Google Partially Backs Down From Google+ Censorship

From DailyTech: Google Inc.'s new social network, Google+, seemed on the fast track to success, garnering generally positive reviews and earning 20+ million members within only a couple weeks of the launch of the "field test" of the network. But over the last week and a half, the network has been rocked by allegations of censorship, after it began a campaign of purging users who had used nicknames.

Google's VP of Google+ Bradley Horowitz, has finally cleared the air, indicating that the controversial policy is under review. He writes in a Google+ post, "[M]any... changes are coming. We’re flattered and appreciative of your support and interest. I assure you, teams of passionate individuals are pouring their talents and care into making this a great experience for you."

Mr. Horowtiz acknowledges that most customers using nicknames weren't using it in an abusive manner. He writes, "We've noticed that many violations of the Google+ common name policy were in fact well-intentioned and inadvertent and for these users our process can be frustrating and disappointing. So we're currently making a number of improvements to this process - specifically regarding how we notify these users that they’re not in compliance with Google+ policies and how we communicate the remedies available to them."

The company is making some amends to make the process friendlier and rejections gentler. Namely, it's going to be implementing checks that makes it harder to register with a nickname. Presumably this would include a check for illegal punctuation characters (for example "Mick" is a valid last name, "Mick++" isn't). As this was part of Google's rules, it's baffling why Google didn't include such a check in the first place -- particularly when it offers similar checks with registration for other services, like Gmail.

A new page has also been published on how users can alter their nicknames, names, etc. to avoid violations. Mr. Horowitz says Google will now merely warn users when the violation is first discovered, rather than suspending their account. He also promises to provide users with a clearer timeframe of exactly how long they have to fulfill each step in this review process.

View: Article @ Source Site