Google can use your name and photo alongside online ads

[tobyjsullivan]

I seriously do not understand what the issue is. Why would you +1 something if not to have Google tell your friends and followers you +1'd it? Why would you comment on something if you don't want Google telling your followers you commented on it?

Where is the issue?

And, for what it's worth, Google claims to be "clarifying" this part of the terms of service, not changing it. I haven't verified what that means though.

[r00fus]

As soon as I see or hear about poeople's +1's becoming ads is when I stop using +1 on anything.

Right now it's a subtle "thankyou" for the content creator and to say "I think this is meaningful". If I wanted to "shout out", I'd also take the step to post this in my Public circle.

If Google thinks a simple +1 is some wholehearted endorsement of that content, I'll simply stop using +1s. I'm sure I'm not the only one here.

[adam12]

I plus one something to show my appreciation to the content creator. I'm not doing it because I want to be a part of an advertisement.

[tensor]

I don't mind telling the public what I think of products anonymously. But I'm not comfortable broadcasting all the products I use under a single profile with my name attached.

Ever since google removed the ability to comment and rate anonymously, I've stopped doing either completely.

[sheldor]

One might upvote or +1 something just for future reference (like the 'Saved Stories' on HN).

[gergles]

I don't care about Google telling friends that I +1d something. I care about Google telling the public. The things I like are my data and I want to choose what I publicly declare I like. That set may be different than what I tell my friends I like (or even certain friends may get different knowledge than others.) Apply how things work in the real world here.

[harvestmoon]

I might be willing to anonymously support a product. But that's a far cry from having my name and picture being used to promote it.

[slg]

Anyone who thought Google+ wasn't going to be used in this type of manner was somewhat foolish. What did you expect their motive was in creating Google+ if it wasn't to create a Facebook equivalent in order to improve advertisement targeting and efficiency?

[alexeisadeski3]

It seems that you can opt out of this new Google thing tho, right?

[RexRollman]

I don't understand why companies won't realize how creepy this is.

[psbp]

How is it creepy? You see an ad and also see that one of your friends voluntarily liked it. Won't this be a bit helpful if you're going to see an ad anyway?

[ape4]

I agree its creepy. Don't the employees of these companies use their own products?

[Pxtl]

As if consumers didn't have enough reasons to avoid Google Plus.

[psbp]

I don't get it. If I have to see an ad for a product, I might as well see that one of my friends recommended it.

[grbalaffa]

Good luck with "avoiding" it. It's getting harder and harder to use Google without using Google+ (clearly intentional), and it's nearly equally hard to use the internet without using Google.

[lettergram]

This seems no worse that than Facebook's advertisements (slightly less freaky in fact). All it shows is that you endorsed something, who cares? They already have your data all they are doing now is saying "oh hey your friend +1'd this"

[Camillo]

I agree. The only problem is when it's done fraudolently. Just two weeks ago I was somehow added to a random Facebook event in another country; I think it might have been done with click hijacking.

[ape4]

Both Facebook and Google doing this is horrible. Whatever happened to: don't be evil.

[alecsmart1]

It's really wrong to have these options opt-out. They should be opt-in. I know so many people who use Google services on a daily basis and are not techno-savvy. They will never know about it.

[patejam]

If it is only shared with the people who you originally shared it with, what is the problem?

[HNaTTY]

If this is the opt-in/out checkbox, mine was already set to not allow them to use my name/profile photo: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en

[mjolk]

>It's really wrong to have these options opt-out. They should be opt-in.

Google isn't a public utility. It's a business and businesses perform actions to make money.

[plg]

there is an opt-out

https://plus.google.com/u/0/settings/endorsements

ps when I checked my settings were automatically "opted out" so unlike FaceBoob they are not opting people in by default and forcing them to proactively opt out

yay google

[evan_]

When I went there the "Based upon my activity, Google may show my name and profile photo in shared endorsements that appear in ads." box was checked.

[klenwell]

If you received a cut of any revenue for an ad that you appeared in (sort of like AdSense), is this something you would opt into? I'm assuming this isn't part of the deal. But that would make it more interesting.

Edit: Oh, it's opt-out? Poor choice, Google.

[calbear81]

I would be interested in opting in to share more data if I get a cut of revenue.

[jaredsohn]

I see no problem with this at all if you make an actual review.

One problem with +1 (and Facebook's Like) is that as a user you aren't necessarily doing that to endorse; you might just want to subscribe in an RSS-like sense.

[tobyjsullivan]

That's like buying McDonald's to test your credit card still works, then complaining your car trunk is full of uneaten happy meals.

If you're going to misuse a product to get some unique result you desire, expect the company that built it to continue with their original vision of the product's purpose.

[tiziano88]

I don't think +1 on Google+ subscribes you in the same way Like does on Facebook. You have to at least comment in order to receive notifications for new activity via Google+. If you +1 something, it is only to endorse it.

[mythz]

You can opt-out and it sounds like they're only using it on Content you've +1'ed.

I only +1 content I like, and if my endorsement can somehow bring revenue to the content creator, I'm personally fine with it.

[wtvanhest]

Instead of continuing to attempt to make products better and appeal to more people and in a more meaningful way, they are trying to squeeze some profit out of a barely used platform. [1]Google+ didn't take off, at all. It never will if they fully monetize it before lockin.

I would be smiling so hard right now if I were at Facebook.

[1] http://mashable.com/2013/05/10/google-has-20-million-u-s-mon...

[marincounty]

I use DuckDuckGo for most of my work. I only need Google 10% of the time. You will get used to using less, and less of Google. Google and Facebook need a wakup call.

[dropawaywaytogo]

So now they're on par with Facebook and Twitter in that regard.

[msoad]

Legal question: Google sent a notification instead of email for this change. Is it acceptable legally to send notifications for this kind of legal change?

[miguelrochefort]

What's wrong with you guys? Why do you keep complaining "in the name of privacy". There's nothing wrong with that, nothing creepy about it.

You all assume that it's bad, it's "evil", but give me a rational argument against it. Just one. You can't find one because hating on such poor basis is irrational and foolish.

Just grow up and embrace the future.

EDIT: man up -> grow up

[cliffu]

Nice; a classic "if you've got nothing to hide" with a bonus gender role shaming.

> You can't find one because hating on such poor basis is irrational and foolish.

+1'd a gay rights group, have fundamentalist parents.

[marincounty]

True story. Google mail went into my camera folder on my Ipad and put up a picture of me. I know it sounds impossible, or I made a mistake. I honestly didn't. Am I the only one?