[Wickk]

"To help fight spam and prevent fake profiles, use the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you." And this is what bothers me about this whole ordeal. Google's playing a stupidly dangerous ( in regards to making people want to use their services ) game of determining whats a "real" name before we're asked of all things to show our ID? That's a little absurd for a social networking client.

We get why you're doing this, you're fighting this the wrong way.

[joe_the_user]

That's it. Google's policies are more aggressively invasive than Facebook. They were a company I had some sympathy for. No longer.

[nextparadigms]

Facebook will delete you if you have fake names, too. Mark said at e-g8 too when asked why isn't he allowing people to be anonymous on their network, and he said he knows anonymity can be a useful thing, too, but he's trying to make a social network where people use real names.

I fail to see how Google+ is any different. Use your own name and you'll be fine.

[rjd]

You are totally wrong about that, most of my musicians friends use there stage names, and recently I've been working in big media and all the journalists and writers use fake names as well. Quite common for high visibility people to do this.

Facebook seems total fine with it (or turns a blind eye) as long as its actually you (and not a troll account).

I used a nick name myself as I wanted to see if any spam started heading my way with that name. None so far, been using Facebook since it went public. Never a peep out of them.

[joe_the_user]

Up vote this point...

Facebook pretty much allows pseudonyms in practice whatever they say. If Google+ is actively stepping on the pseudonym accounts of people with well-known names, it's a problem - seriously.

[Wickk]

Some users are getting locked out of their entire google accounts, not just G+. That's the difference.

[murz]

Not for name violations. For name violations users just get their G+ profile suspended.

"When an account is suspended for violating the Google+ common name standards, access to Gmail or other products unrelated to the Google+ profile are not removed. (Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension.)

It is not our intention to shut off access to all Google services when an account is suspended for violating our Google+ common name standards. This is a misunderstanding, and I wanted to clarify it."

[asdkl234890]

Not being on any social network is starting to get inconvenient, even for (I'm old) me. But if this no fake name thing stays with G+ then I'll be joining the Anon+ network.

[darklajid]

I fail to understand this way to reason about the issue.

G+ is young. It has yet to prove its worth. Do I like it? Maybe. Little chaotic, far too much crap content so far (my G+ is worse than my FB stream and I tried to 'follow' only tech guys that I admire otherwise or find interesting to read about). I don't care about these 'see this graph about the explosive growth of G+' graphics: It's completely useless in my world so far. The UI doesn't scale. The content is miserable. 'Social' features are missing (tell me about events, birthdays).

Using it as a _blogging_ software is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read/seen.

Now your argument comes along and says 'You know what? This thing you all dislike about this new product here? The product it tries hard to compete with, one way or another, has the very same issue'.

Uhm. What? Right.. So - it's the same crap regarding 'real names'. Missed chance. Leads (with other things) to (and it hurts me to write that..) lower scores than FB in my world..