Yep, many commenters here got it right: the "study's" authors are doing teh-stupid operations "in memory". This one is so egregious, especially that the ITworld article author fell for it, that I felt it warranted its own dissection post: http://blog.duh.org/2015/03/wh...

(oy, my dear Slashdot, how I forget your formatting directives... sorry for the ugly reply.)

The current side effects of a Google Profile suspension, with confirmations by Google staff in various G+ posts, are:

• The Profile is removed from public view.
• Existing Google+, Google Buzz, and Google Reader shared items/posts are removed from view (whether they were originally public or limited).
• Access to Google+ is blocked (more correctly, limited to only viewing public posts).
• Access to Google Buzz is blocked.
• Access to Google Reader (not just its sharing features) is blocked.

...It's hard for me to find the confirmation right now, but there is _some_ effect against Picasa. I cannot remember the exact detail. I think (but cannot yet confirm) that it removes public albums from public view.

Any other side effects reported until now have been labeled bugs and were not experienced by everyone consistently. Of particular note, a Profile suspension currently does NOT (modulo reappearing bugs?):

• block access to Gmail, Google Voice, or any other top-level service;
• block or unsubscribe from Google Groups;
• force the use of Google 2-factor authentication (which would entail providing an identifiable phone number);
• prevent the use of Google Checkout (or by extension, prevent the purchase of Android apps);
• prevent the use of Android features unrelated to the three major services mentioned (+, Buzz, Reader).

So that's the state of the world today. Whether it stays that way is up to debate, and I posited that question in my post that clarified the name policies as being an artifact of Profiles (including a reference proving that users can be banned without even having access to Google+ to begin with).