6 ms·
You didn't even try the link and therefore misleading people into thinking that the post is in any way private, which it isn't. You do NOT have to login into G
by gitarr 14y ago
You didn't even try the link and therefore misleading people into thinking that the post is in any way private, which it isn't.
You do NOT have to login into Google+ to read the post.
- iaskwhy 14y agoSome of us have no access to plus.google.com at work though.
- gitarr 14y agoYes that would be a valid reason to make that request, but the commenter above was misleading people that they had to login, which is wrong.
- ceejayoz 14y agoActually, there are situations in which you get a G+ login prompt. An incognito window solves it, but it's annoying. Google Groups does the same thing.
- Terretta 14y agoYou are wrong. If you have previously logged into a Google+ account, but are not logged in, you are blocked from seeing the article w/o logging in. To circumvent, you can put your browser into Private or Incognito browsing, and you can then read the post w/o logging in. (Which also logs you out of HN, so you can't comment or vote.) So, for any of the HN audience with G+ accounts but who don't surf "logged in", a login is required unless the user takes extra steps (EDIT: such as incognito or child comment's noscript approach).
- brudgers 14y agoI have a G+ account. I don't surf "logged in." A login is not required for me to view the content. I suspect this is because surfing "not logged in" is not the starting point for improving my surfing experiences. The starting point is noscript.
- DannoHung 14y agoI'm being asked to login and I have a fucking G+ account.
- gitarr 14y agoBut you still can read the content right?
- dmethvin 14y agoNope, not without logging in. Probably need to clear cookies or something. But in any case, the grandparents are not lying or stupid afaict so stop downvoting them.
- Retric 14y agoChrome (right click)-> Open Link in new Incognito window.
- ColinWright 14y agoIn tones that are significantly milder than I feel ... I did try the link, it did demand that I login. I did not login, and it did not show me the content. I resent such accusations, and suggest you make sure you are in full possession of facts before you do so.
- brudgers 14y agoI get the content even with (or perhaps because of) noscript and ghostery in Firefox. I also get it in Private Mode on IE9. Then again, I only access my gmail from it's own dedicated VM and noscript prevents GoogleApis and Analytics by default. Do you think it possible that Google is requiring you to log in because it can identify you via typical tracking mechanisms?
- ColinWright 14y agoI don't know, and I suspect that the task of tracking down definitively and conclusively exactly what the conditions are when I can and cannot read things would be lengthy and relatively unrewarding. I have better things to do than play "hunt the foible" on Google.
- brudgers 14y agoIn my experience, the conditions are pretty much as described. If Google knows you have an account because of tracking devices, they require you to log in because you are more salable. If you're anonymous, you're more salable if they just show you the content. In so far as I recall, originally G+ wouldn't show content without javascript turned on - i.e. the price of content was to allow Google to track you more closely.