. YouTube belongs to Google. It is an expensive service to provide. There will be advertising to recoup said costs and maybe make a profit. It is Google's privilege to require a sign-in if they wish on their property.
I refuse to have a FaceBook account and I don't post to sites that require me to have a FaceBook account to sign in. If you don't like using a Google account, refrain from using any service which requires you to have one.
"How is this different from supermarkets who for years have required you to present a "club card" or be charged a higher price for your purchases?"
Which supermarkets are these? As I have a Nectar card and a Tesco Club card and neither give me reduced prices when presented at the till. In fact with all the "offers" they print/send out they are usually trying to get you to spend more with them for the promise of points that typically amount to £2.50.
If you don't want these companies to have that information about you, don't sign up to these things. If you have to sign up use fake details.
This post has been deleted by its author
Well said - reminded me of Mitch Benn and the good Dr Lehrer - both of whom use somewhat fractured phrasing to make the lyrics fit the tune (this is aimed at folk down the way who criticise her scansion).
Emma, you made me chuckle (and I've copied the vid, just wish I had the talent to play it)
You have 2 chaoices, don' use it or supply false info, after all they can hardly check your real name etc. or cor heres a radical idea, sign up a new gmail/google+ account and use that. I bet you use different signins for various sites and may even (gasp) have more than one sign in on some of them for trolling purposes.....
Me I have no problem with this or anything else Google are doing with my login, but then I'm not paranoid enough to think they are that interested in me as an individual.
It might be arguing semantics, but I'd say Google is very interested in you as an individual. So are their advertisers. That's basically the whole purpose of the Google online estate - to build as detailed a profile as possible of you as an individual.
Of course they do the same thing to everyone else, as individuals, and probably what you meant is that they don't treat you any different to the other 4.5 billion humans who access their services (or whatever the number is).
And here lies the whole reason you don't get it.
It is not about what you say. You're right about that. It who you are. What else you do, where else you have been. What you searched for.
You look at the new Dyson Warm Cold blower. Go to you tube, watch a short video you like and you get a popup add for fan heaters. Start to see it now?
Its all about targeting ads at you and being able to tell the advertisers, "We sent x ads for fan heaters to Big Ted, and here is email, phone number, address".
So you see, they do care about you the individual.
> Its all about targeting ads at you and being able to tell the advertisers, "We sent x ads for fan heaters to Big Ted, and here is email, phone number, address".
I very much doubt they're passing your phone number and address (or any details) on to Dyson just because you showed an interest in one of their products. What they will do is change the ads that appear at the side of the screen (unless you're blocking them, and not pop-ups) to show Dyson Warm Cold Blowers. Given that you're going to see adverts anyway (the YouTube service does incur costs which will need to be paid), the only difference is that they'll be relevant. If you don't want to buy the Dyson product after all, or are going to buy it via your own methods, it's just another ad to ignore.
I'm aware that a lot of people have something against targeted ads, and some seem to think all services should be ad-free and paid for by magical fairies - that's not my point here. Drumming up paranoia in an effort to convince people to agree with your opinion though isn't really a valid tactic.
....it's that the new comment system is shit, unwieldy, confusing, unworkable. It's a fucking mess. A fuckup of gigantic proportions. For so many reasons I lack both the time and inclination to reiterate here. If you're happy with it, good on you. I assure you, you are in a vanishingly insignificant minority.
It's simple. Google+ has little uptake, has not really been all that interesting to most people and in order to boost uptake they are taking a swipe at the youtube community, hoping that forcing youtube users to sign in to comment and such will actually be accepted. I never really commented before, now so less likely.
"Would you like to use your real name for all your Google services?" -- No, now Foxtrot Oscar.
while you people seem to be so upset? I mean, it's a simple transaction, you want something (vent your e-pinions), they want something in return (feed you ads). Both are superfluous to life. If I value my privacy more than an orgasmic release on hitting a "submit" button, then I don't bother and stay away.
but you folks, seem to be unable to choose, you want it both, and can't let go of either. You don't grab a packet of sweets from Tesco, when your pockets are empty, do you? You give them something they want, right? Or is it that you really believe the blinking "FREE!!!" button?
"It is theft, the resources are funded through advertising therefore denying the provider revenue by blocking ads means you're stealing content from their networks."
Theft goes both ways. The other day I looked up the words to an animé song on my mobile. They appeared, I was happy. Then a "download complete" notification popped up. Bastard site linked to an advertiser which had a pop-under to feed a 350Kb APK file to me. Tried it again at home, and kept getting the same damn APK. Thankfully I can absorb 350K in my monthly allocation, however multiple attempts to push that crap isn't on (ever heard of cookies you c*nts?) and if I was on a PAYG setup, that would cost me a pile of coins.
Some advertisers are unscrupulous and think nothing of taking your bandwidth, processing power, and data allocation. The correct way to respond is to block as much as you can. It's a two way street, you know...
"It is theft, the resources are funded through advertising therefore denying the provider revenue by blocking ads means you're stealing content from their networks." -- It's not stealing, it's advert avoidance. All perfectly above board. Is sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting "La-La-La" during the adverts stealing ?
Do none of you know how to create 2 email accounts?
I have one for spam and one I share with others.
The spam one is how I post anonymous comments.
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, your ISP, and countless others give you the ability to have free email accounts everywhere.
Oh no!!! That would mean remembering 2 passwords to remain anonymous on the net.
Anyone with a problem with Google trying to give you better service, single sign on, news you want to see, youtube videos you might be interested in, and trying to make some money while they offer free access to an index of all of mans knowledge, products and news, has a screw loose somewhere.
I guess you just can't please anyone when you give away free stuff.
It's like people who get welfare complaining about income inequality.
Talking about demanding a mobile number, I had an email from Google+ yesterday telling me that my (largely unused) Google+ account was now eligible for "a unique Google+ custom URL" along the lines of google.com/+Name
I had a look. I read the terms and conditions - and saw no mention of phone numbers. So I decided to grab my name, and told me I must first verify my phone number.
(Repeating the exercise now to get the exact wording, it's "You must verify your mobile phone number by entering a code sent in a text message (SMS), before you can claim a custom URL.")
At which stage I changed my mind.
According to Google, this is "to protect our users from abuse, we sometimes ask users to prove they’re not a robot before they're able to create or sign in to accounts. Having this additional confirmation via phone is an effective way to keep spammers from abusing our systems."
I know spammers can be stupid, but I'm sure even they understand the concept of cheap throw-away SIMs, which makes that explanation more than a little weak, IMO.
> Last time I tried to register a new Gmail account for exactly that purpose, a month or two ago, it demanded a mobile number
It will always give you the "option" of giving them a phone number, but it seems to insist on it or not depending on some sort of trust algorithm.
For the time being, please feel free to use the following account if you wish, I just registered it and did not complain about the absence of phone details (for now):
Name: Bertrand Lestrade (hope you like it)
DoB: 1st February 1982
Password: "One account is all you need" (without quotes, watch spaces and initial cap).
Phone: None given
Other email: None given
Now for the philosophical rant: There is a slight difference between being ambitious to the point of greediness, which is fine in my book, and disregarding basic societal norms of behaviour such as minimally respecting people's privacy (this is not fine in my book). Sure as fuck I would not give my name, date of birth, phone number, etc., to the bloke I buy the newspaper from, or to anyone else I do business with, unless it's a) substantial business, and b) a very valid reason is present.
"It's like people who get welfare complaining about income inequality."
I'm sure this is some reference to a nicely worked out talking point, but surely if you're on welfare (ie have very little income and wealth) then it would make sense to complain about the unfair distribution of wealth according to birthright and not merit. Sure, the people who work damn hard to be just above welfare have more right to complain, as they are the underpaid where merit gets you keeping the job, not rewarded. The trick to being wealthy is entitlement, often to tax payer funded handouts that dwarf any welfare entitlements. National Socialism, what's good for industry is what's good for the nation. Privatised profits and socialised losses.
Perhaps a better example would be it's like people earning over 100k complaining about paying high taxes. They only are able to earn over 100k because of the tax monies already spent on education (theirs and their workforce), infrastructure and social care systems (police, fire, hospitals) and indeed even for those on welfare.
Not sure about the US, but in the rest of the OECD the beneficiaries (welfare recipients) are overwhelmingly the elderly. Who are often rightly concerned that while some assets (land, property and precious metals) maintain or even gain value, cash assets (bank deposits, annuities and shares) often end up failing to keep pace with rising costs. They also may point out that they paid into this system for there whole working lives, and they turn out to vote in large numbers, but if you can get a nice us-and-them, strivers and skivers split going on, you can actually convince poor people to vote for policies that favor the rich, by bashing the poor.
Of course on the other side of the coin - those of us who actually a) use Google+ and b) don't try to use Google+ like Facebook (because it is not, never will be and never was intended to be anything like Facebook) actually like the integration - because we now see YouTube videos pop up in our stream, with a comment from the poster - and encourages a much more active discussion - for example a video from someone else who hates Google+ has gone viral on Google+ and because of this - it has gotten a lot more exposure than it would of normally. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuIRY5KFEU0
Please remember: Facebook == Social Network, Social Network != Facebook
Yea, and that's why google does it all.
Google+ is a fucking joke. A ghost town what claims to have hundreds of millions "active" users, except in reality there's barely ANY active users from all those hundreds of millions, maybe 1% maybe only 0.1%. Easily clear if you look some while "near by" and "what's hot" areas and garbage that pops up in those and then number of comments etc.
People at Google know G+ is a fucking joke, so now they try to inflate number of comments turning every youtube comment to a damn post in G+.
"those of us who actually a) use Google+ ... actually like the integration"
Speak for yourself. I have a Google+ account but don't need to be automatically signed in to Youtube.
Google also seem to have altered Chrome (e.g. on Windows and ios) recently to make it harder to sign out of your Google account.
When I post a comment on a YouTube video I don't WANT it appearing on Google+ to stimulate discussion. The discussion should be limited to the intended forum - i.e. the video on YouTube. If you want to see what is new on YouTube, that is what direct subscription is for. If you want a feed aggregator there are plenty around. It doesn't need all the baggage that having a G+ account brings with it.
There is one reason, and one reason alone why Google have done this. To FORCE users to interact through G+, to add them to their relationship and identity database and stimulate data generation for same.
Yup. When I tried to watch the video on YouTube for the fu***ing umpteenth time in a row it asked me if I wanted to sign in as my YouTube username or my gmail username. And for the umpteen f***ing time I clicked NO. KEEP THE F***ING THINGS SEPARATE. Because that's what I want to do, so get the F***ING message will you. Jeesh!
I've given up on Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, Flickr etc etc. Email is creeping slowly and inexorably towards Outlook only rather than standard POP or IMAP that just about everything supports.
Someone take me back to the 80s, please!
Oh you're in for a treat: after asking you a dozen times or so, it just links the accounts, because fuck you.
When that happens, whatever you do don't do what I did, and click "make my channel private". I thought that would, you know, make my channel private. No. It is functionally identical to "delete my account": all your lists, all your comments, all your up/downvotes, are permanently and irreversibly deleted.
I hated Youtube before it was cool.
I have a Google account I use at work, for the drive and calendar, and Youtube kept pestering me to link it with my youtube account. When I declined it asked why I didn't want to link them. This happened every 2-3 videos I viewed. Eventually, after asking me a dozen or so times, it just linked them anyway.
I then made a huge mistake: I clicked "Make My Channel Private", in the mistaken belief that this would make my viewing history and favorite video lists private. No. "Make My Channel Private" is functionally identical to "Delete My Account". All my lists, all my comments, everything: irreversibly gone. A big, hearty, FU from Google, all because I didn't want my Youtube viewing history of kitten videos and death metal linked to my work calendar.
That's when I realized that Google's approach to customer service and privacy is "it rubs the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose again".
Yeah, Fuck You Right Back, Google.
OMFG Phandom Wank Socks that must sound so weird to people who don't know what that means XD
YouTube is more than just stupid 30 second videos of cats now, it's a wide community of film makers, musicians and vloggers who ear money and make a living off of it, so any changes made to the site directly affect peoples lives.
I suggest you watch the online series 'Becoming YouTube' in order to learn what YouTube really is, (Emma is featured) then you will have a better understanding of why this is a big deal to a lot of people
Phandom Wank Socks you are my hero <3
What I find surprising is that anyone could be bothered to write a song about it.
And I think I spotted her problem in the first few lines of the song "We just want our website back". It's not your website, its Google's. They can do with it what they will and equally you are at liberty to not use it. Get on with your life.
I think internet companies and organisations like Youtube and Twitter are massively overplaying their hands, and I wouldn't be surprised one bit if that is going to haunt them.
The problem should be obvious: they want or need to generate more revenue, but being a service provider there's only so much one can do to make that happen. The main problem is that you'll reach a point where your 'free' service is going to apply changes which will make it harder or less appealing for the people to use it. Think about the commercials on Youtube or the annoying banners on Twitter.
You may get away with small changes, but if the intrusion becomes to great then you're going to lose interest, especially if you're operating on a market which is shared by others. And once that process sets into motion then it can go downhill really quick.
I think the same will apply here. At one time I let it slide when Google wanted to merge my Youtube account into a Google account, but that was as far as I went. I never provided my real name. Now I'm confronted with this Google+ thingie and it's just too much for me. I thought Microsoft's Soc.ial site (or whatever it was called) was bad, but this looks even worse.
SO I basically removed my google+ profile (after 1 day of non-usage) and now only use Youtube to look at some videos without the option to comment on them. Hardly something I'll be missing out on.
Something tells me I'm not the only one who did.
So how is Google going to make more revenue when people start paying less attention to their service?
Same will apply to Twitter I think. They need to up their revenue so what other options are there but advertising? But if you become too intrusive with that then people will most likely start using other stuff, and once your usage amounts drop so will your revenue.
I think this could make for some very interesting times.
For whatever reason I can no longer post any comments, which I rarely did anyway, so that's fine.
But what's more weird is when I try to, it asks me to sign in, then says my account is blocked. Yet as long as I just use the site as normal, I am not blocked. I can see my subs, my favourites, upload videos, the works.
But I can no longer comment at all. Oh well.
Basically, they broke the shit out of it. Then again, it seems to be Google's way these days - look at Google Maps on android, version 7 is a fucking disaster, thank christ someone had the newest version 6 APK. Does my head in when they change things and remove features for no end-user gain whatsoever.
The writing style of quite a few of the supportive Google commentators is similar to the point of being suspicious?
@ ShelLuser interesting what you have to say and I agree with you, I think many of the companies that provide so much of our internet content have become so overrun with corporate management, they have lost all semblance of the innovation and the innate sense of freedom that the web used to generate in people, and are now just looking to maintain ever increasing growth to keep their shareholders happy.
Sooner or later the bubble will burst for the current set of internet giants and they will be overtaken by new young upstarts with fresher approaches.
If the right new companies came along tomorrow and were able to provide the right kind of service, people would desert all of the old internet dinosaurs almost overnight.
As for phone numbers and names they have several of my old no longer existing numbers and names I thought up on the spur of the moment .
Keep up the good work Emma, just because something is free does not mean it has to be considered good and if it is not good there is no reason why something should not be said and listened to.
If I had wanted to leave comments on YouTube under my real name, I would have created an account that showed my real name. And now... you are getting me to sign into YouTube using my Google+ account which exposes my real name to the world if I want to leave comments. You also have created a whole new account for me with none of my playlists or any of my subscriptions.
Talk about fucking up completely.
Basically what does YT have?
1) Name recognition.
2) Lots of content
3) Adequate UI
Pretty much in that order.
Google bought it because it has 1)Lots of users to data mine 2)No sorry, can't think of a 2.
The question is will Google do a Microsoft and strangle at birth any attempted entrants to the market?
Instead of looking at this from the youtube side of things, take a moment to look at it from the G+ users perspective.
Most of us don't want comments from our shares of YT videos posted to that site, conversations on shares often digress and having them posted on YT isn't wanted. So a lot of G+ users are pissed off about that, because not only are your public shares now posted on YT... it's retroactive, so all of your past shares are on there now.
But the worst part is that those trolls, spammers and so forth that remain posting now show up as comments in your G+ posts... A lot of use don't like that either and wish there was an option to turn it off.
I actually went back through my past shares and deleted all YT videos I had shared, which is a lot.
There is a simple way around it though, don't share public, just share to your extended circles.
But there is a good side to this change that I completely understand, forcing users to use real names (like they can't just make up a fake name ffs) is an attempt to limit the trolls and spammers... If it helps get rid of the 12yr old bigots and other idiots then I count that as a good thing.
As for the lady in the vid, she isn't looking at the wider picture... G+ is a perfect platform for people like her, it's full or artists and musicians and is the perfect place for her to expand her limited view of social media. I have personally seen talented people go from doing crappy jobs to becoming artists full time because of the people and support they found on G+.
I know... a post telling you about the virtues of G+ will go over like a lead balloon on a forum that allows anonymous comments, so I fully expect the downvote fairies to do their worst. But FB and G+ are different types of social platforms. FB is for connecting with people you already know and slowly expanding that, but you have to friend people in return. G+ is for connecting to new people who have similar interests and you can circle who you like without the need for them to circle you back... There's no 'Like this page before you can view it' mentality... sure the data mining still goes on, but without intrusive ads, which is a much better way of doing it that FB in my book.
There's a reason I left FB and moved to G+... and it's not because it's a ghost town, I have friends who have hundreds of thousands of followers and the latest statistics show in excess of 300 million unique users using it daily.
I'm not unsympathetic if you want to talk about the virtures of google +, but when you talk about how someone you never met needs to use it, and "expand her limited view of social media", THAT goes over like a lead balloon.
Look, I'm glad you like Google Plus. If someone tried to force you to NOT use Google Plus, I would be against that.
Do you think that Google is forcing people to use G+ to pump up their numbers? I mostly search for "Fuck Google plus" and +1 everything that comes up. Guess what? I'm one of your 300 million users.
woooo, 80,000 petition.
The video that earning Google money got more views than that, and Youtube get hundreds of millions of visitors each month. The petition demonstrates how much people really care about Google+ integration and it says they don't care that much about it.
The girl in the video is cute though, which is probably why most people viewed the video.
For everyone who can be bothererd to sign a petition, there are probably 20 people who feel the same way but couldn't be bothered to sign.
Though, I'm sure Google can ignore 1.6 million people as easily as they ignore 80,000. Maybe direct action is a better approach?
In other words: Troll the shit out of everything. Make them regret their decision. If they undo it, the few people that actually like G+ can get back to liking it and leave the rest of us alone. If not, well, I'm sure drowning in a sea of filth will be awesome.
Best part is, you really can do this from your armchair.
>>How is this different from supermarkets who for years have required you to present a "club card" or be charged a higher price for your purchases?
I think it's pretty significantly different. I don't really have to explain that, do I?
>>YouTube belongs to Google. It is an expensive service to provide. There will be advertising to recoup said costs and maybe make a profit. It is Google's privilege to require a sign-in if they wish on their property.
For four years, I've been providing them content for free. My biggest channel has gotten between a third and a half million views. I always left the box checked that let them put ads on my videos. I'm all for them getting paid, and I've been pulling my weight, I'm presuming that the previous arrangement was profitable.
The thing is, they're acting like this is about trolling, and it's not. They're lying to us. If they wanted to stop trolling, They could have let us block trolls. That would have been simple, and effective. Don't we have the technology? Instead, they cooked up a warped, convoluted, ineffective scheme to force google plus. It's going to continue. Watch as a google plus login becomes the answer to every problem for every google service, no matter how logic is tortured in the process.
>>You idiots act like the Internet was your god-given right or something.
No, I act like complaining is my god-given right. Why is that a problem for you?
>> I refuse to have a FaceBook account and I don't post to sites that require me to have a FaceBook account to sign in. If you don't like using a Google account, refrain from using any service which requires you to have one.
And if your most essential site suddenly required a facebook login, you wouldn't spend a little time raging? I don't have a facebook account either, by the way.
It's not just you tube. This is going to turn my whole internet life upside down. They've changed the terms of a mutually profitable arrangement unilaterally, while misrepresenting the reasons.
Google has done the word a lot of good, and they deserve to make a lot of money. I think it's great that they made money from Emma's video. But, yes, I am rethinking all my google accounts, and that is painful. I'm going to have to archive seven years of email.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021