G+ was my public-facing platform, the place where I engaged with people who I didn't know (most of my posts are public there.) It's separate from my normal online identity, deliberately (the people who read my friendslocked posts in my own space know about my G+ nym and profile, but I chose not to connect it to my normal nym and other personal information.)

I've found it to be an interesting, valuable, informative way to keep up with news, to meet people whose social spheres I wouldn't have otherwise encountered, and to have thoughtful, ongoing conversations. It's a space where I'm engaged in political, social, and specific-group-related commentary (gender and sexual minorities, disability-related discussions.)

I knew that, by using G+ publicly, I was giving up a carefully-considered amount of privacy -- but that was associated with a single nym, not my larger online identity.

Does Google know who I am? Yeah, sure. What I didn't want was Joe Public (or, worse, Joe YouTube) being able to track me cross-platform, which is why I never associated it with my normal persistent pseudonym or my other spheres of online activity.

I'm criticizing G+ from G+, because I'd love to see some changes made by Google. That's the best way I have of reaching an audience that includes Google employees, and it's also the platform where I've had the most frequent discussions of online privacy, etc.

Sure, I could try to go in and delete everything I've ever posted, now that Google has pulled its latest anti-privacy move. What, exactly, would that accomplish? It's still cached, and as various people will tell you, it's difficult to fully delete a G+ profile, unless you'd like to give up using all Google services (and I have yet to find a mail provider who gives me similar utility for free, or for a low price.)

I didn't mind the targeted ads in Gmail, they were the price I paid for using the service. What I do mind is the forced merging and integration of activities and nyms which users had repeatedly requested not be merged (I declined to merge my YT account repeatedly.)

Since I wasn't an active YT user, and I was able to re-link my YT profile to a dead-end G+ page after the fact, I have not been directly harmed.

But if I'd been someone who was an active YT content provider on a controversial subject, for example, or if I'd been outed in some way by the merge, or if I'd actually FOLLOWED Google's real-name policy and used my full legal name as they had wanted, there was certainly the potential for substantial harm to be done -- because that allows people to follow me (and other users) home -- both virtually and physically.

Google's convenience for data-marketing shouldn't outweigh personal safety or privacy concerns. I'm less distressed by their having the information available than I am with them sharing it with the public, after repeatedly declining their "offer" and not being given the option to opt-out.

The existence of a work-around (a dead-end "page") does not mean that the action was an acceptable one to take in the first place -- and it took a savvy user advising me of the work-around to cause me to look up how to do it . . . there wasn't an option for me to do so at the time they merged my accounts, which would have solved a lot of the related privacy concerns.