Google+ Updates Real Name Policy(plus.google.com)
plus.google.com
Google+ Updates Real Name Policy
https://plus.google.com/109179785755319022525/posts/YcvRKqJeiZi
19 comments
I don't understand. I just read the policy and it doesn't say anything about using your legal name (i.e. the one on your ID). It says:
"Your common name is the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you. For example, if your legal name is Charles Jones Jr. but you normally use Chuck Jones or Junior Jones, any of these would be acceptable."
It doesn't seem like their policy precludes Lady Gaga from calling herself Lady Gaga. I guess I don't quite understand where the criticism you linked to is coming from.
"Your common name is the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you. For example, if your legal name is Charles Jones Jr. but you normally use Chuck Jones or Junior Jones, any of these would be acceptable."
It doesn't seem like their policy precludes Lady Gaga from calling herself Lady Gaga. I guess I don't quite understand where the criticism you linked to is coming from.
The stated policy differs from the reality. If your account is flagged for potentially having a false name, you have to produce government ID or online evidence that it's your name, and they're very selective about what online they accept. And the details of the policy forbid single-word names, names that mix languages, or anything involving a number or punctuation.
I have a single word name. I got around the signup code by this: (name) Name. With parentheses.
I've been waiting for the ax. Although now I suppose it's an evite with the executioner.
I've been waiting for the ax. Although now I suppose it's an evite with the executioner.
Because the distinction on how common and acceptable your name is just seems too absurd for a ban-able offence.
Note: If legal name is Charles Jones Jr. then Junior Jones is acceptable. That isn't the same as saying prefixing Junior in front of anything is ok.
Also lumping friends, family, co-workers together doesn't fit for everyone.
I'm known primarily by Skyler, Sky, Skydogg, and Pyrodogg. All in 'real life', among different groups of people. Who is to say that Pyrodogg isn't my common name if you're talking about the 80+ members of my hackerspace?
Sure, it's my online moniker but it has migrated back out into the real world as my "common name" with those people.
Note: If legal name is Charles Jones Jr. then Junior Jones is acceptable. That isn't the same as saying prefixing Junior in front of anything is ok.
Also lumping friends, family, co-workers together doesn't fit for everyone.
I'm known primarily by Skyler, Sky, Skydogg, and Pyrodogg. All in 'real life', among different groups of people. Who is to say that Pyrodogg isn't my common name if you're talking about the 80+ members of my hackerspace?
Sure, it's my online moniker but it has migrated back out into the real world as my "common name" with those people.
Well, I can understand them requiring you to pick one name as your primary name. While e.g. a feature that allowed you to present a different name to different Circles might be a good one, I don't think it's unfair of them not to implement such a feature.
That said, the gray area here -- and the difference between the stated policy and their actions -- is the problem. Per their policy, I don't see why you couldn't use "Pyrodogg" as your name, if that is in fact what you're most frequently known by. I guess it's not a "full" name (first and last) but I don't see anything in their policy that explicitly prohibits that.
But I guess what people are saying is they would take action against you if you went that route -- in which case, the problem is one of enforcement rather than policy, no?
Don't get me wrong, I think they are mucking this up -- I'm just not convinced (yet) that their stated policy is as bad as some of the criticism is making it out to be. Most of the rules make sense (no impersonations, no special chars, etc.), so I don't get why they can't just say, "Call yourself whatever you want as long as it doesn't break these rules."
That said, the gray area here -- and the difference between the stated policy and their actions -- is the problem. Per their policy, I don't see why you couldn't use "Pyrodogg" as your name, if that is in fact what you're most frequently known by. I guess it's not a "full" name (first and last) but I don't see anything in their policy that explicitly prohibits that.
But I guess what people are saying is they would take action against you if you went that route -- in which case, the problem is one of enforcement rather than policy, no?
Don't get me wrong, I think they are mucking this up -- I'm just not convinced (yet) that their stated policy is as bad as some of the criticism is making it out to be. Most of the rules make sense (no impersonations, no special chars, etc.), so I don't get why they can't just say, "Call yourself whatever you want as long as it doesn't break these rules."
It's clear that their stated policy is not the same as their actual internal policy. If it were, the outcry would be half the size it is.
Google is lying about what their policy actually is, plain and simple. Questions of anonymity aside, the much of the outcry is because of the severe dishonesty being displayed by Google.
Google is lying about what their policy actually is, plain and simple. Questions of anonymity aside, the much of the outcry is because of the severe dishonesty being displayed by Google.
I don't see why it matters at all. Who cares what my friends commonly call me? It's up to me to decide what I want to be called on G+.
I left G+ a week ago, deleting my G+ account and profile. I'll be shopping for a gmail alternative as well.
After trying G+ out for a bit, I decided that I just didn't need it. A lot of my less technical friends & family use FB. I don't care much for it, but I've come to regard it as an inherently privacy-free unsafe/insecure zone and treat it accordingly. I stay logged out of it when I'm not using it and keep it out of my usual online activities.
G+ blurred the line too much between regular browsing, search, gmail, my RSS reader, and all these "circles" of FB/Twitter-like social interaction. It just felt like it would be too easy to make a mistake and say the wrong thing in the wrong context, or find that I was sharing in a way I didn't want to. And that's assuming the service works as intended without flaws, without FB-style policy changes.
I've come to realize that fragmented, disconnected identities on separate websites is a feature. Yes, the dots can be connected by someone with significant resources. But why should I make these connections easy to make, or searchable? Doesn't do anything for me.
After trying G+ out for a bit, I decided that I just didn't need it. A lot of my less technical friends & family use FB. I don't care much for it, but I've come to regard it as an inherently privacy-free unsafe/insecure zone and treat it accordingly. I stay logged out of it when I'm not using it and keep it out of my usual online activities.
G+ blurred the line too much between regular browsing, search, gmail, my RSS reader, and all these "circles" of FB/Twitter-like social interaction. It just felt like it would be too easy to make a mistake and say the wrong thing in the wrong context, or find that I was sharing in a way I didn't want to. And that's assuming the service works as intended without flaws, without FB-style policy changes.
I've come to realize that fragmented, disconnected identities on separate websites is a feature. Yes, the dots can be connected by someone with significant resources. But why should I make these connections easy to make, or searchable? Doesn't do anything for me.
> I've come to realize that fragmented, disconnected identities on separate websites is a feature. Yes, the dots can be connected by someone with significant resources. But why should I make these connections easy to make, or searchable? Doesn't do anything for me.
I've come to a similar realization, and reacted against G+ in much the same way. Maybe the NSA or ONI can figure out who 'revscat' really is -- and honestly, in my case it wouldn't be that difficult -- but Google already knows more about me than I feel comfortable with. The only way I would consider switching from FB to G+ was if Google completely reversed their 'real name' policy and allowed/encouraged pseudonyms.
The internet has a long, long history of anonymity. I will continue to do what I can to support this.
I've come to a similar realization, and reacted against G+ in much the same way. Maybe the NSA or ONI can figure out who 'revscat' really is -- and honestly, in my case it wouldn't be that difficult -- but Google already knows more about me than I feel comfortable with. The only way I would consider switching from FB to G+ was if Google completely reversed their 'real name' policy and allowed/encouraged pseudonyms.
The internet has a long, long history of anonymity. I will continue to do what I can to support this.
> Maybe the NSA or ONI can figure out who 'revscat' really is
I decided to do a little experiment and try to find out who you really are. In about 20 minutes I found out your internet service provider, in which city you live and your username seems to be linked to "Rev. Scatological Warfare". Am I on the right track?
> but Google already knows more about me than I feel comfortable with
But how exactly are they going to link all your google searches to your real identity, if you've always used a pseudonym when using Gmail or any other Google service?
I decided to do a little experiment and try to find out who you really are. In about 20 minutes I found out your internet service provider, in which city you live and your username seems to be linked to "Rev. Scatological Warfare". Am I on the right track?
> but Google already knows more about me than I feel comfortable with
But how exactly are they going to link all your google searches to your real identity, if you've always used a pseudonym when using Gmail or any other Google service?
That's pretty much my take as well.
As a social network, G+ has too many warts. It's a royal f@cking timesuck.
As a social service, it's a huge privacy suck as well.
And I'm looking to get off of my Android phone and gmail account in the future (it's principally associated with the phone).
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the G+ early adopters from here.
I'm reminded of a SciFi short story probably written in the 1970s. A global identity system was being created, and one of the members of the team was given the opportunity to opt out of it. There's enough "papers, please" associations I have with this whole concept that it's highly disturbing.
As a social network, G+ has too many warts. It's a royal f@cking timesuck.
As a social service, it's a huge privacy suck as well.
And I'm looking to get off of my Android phone and gmail account in the future (it's principally associated with the phone).
It'll be interesting to see what happens to the G+ early adopters from here.
I'm reminded of a SciFi short story probably written in the 1970s. A global identity system was being created, and one of the members of the team was given the opportunity to opt out of it. There's enough "papers, please" associations I have with this whole concept that it's highly disturbing.
I had the same impression. So many privacy features, yet everything feels so public.
"We’re listening, learning, and iterating to give our users the best experience possible."
No. You're not. Nobody has complained about lack of a grace period. We complain about the policy in the first place. This grace period is almost a little bit insulting. It's like saying "beg for mercy and repent for your sins and we will forgive and let you use our social network."
Perhaps the above is a bit sensational, but the point stands.
No. You're not. Nobody has complained about lack of a grace period. We complain about the policy in the first place. This grace period is almost a little bit insulting. It's like saying "beg for mercy and repent for your sins and we will forgive and let you use our social network."
Perhaps the above is a bit sensational, but the point stands.
And if you can't change your policy, at least be honest and make a straightforward, cogent, logical statement as to why.
For me, the policy smells. And I think for many, that's enough to make their decision.
(Even though I decided I was willing to give Plus a try, with restricted participation/circles, until account freeze-out became a concern.)
For me, the policy smells. And I think for many, that's enough to make their decision.
(Even though I decided I was willing to give Plus a try, with restricted participation/circles, until account freeze-out became a concern.)
There are a lot of good comments on that page, too.
Also, the policy page now lists examples of violations. http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271
Also, the policy page now lists examples of violations. http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271
I know this opinion might not be popular here, but I support the enforcement of real (istic) names. If you are honestly that concerned about your privacy, but still want desperately to join an online social network where you share personal details, why not make up a name that simply sounds realistic? They won't ban an Alfred or a Henry, and you can still enjoy all the anonymity you can handle.
I guess I just don't see the big deal here. If I am missing something, feel free to fill me in.
I guess I just don't see the big deal here. If I am missing something, feel free to fill me in.
You're saying that you should lie about who you are in order to fit in. Some people don't want to lie. Forcing them to do so, by creating a situation in which it is an optimal solution, is unethical and wrong.
No, I am saying if you really feel the need to join google+ and you do not want anyone to know who you actually are, you can make up a name. If you personally have ethical problems with false names, then no, you should not do this. You should refrain from joining the google+ social network.
Well, what's your real name and address, 'doctoboggan'?
If I friended you on G+, you would know it. (well not my address) But we are not on G+, we are on a site that allows pseudonymous and is designed around that idea.
[deleted]
The real problem is not anonymity but that people who do use their real names on G+ are getting their accounts disabled because somebody at Google thinks their real name looks fake.
I agree that that is a problem. I think google also agrees and that is why they came out with these new procedures.
That is a problem.
The real problem is markedly more nuanced than that, however.
The real problem is markedly more nuanced than that, however.
[deleted]
> ... we strive ... to make connecting with people on the web more like connecting with people in the real world
Oh, man... where do I begin... I am certainly not the only one who specifically does not want to connect to the people on the web like I would connect in the real world.
Oh, man... where do I begin... I am certainly not the only one who specifically does not want to connect to the people on the web like I would connect in the real world.
I think I will be closing my Google account. Google won't miss me but that's okay.
I would prefer Joanne Rowling, Mauritus Escher and Clive Lewis use their more common monikors than Google compliant ones. I don't even know DMX's real name.
It feels like Google is trying to enforce something most of us associate with our identity. What's surprising is how stubborn they are about it.
It will only lead to people creating fake names that pass the filters, as "Holden tattboy" demonstrates in the comments.
It feels like Google is trying to enforce something most of us associate with our identity. What's surprising is how stubborn they are about it.
It will only lead to people creating fake names that pass the filters, as "Holden tattboy" demonstrates in the comments.
[deleted]
The emphasis on "real" life is an absurdly ironic policy for a company that made its billions online, where people have been known by email addresses ("[email protected]") or chosen pseudonyms ("dragonworrier") since before people started asking "are you on email?"
EDIT: Changed "stopped" to "started."
EDIT: Changed "stopped" to "started."
The only reason to banish anonominity is to prevent dissenting opinion. Period.
That's a ridiculous and paranoid claim, bordering on tinfoil hat territory. There are plenty of practical reasons for why you'd want an online service to be tied to real identities. Reasons that a business would actually care about.
Which isn't to say that real names are necessarily the best choice. There are of course other reasons to be somewhere else on the continuum, like real identities with some freedom of presentation like nicknames, full pseudonymous identities, or full anonymity.
Which isn't to say that real names are necessarily the best choice. There are of course other reasons to be somewhere else on the continuum, like real identities with some freedom of presentation like nicknames, full pseudonymous identities, or full anonymity.
I think what google is trying to prevent is not dissenting opinion but rather things like the fact that 80% of newt gingriches twitter followers being fake. They want to create a community based on honesty and real world identities. if you need to post something anonymously on the internet, there are plenty of ways to do that. For instance googles blogger TOS doesn't disallow pseudonyms. So if you need to publish anonymously then maybe G+ just isn't the place to do it.
Real names is obviously a tricky policy to enforce but there is value in it. I think that eventually the policies and enforcement will converge on a better solution. This is probably one of the reasons G+ is still in field trial.
Real names is obviously a tricky policy to enforce but there is value in it. I think that eventually the policies and enforcement will converge on a better solution. This is probably one of the reasons G+ is still in field trial.
They want to create a community based on honesty
Often the best way to get an honest opinion is to gauruntee anonymity, not remove it.
Often the best way to get an honest opinion is to gauruntee anonymity, not remove it.
That is one way to do it, but it is also a way for conversation to devolve (youtube comment threads?). So it is a balance. While anonymity may allow some people more freedom to express themselves in a positive way, it also makes it easier for people to express themselves in a negative way that may be considered harmful as well.
Western governments have a long history of shutting down dissenting opinion, infiltrating left-wing groups, and conducting various other undemocratic operations in order to further their own goals. And just yesterday the PM of Great Britain called for government controls over social networks. Google's motives here are questionable given their cozy relationship with US intelligence and law enforcement.
This is hardly "tinfoil hat territory". Rather it is simple history and current events.
This is hardly "tinfoil hat territory". Rather it is simple history and current events.
Can you elaborate on the 'Western' qualifier, I think it's unwarranted? I imagine any big enough and sophisticated (organized) enough government would engage in some of this activity.
I included it because a large segment of Americans seem to discount, ignore, or refuse to accept the validity of such things. I agree with you. NPR, unfortunately, does not.
Ah, ok. I recall a conversation with a SEAsian refugee who mentioned something like neighborhood committees and such where neighbors were organized to actively spy on such things which could be regarded as anti-state/anti-party.
Sounds like East Germany.
I've lived in Vietnam and can confirm this is still policy. All over the country, every area (say, 6-8 city blocks from what I could tell) has a "Block warden" who's in charge of making sure everyone's political views are in line within their sphere. Most of these guys drive mercedes-benzes now and their kids spend most of the day playing videogames and blasting bad music off oversized speakers from the middle of the block warden's compound -- which itself is usually a large modern house with very high walls. No one sees what goes on in there, but the music starts blasting off those speakers at 6:30 AM sharp, six days a week, and if you're Vietnamese your ass is out of bed and washing the street in front of your shop by 7.
Google is trying to establish an online version of this kind of total collective obedience. And this, right after they admit to the German gov't that they've shared European data collected off their cloud servers with the US intelligence services? Seriously? Screw them to hell.
Google is trying to establish an online version of this kind of total collective obedience. And this, right after they admit to the German gov't that they've shared European data collected off their cloud servers with the US intelligence services? Seriously? Screw them to hell.
I think accusing someone of "bordering on tinfoil hat territory" is essentially a personal attack. You claim there are plenty of practical reasons, but you didn't list any. I can think of some, but none that are appropriate for a social network.
Think about it this way- would you exclude Mark Twain from your shelves if you ran a book store? Sure, you could say he's being dishonest by not posting under his real name, but he's part of a long tradition of people doing so, and for good reason, including those who published political pamphlets around the time of the american revolution.
There is also a very long history, continuing right up until the present day in many countries, of persecuting people for their dissenting opinions. Thus the comment you're replying to is not out of line-- it is a primary reason to use a pseudonym. And it is a real threat in countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
Further, given the public statements from the US Federal Government ranging from branding anyone who has served in the military as a "potential terrorist" and the revelations of programs and software to correlate identities using social networks to "find terrorists", the threat even in the USA is not out of the realm of the reasonable.
In fact, if Google were being forced to engage in domestic spying- spying that might otherwise be thwarted by using an alias that prevents correlation- we are all familiar with the fact that they could be barred from even revealing it, given the recent penchant for secret court orders and "national security letters", and the provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
So, there's a slate of practical reasons-- though quite unsavory- to tie your online identity to your real name.
Think about it this way- would you exclude Mark Twain from your shelves if you ran a book store? Sure, you could say he's being dishonest by not posting under his real name, but he's part of a long tradition of people doing so, and for good reason, including those who published political pamphlets around the time of the american revolution.
There is also a very long history, continuing right up until the present day in many countries, of persecuting people for their dissenting opinions. Thus the comment you're replying to is not out of line-- it is a primary reason to use a pseudonym. And it is a real threat in countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
Further, given the public statements from the US Federal Government ranging from branding anyone who has served in the military as a "potential terrorist" and the revelations of programs and software to correlate identities using social networks to "find terrorists", the threat even in the USA is not out of the realm of the reasonable.
In fact, if Google were being forced to engage in domestic spying- spying that might otherwise be thwarted by using an alias that prevents correlation- we are all familiar with the fact that they could be barred from even revealing it, given the recent penchant for secret court orders and "national security letters", and the provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
So, there's a slate of practical reasons-- though quite unsavory- to tie your online identity to your real name.
> I think accusing someone of "bordering on tinfoil hat territory" is essentially a personal attack.
I was talking about the claim, not the person. I'm sorry for expressing it in a way that could easily be construed as a personal attack, that was in no way my intent. I still think that it's a totally ridiculous idea.
Google doesn't have any obvious motivation for wanting to suppress dissent. Google does have a motivation for making a popular social network that can supplement their other products, and hopefully be a profitable business sometime in the future. You suggest that the motivation might be a secret US government order, and it is pretty sad when that is the most plausible theory.
It's one thing for the government to force the handover of some data. It's totally another for them to be secretly controlling the minutiae of R&D at a company all the way from the secret inception of the project...
Additionally a "real name" policy will in practice be a "real-looking name" policy, and thus not all that useful for censorship. If you use the pseudonym Mike Johnson or Steve Smith, how likely do you think it's that Google would be checking your identity? Is there any evidence at all that people with some political views are being singled out for id checks.
> You claim there are plenty of practical reasons, but you didn't list any. I can think of some, but none that are appropriate for a social network.
Well, the biggie for a social network would be that there's empirical evidence that social networks using real names seem to be more successful, and more useful. Nobody ever got fired for copying Facebook.
Using real names means that people who know you by your real name can easily find you. The network is less likely to be run over by novelty / joke / abusive accounts. People will in general behave better than when being pseudo- or anonymous. All of this will translate to better user experience and engagement for a large group of people.
So if you want to create a product with mainstream appeal it seems totally reasonable from a business perspective to go somewhere near closer to the real identity end of the spectrum. No sinister conspiracy needed.
Maybe some of these reasons are fallacious, either for everyone or small niches of people. It doesn't matter; all that's needed is for the people in charge to believe that they're valid for 95% of the people, and it'd still lead to the same decision being made.
> Thus the comment you're replying to is not out of line-- it is a primary reason to use a pseudonym. And it is a real threat in countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
It might be a reason to use the pseudonym, but that in no way implies that wanting to prevent that is the main reason to forbid pseudonyms.
I was talking about the claim, not the person. I'm sorry for expressing it in a way that could easily be construed as a personal attack, that was in no way my intent. I still think that it's a totally ridiculous idea.
Google doesn't have any obvious motivation for wanting to suppress dissent. Google does have a motivation for making a popular social network that can supplement their other products, and hopefully be a profitable business sometime in the future. You suggest that the motivation might be a secret US government order, and it is pretty sad when that is the most plausible theory.
It's one thing for the government to force the handover of some data. It's totally another for them to be secretly controlling the minutiae of R&D at a company all the way from the secret inception of the project...
Additionally a "real name" policy will in practice be a "real-looking name" policy, and thus not all that useful for censorship. If you use the pseudonym Mike Johnson or Steve Smith, how likely do you think it's that Google would be checking your identity? Is there any evidence at all that people with some political views are being singled out for id checks.
> You claim there are plenty of practical reasons, but you didn't list any. I can think of some, but none that are appropriate for a social network.
Well, the biggie for a social network would be that there's empirical evidence that social networks using real names seem to be more successful, and more useful. Nobody ever got fired for copying Facebook.
Using real names means that people who know you by your real name can easily find you. The network is less likely to be run over by novelty / joke / abusive accounts. People will in general behave better than when being pseudo- or anonymous. All of this will translate to better user experience and engagement for a large group of people.
So if you want to create a product with mainstream appeal it seems totally reasonable from a business perspective to go somewhere near closer to the real identity end of the spectrum. No sinister conspiracy needed.
Maybe some of these reasons are fallacious, either for everyone or small niches of people. It doesn't matter; all that's needed is for the people in charge to believe that they're valid for 95% of the people, and it'd still lead to the same decision being made.
> Thus the comment you're replying to is not out of line-- it is a primary reason to use a pseudonym. And it is a real threat in countries like North Korea, Iran, etc.
It might be a reason to use the pseudonym, but that in no way implies that wanting to prevent that is the main reason to forbid pseudonyms.
Claims aren't accused of wearing tinfoil hats, people are. When you say a claim is the kind that comes from that kind of person, you're implying that the maker of the claim is that kind of person. You are correct that you strictly talked about the claim, but this was an inflammatory way to put it, and personally offensive to me. (I really do wear a tinfoil hat, under doctors orders!)
Seriously, though, I can't speak to your intent, and I'm not trying to argue with you (in fact, you can have the last word... ) its just that this particular phrase is commonly used in an attempt to discredit people and communicates a world view that is anti-intellectual and anti-critical thinking. (EG: "You disagree with government propaganda? Well put on your tinfoil hat!")
Strictly speaking, I think what he said was incorrect. I believe it is correct that suppression of dissent is the primary reason most "hipsters" (not sure what the right word is there to describe this segment of the population) want to prevent using pseudonyms. I don't think it is google's reason. And there's a big difference between "primary reason" and "only reason".
However, invoking the tinfoil hat, at best is a fallacy ("People who say that are crazy, therefore the argument is false") and at worse it takes the conversation to a personal level that his simple over broad statement didn't really merit.
Probably way too many words on that subject, but I wanted you to understand why it is an offensive thing to say.
Seriously, though, I can't speak to your intent, and I'm not trying to argue with you (in fact, you can have the last word... ) its just that this particular phrase is commonly used in an attempt to discredit people and communicates a world view that is anti-intellectual and anti-critical thinking. (EG: "You disagree with government propaganda? Well put on your tinfoil hat!")
Strictly speaking, I think what he said was incorrect. I believe it is correct that suppression of dissent is the primary reason most "hipsters" (not sure what the right word is there to describe this segment of the population) want to prevent using pseudonyms. I don't think it is google's reason. And there's a big difference between "primary reason" and "only reason".
However, invoking the tinfoil hat, at best is a fallacy ("People who say that are crazy, therefore the argument is false") and at worse it takes the conversation to a personal level that his simple over broad statement didn't really merit.
Probably way too many words on that subject, but I wanted you to understand why it is an offensive thing to say.
Or to build up profiles they can match to sell ads against for demographic targeting.
The fun part is that, if you are suspended, as I am, you cannot use G+ at all anymore.
You end up with a dialog on all pages that basically tells you to go screw yourself and go elsewhere. Or - change the name. So - delete it is, now.
http://ben.sh/GoodbyeGPlus.png
You end up with a dialog on all pages that basically tells you to go screw yourself and go elsewhere. Or - change the name. So - delete it is, now.
http://ben.sh/GoodbyeGPlus.png
I use Google Plus less because of this system. I got married in May, and would like to display my name in Google Plus the same way I do in Facebook- Smokey Bear Husbandsname. At least for a year or two it would really help people find me. Alas, there's not an option to display middle name, and it is stuck as Smokey Husbandsname.
I don't have an ID in that name yet either, so I guess I'm even at risk of losing my account.
I don't have an ID in that name yet either, so I guess I'm even at risk of losing my account.
What's particularly stunning is this damning peremptory indictment of G+'s "Real Names" policy by some rabidly anti-Google zealot: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/02/freedom-to-be...
"Pseudonyms and anonymity are also an established part of many cultures -- for good reason."
"Pseudonyms and anonymity are also an established part of many cultures -- for good reason."
> As always, Google believes you own your data
joke of the week
joke of the week
Google just doesn't get it.
Why doesn't Google force you to register with your real name but allow you to display a pseudonym? I usually support Google but this makes little sense. Force me to register with Jamie, but if I decide I want to be displayed as some nickname, who the hell cares.
Thats the same thought I had.
After some thought on my latest project I wrote a membership provider for the .net frame work to specifically handle this.
I decided I wanted single sign and opted for oauth via Facebook (maybe more later). I understand users don't there personal details in my system so I've create a hybrid persona construct (or "Actor" as I called the instantiated entities, inherits the system "MembershipUser" class so I can plug it straight into anything .net).
I store a Authentication record from FB for the oauth to work, a few other bits and pieces. Then users can create "Persona" entities, and from the combination of those two the "actor" exists.
Doesn't seem like rocket science to me... and hopefully user testing will show it makes it smooth and seamless for the users and offer them plenty of protection (as in the site involves politics and being anonymous is very important).
After some thought on my latest project I wrote a membership provider for the .net frame work to specifically handle this.
I decided I wanted single sign and opted for oauth via Facebook (maybe more later). I understand users don't there personal details in my system so I've create a hybrid persona construct (or "Actor" as I called the instantiated entities, inherits the system "MembershipUser" class so I can plug it straight into anything .net).
I store a Authentication record from FB for the oauth to work, a few other bits and pieces. Then users can create "Persona" entities, and from the combination of those two the "actor" exists.
Doesn't seem like rocket science to me... and hopefully user testing will show it makes it smooth and seamless for the users and offer them plenty of protection (as in the site involves politics and being anonymous is very important).
[deleted]
I've noticed I use Google+ a lot less these days. Stopped when I first heard about this policy. Not in protest, just a whole lot less trusting of them now. Kinda like I stopped using Facebook when they made previously private data public by default. (Only reason I opened a Facebook account in the first place was their strong privacy policy.)
I'm not putting my foot down, but mulling it over, and I think I'm done with google. They did a good job with plus and I had high hopes, but their ... rigidness... shows what I see as a disrespect for their users.
I'll be moving my mail off of gmail onto paid mail hosts, etc, as soon as we get mail setup for the new company.
In the 1990s I removed Microsoft from my life completely. I think I'll keep a company page on Facebook, and maybe the equivalent on google plus if they allow it, but no more for the personal stuff.
I think there's a huge opportunity for a startup that operates a social network that actually caters to people's desire for anonymity and privacy.
I'm not putting my foot down, but mulling it over, and I think I'm done with google. They did a good job with plus and I had high hopes, but their ... rigidness... shows what I see as a disrespect for their users.
I'll be moving my mail off of gmail onto paid mail hosts, etc, as soon as we get mail setup for the new company.
In the 1990s I removed Microsoft from my life completely. I think I'll keep a company page on Facebook, and maybe the equivalent on google plus if they allow it, but no more for the personal stuff.
I think there's a huge opportunity for a startup that operates a social network that actually caters to people's desire for anonymity and privacy.
"I think there's a huge opportunity for a startup that operates a social network that actually caters to people's desire for anonymity and privacy."
The problem here is that any successful endeavor will inevitably turn evil in some way. Once millions and billions are on the table, investors and shareholders will force the proprietors to scrape every bit of money possible off the table. That will usually involve some user-unfriendly behavior, like Google's real name, Facebook's ever changing privacy policy, and LinkedIn's recent emulation of FB.
The only way that social networks can be pro-user is if they are a standards-based commodity like email, where anyone is free to implement the standard and offer the service. You can get the same email service anywhere you want, interoperable with every standards based server on the planet. It should be the same with twitter-like message bursts, and social networks.
As it is now, bursting and socializing is built similar to early telephone networks, where many companies offered networks, they didn't connect to each other, and businesses had to have multiple network accounts to be able to interact with all their customers. That's just wrong.
fastmail.fm offers excellent email service. They should also (be able to) offer standards based bursting and socializing; so should anyone else who wants to.
The problem here is that any successful endeavor will inevitably turn evil in some way. Once millions and billions are on the table, investors and shareholders will force the proprietors to scrape every bit of money possible off the table. That will usually involve some user-unfriendly behavior, like Google's real name, Facebook's ever changing privacy policy, and LinkedIn's recent emulation of FB.
The only way that social networks can be pro-user is if they are a standards-based commodity like email, where anyone is free to implement the standard and offer the service. You can get the same email service anywhere you want, interoperable with every standards based server on the planet. It should be the same with twitter-like message bursts, and social networks.
As it is now, bursting and socializing is built similar to early telephone networks, where many companies offered networks, they didn't connect to each other, and businesses had to have multiple network accounts to be able to interact with all their customers. That's just wrong.
fastmail.fm offers excellent email service. They should also (be able to) offer standards based bursting and socializing; so should anyone else who wants to.
"The only way that social networks can be pro-user is if they are a standards-based commodity like email, where anyone is free to implement the standard and offer the service."
This already exists for social data, it's called The Locker Project. http://lockerproject.org/#vision
This already exists for social data, it's called The Locker Project. http://lockerproject.org/#vision
This is great, a great start. But this is an implementation, not a standard.
I think it remains to be seen whether github repos give us anything like the long term stability and stewardship of RFCs. Not to mention the longevity of github.
Yeah I know, you can fork. Everyone can fork.
I think it remains to be seen whether github repos give us anything like the long term stability and stewardship of RFCs. Not to mention the longevity of github.
Yeah I know, you can fork. Everyone can fork.
I think there's a huge opportunity for a startup that operates a social network that actually caters to people's desire for anonymity and privacy.
What IS diaspora doing these days?
What IS diaspora doing these days?
Their blog hasn't been updated since June http://blog.joindiaspora.com/ , but the Twitter feed has a couple a features they've added recently https://twitter.com/#!/joindiaspora They just sent out a survey to early adopters asking them about how they're using the service and what they should focus on.
There's lots of discussion about this on G+:
Mike Elgan of Computerworld is at https://plus.google.com/113117251731252114390/posts/e3nC5XyA...
Marshall Kirkpatrick of Read Write Web is at https://plus.google.com/117421021456205115327/posts/BPKvVJm7... and https://plus.google.com/117421021456205115327/posts/EAMD7Pc9...
In all of these threads the comments are overwhelmingly pro-nym.