Uh oh, google wants me.

I have been an avid user of YouTube for a long time and have long had an account. I even posted a video once. Apparently, they are now owned by Google. About a month ago, I discovered that I could no longer comment on videos without changing my YouTube identity to my Google+ identity. I had gotten a Google+ account a year ago and never used it. My Google+ account, unlike my YouTube account, is in my full real name. They also eliminated my long list of favorited videos, which presumably I could get back if I bowed to their wishes, and my subscribed groups vanished. I didn't like the strong arm tactics, so rather than allowing them to switch my YouTube ID to my Google+ account, I deleted my Google+ account. Maybe Vimeo or Dailymotion will pick up the slack.

Youtube is owned by Google since 2006.
My youtube identity (something similar YxBb1qA0aR_iNbG8L99b3gas) is totally different to my gmail-account, which I use to sign in.

So why didn't you just create a new Google+ account, not in your full real name, to use Youtube.

This would mean you would have two separate Google accounts, one you would use for email, and the other you would use to post and comment on Youtube videos. There would be no difference between this and getting a Dailymotion account (accept that Youtube is a better service than Dailymotion).

You are complaining about nothing. This is really a silly thread about nothing.

I have to side with Osso on this. There can be many unintended consequences when you join a network that's heavy into sharing. My son shared an iTunes account with his wife and she shares with her sister. I still don't understand why this feature kicked in, but every text I sent to my son went to him, his wife and sister-in-law. I don't have an iTunes account, and it took some digging to untangle that mess.

For the most part, I find retailers are the most bothersome affect of data sharing. People don't always protect their Facebook accounts. I find it more trouble than it's worth.

When my husband enrolled in Medicare, we started to get flyers from retirement housing, catalogs featuring sturdy shoes and all sorts of paraphernalia geared to disabled folks. We are on the no call list, but several times a week I get a call on my home phone telling me a medical alert system has need paid for on my behalf by unknown person. All I have to do is push 1 and they will set up an installation AND give me a gift certificate for $3,000 worth of groceries.

We still get offers for Medigap insurance plans for my brother-in-law who died in 1987. Why does this happen??? I don't know, but retailers and scam artists have remarkable resources.

That's a completely different situation Glitterbag

Osso is upset because Google is letting her use her Gmail password to login to maps (even though all they are doing is giving her the ability, they aren't forcing her). The feature Osso is objecting to is using one account to use more than one service.

You are talking about a very different situation letting more than one person use the same account on the same service.

I don't know if what your son did was even legal. Itunes is a paid service with a contract that I think says only one person can use it. I think sharing in this sense is wrong, and it is not surprising that they caused a bit of a mess. If you pretend to be someone else you just might confuse service providers to send texts to the wrong place.

Google is offering Osso more than one service with one account. She is upset because she could use her gmail account to access Google Docs (even though if she never tries this won't impact her one bit.

I suppose Google could provide a button that says -- "If I ever try to use Google Docs, don't let me". This seems like a silly button, since if you don't want to use Google Docs, you could just not use Google Docs without explicitly prohibiting yourself from doing so.

You can share iTunes with up to 5 computers.

Osso, I give up. I've read every word you've written. I don't think you've bothered to read mine except for finding complaints.
Too bad, so sad.

Their methods had the feeling of strong arm tactics and I didn't like it. Yes, it occurred to me that I could make a new Google plus account with a fake name. If you want to say that it's unreasonable to dislike feeling pressured, go ahead and dismiss it, but lots of people don't like feeling pushed.

I have admitted that I know that now, more than once. Stop with the battering.

It was absolutely not clear when I wasn't allowed to see my gmail.

Finally a person who understands my gripe, at least somewhat.

Jesus. I am fine if google lets you opt out but they didn't tell me that. As I said, I couldn't see emails from them since I could not get in to see gmail without signing up.

They sent me a screen that I couldn't get into my gmail unless I signed up (not to be repetitive yet again once more) for All in One. I looked at sign in, and there was no opt out place, except, when I looked again, a tiny line about being able to close out gmail. We all know by now I did not want boogle plus. That was a typo, but I liked it and left it.

I used gmail as a secondary email for years. For a2k sign in - but I never sign in - and it's apparently superceded by my handier email that I use for Contact Us -and for people I'm cautious of. For example, I put my gmail address on my profile here. I've had some questions about my murphy bed photos, people wanting to know more. The people who did ask those questions turned out to interested and not bothersome at all. And a few a2kers have used it, quite nicely.

I did glancingly read that people bouncing from goog+ to gmail don't have to know the email addresses, they can email any. I have no idea if that is true, but I don't like spam.

Ceili, I'm sorry you don't get me. I think you think I'm less tech savvy than I am. I admit I'm a tech dolt, but not as much as a bunch of you take me for.

Please explain. What are they forcing you do do with these so-called "strong arm tactics"?

Businesses, such as hotels, have been offering their guests amenities at no extra charge forever. I am sure that the last time you stayed at a hotel, you were offered services (at no charge) that you didn't use... be it the pool, a gym or a business center?

Do you feel this way about any business that offers free cool stuff to all of their customers? Or are you just singling out Google?

The term "Strong arm" is an inappropriately harsh for the equivalent of hotels offering you a free breakfast that you have every right to not eat.

If you don't want the Continental breakfast, then don't eat it. In fact I never eat it. It seems silly to complain that it was prepared for you, and it is really silly to refuse to stay at hotels just because they do offer a free breakfast you don't want.

"Strong arm tactics"? "Battering". There is an awful lot of hyperbole in this thread.

Look, I am responding this way because the anti-Google bandwagon of this week is annoying. I am the first in line when a company does something against privacy. Facebook, for example, does things that are honestly harmful and not useful to the majority of their customers.

If I am directing this at you, it is because the way you are talking about the "all in one" tagline makes it clear that you haven't taken the time to think about it before jumping on the outrage bandwagon.

What Google did this week poses zero threat to your privacy. Sure, it makes good business sense, but it also is a net benefit to customers. The outrage is ridiculous.

The specific feature that you are complaining about is even less controversial. It is a benefit to 99% of the customer base. More important it would have zero impact on your life if you hadn't freaked out about some misunderstood phrase on a sign up screen.

If everyone jumps onto the outrage of the week bandwagon every time without reason, it makes it harder to react when companies really do something bad.

I don't know about anti google. I've liked google up to now.

Your anger has nothing to do with me not seeing how I could get to see my gmails.

Plus you are amazingly repetitive while not listening.
All they had to do was tell me there was a way to opt out instead of making me sign up for All in One.. to see my gmails.

I DID NOT SEE THAT.

Maybe their graphics are crap.

The thing is, though, I don't give a crap what you think, and I certainly don't need your approval.

Is this like repetitive in music?

Max, battering in place of argument seems your mode.

I'm not very interesting in that.

You are the one who is not listening Osso.

If all you use is Gmail, then "All in One" means Gmail. The services you don't use don't get used. If you are reading these posts, then please respond to my Hotel examples.

Do you get upset when a hotel offers services you don't use?

The hotel example is really a good example. When you stay in a hotel they give you a room key. This room key opens not only your room, but also

1. The gym
2. The pool
3. The business center
4. The sauna (if any)
5. The laundry room (the last hotel I stayed in had one)

The hotel automatically adds these services to your room key, whether you ask or not. When I stay at a hotel these days, I use the gym only (I don't use the other services). I don't get upset that my room key would open the sauna (if I tried). It doesn't matter since I will never try to the open the sauna.

I don't understand why I would ever demand that the hotel take these services off my room. It wouldn't make any sense. I just use the services I want and don't use the services I don't want.

Nor does you demanding that Google take free services that you don't want to use off of your acount make any sense.

If you are reading the posts of other people (rather than just launching personal attacks at people who disagree with you), I would like to hear your response to this.

Google would not let me in to see my gmails unless I newly grasped all in one. With, not that I could see, any alternative if I didn't like it.

Roger, I gather, moved on to look, , but I didn't go that far.

I see you deleted the last stuff.

I was sort of amazed by it.