Google+ decided to stop grandfathering usernames

[darxus]

There's a problem with your Google+ profile

It appears that the name you entered does not comply with the Google+ Names Policy.

The Names Policy requires that you use the name that you are commonly referred to in real life in your profile. Nicknames, previous names, and so on, should be entered in the Other Names section of the profile. Profiles are currently limited to individuals; we will be launching profiles for businesses and other entities later this year.

If you do not edit your name to comply with the Names Policy by September 17, 2011, your profile will be suspended: you will not be able to make full use of Google services that require an active profile, such as Google+, Buzz, Reader, and Picasa. This will not prevent you from using other Google services, like Gmail.

We understand that Google+ and its Names Policy may not be for everyone at this time. We'd be sad to see you go, but if you do choose to leave, make a copy of your Google+ data first. Then, click here to disable Google+.

An article on why they want this information: http://gigaom.com/2011/08/29/its-official-google-wants-to-own-your-online-identity/
I'm not planning to change my name.

Comments

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

you ARE commony referred to as darxus in real life, and that's good enough for the law too faik :)

if they have a box why you are unsubbing (if you do), that would be a good reason to give.

#

[darxus.livejournal.com]

No option to provide a comment.

[frobzwiththingz.livejournal.com]

what totally boggles my mind about this is why Google, who seem to want to be the be-all and end-all of data aggregation, have either not realized (or have realized, and have rejected) the notion that names are completely arbitrary, and depend on mutually agreed upon "trust authorities", and if they played their cards right, they could *actually be one of them*, rather than pretending to be one, while actually just parroting what some other, previously existing trust authority arbitrarily claims human X's "name" is.

25-50 years from now, if they're still around, my bet is they'll be kicking themselves over this lack of foresight.

[moonshadow.livejournal.com]

Thanks for making me aware of this.

[ampersandy.livejournal.com]

Google will be the loser, when another social network comes along and does it right.

BTW, I had expected to be suspended from G+ by now. Perhaps I haven't been found out yet because I split my all-purpose internet name into a first & last name for G+. When they eventually kick me off, I'll let it go, just as you're doing. I never had a Facebook account, and I'm sure I won't miss G+ either.

[beowabbit]

Google will be the loser, when another social network comes along and does it right.

I’m not entirely sure about that. Google is not trying to provide a social network. Google is trying to provide monetizable data for their advertisers. Google will only care about people abandoning them for other social networks if that causes their advertisers to give them less money.

You and I and darxus care about Google+’s value (or cost) for interpersonal communication. Google, however, only cares about whether it increases the amount their customers will be willing to pay for ad spots.

Facebook is largely in the same boat. LJ has paying end-users as well as advertisers (and non-paying end-users). I think at this point Dreamwidth only has paying end-users (no advertisers), although I may be misremembering.