It's not just about having a profile or not. Google seems to be changing services to require G+.
For example, you can no longer comment on YouTube or write a review in the Play store without a G+ profile (or at least I can't). This means that activity in those Google properties is no longer pseudonymous. That is very unappealing to some.
> For example, you can no longer comment on YouTube or write a review in the Play store without a G+ profile (or at least I can't). This means that activity in those Google properties is no longer pseudonymous. That is very unappealing to some.
From Google's point of view here there is only gain--YouTube comments are some of the lowest form of internet communication to be found. App reviews are not much better. Requiring people to have some sort of profile is not going to lower the quality of reviews, it will only limit their quantity (which is not the lacking factor).
Google currently offers YouTube users the option of either using their G+ profile or a YouTube profile.
I tried the G+ profile option for a while, but I didn't really like it. The first time I posted something publicly, people started commenting on my Google+ posts, apparently upset because they did not get the joke I made. Someone in the YouTube comments looked up my profile, figured out where I lived, and threatened to come to "BrookLine New York" to adjust my viewpoint. I found it hilarious but most people would probably be scared.
I switched back to using a real-name-inspired nickname. You blend in better and people won't bother you except in comment replies, which you can easily ignore.
You don't seem to appreciate what a major change G+ will be for some of Google's users. I for one would never want the following scenario from the article to happen. Ever.
"You'll go to search for a camp stove on Google,
and you'll find that your friend just bought one, and
you'll be able to ask him about it," says Dylan Casey,
a former Google+ product manager who now works at Path
Inc., a smartphone-based social network.
Had I known that Google would one day decide to go social and share my private life, possibly without my consent, then I would have never "gleefully accepted the thousands of dollars worth of free services" in the first place. Fact is that this is a change of direction for Google and people have every right to voice their opinion about it... just like the TOS with Instagram... How is this any different?
First of all, how credible is a Path PM's opinion on the "camp stove" example? Conflict of interest, anyone? Did Vic G or anyone official at Google say that's going to happen?
IMHO, what's more likely to happen is: You search for a camp stove, and your G+ friend has written a _public_ review of one, and your personalized search results show your friend's review as well. Personally, I would find that quite helpful since I can now contact my friend directly about this, but even if you don't, why not disable personalized results for yourself?
That's a quote from "a former G+ product manager". His credibility is beside the point anyway... this was a hypothetical feature mentioned in the article that conveniently illustrated a potential privacy concern.
(To your prediction of how this feature might play out in reality I would say that you are probably right, but also that I don't give two shits about what my friends buy OR about what they publicly review.)
What we know for certain is that Google is aggressively pushing its users onto G+ and that is the real heart of the problem. It's a bait-and-switch. I have no intention of using Google as a social network and I have no guarantees that I will be able to opt out of current or future features. The writing is on the wall -- Google will be social. That upsets some people.
Yes, this page has a real torches-and-pitchforks feel to it. It's quite absurd.
The howls of derision from people who flat out say they don't even use the framework and clearly don't understand the vulnerability are particularly ridiculous.
