Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians(randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com)
randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com
Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians
http://randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com/2014/03/google-names-policy.html
25 comments
But this is Google, they don't need to make up a ton of fake names. They index the contents of the web and surely can see a ton of vcards and addresses on contact pages to run through their name rejection algorithm. Some of those have Native American names.
Exactly. That's why I don't call it a "real name policy", but a "no unusual name policy". They ban real people for having unusual names, but a believable pseudonym is perfectly okay.
[deleted]
"Discriminate" because this was obviously intentional prejudicial racism!
Of course it's not malicious. This guy is not good people.
Of course it's not malicious. This guy is not good people.
In the UK, at least, "discriminate" is the right word because it is possible to discriminate indirectly. This is defined in law. If you have rules that apply to everyone but disadvantage people who share a protected characteristic, you are discriminating, whether you intended to or not.
http://www.equality-law.co.uk/news/106/66/Types-of-discrimin...
http://www.equality-law.co.uk/news/106/66/Types-of-discrimin...
That's the usage I'm familiar with even in regular discourse, although apparently many HNers have a different view of what the term means, so maybe usage differs. To me, "discrimination" is more of an objective issue, not the same as "prejudice" or "bigotry" which are more subjective issues. Saying "Google is prejudiced towards Native Americans" would imply that someone there actively dislikes Native Americans, while saying that "Google policy [x] discriminates against Native Americans" only implies (to me) that the policy has a negative effect that specifically impacts Native Americans, but doesn't imply that someone at Google came up with the policy out of a dislike of Native Americans or an actual intent to harm them.
It's the same in the US, the person you're replying to simply needs to consult a dictionary.
I don't like his post because he needlessly implies Google engineers are malicious when it's obviously not the case.
>staff are either incompetent, or racist. I hope for incompetence. Either is bad, but racism is much worse than incompetence.
>protected characteristic
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/new-e...
Does that include names?
>staff are either incompetent, or racist. I hope for incompetence. Either is bad, but racism is much worse than incompetence.
>protected characteristic
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/new-e...
Does that include names?
You're right: it is wrong to suggest that Google is deliberately malicious here. But again, you can have the best intentions in the world and still be discriminatory. I think it's important to separate the two terms: malicious suggests a motive, while discrimination is about consequences.
> Does that include names?
IANAL, but the specific discrimination against Native American or First Nation names could fall under race. Race in terms of the Equality Act is more than just skin colour: it includes nationality, or ethnic origin.
Or even belief, which "need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world", according to this page from the EHRC:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/furth...
Our names do "affect how we live our lives": we have to use them every day. They are a way of defining who we are.
I don't think it's a stretch either to say that many cultures place a great deal of emphasis and tradition on names. I'm no anthropologist, but variations on naming ceremonies exist throughout the world -- christenings, for example.
Also see the other six points under belief on the EHRC page above. They arguably protect the right of Native Americans to use their own names, and not be denied service because of them.
> Does that include names?
IANAL, but the specific discrimination against Native American or First Nation names could fall under race. Race in terms of the Equality Act is more than just skin colour: it includes nationality, or ethnic origin.
Or even belief, which "need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world", according to this page from the EHRC:
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/furth...
Our names do "affect how we live our lives": we have to use them every day. They are a way of defining who we are.
I don't think it's a stretch either to say that many cultures place a great deal of emphasis and tradition on names. I'm no anthropologist, but variations on naming ceremonies exist throughout the world -- christenings, for example.
Also see the other six points under belief on the EHRC page above. They arguably protect the right of Native Americans to use their own names, and not be denied service because of them.
Accidental discrimination is still discrimination, absence of malicious intent doesn't eliminate negative consequences.
Also, continuation of accidental discrimination after being made aware of it becomes purposeful discrimination. If google doesn't fix it they can't use the "oops, we didn't know" defense for much longer.
Also, continuation of accidental discrimination after being made aware of it becomes purposeful discrimination. If google doesn't fix it they can't use the "oops, we didn't know" defense for much longer.
The writer leaves open the "incompetence" option, if you actually read the article. Discrimination needn't involve intentional malice, either - 50-60 year olds often face hiring discrimination from folks who certainly don't intentionally discount them.
Well, I would suspect that Google makes deliberate choices on how they set up these sorts of things. They've probably built models which demonstrate that only n percent of the global population will be affected by a certain naming policy and the differences in cost associated with modifying their databases or to accommodate such names or dealing with troll accounts versus maintaining the status quo. [Keep in mind I obviously do not work at Google and clearly have no idea what I'm talking about]. I suspect that, in reality, Google feels that keeping their uses safe from all the Grass Mud Horse's and Assmen of the world doesn't affect their profitability significantly. Frankly, I would love to look into the best ways to deal with the non-universality of names for users while still being able to meaningfully harvest and utilize all of their information for those sweet sweet advertising dollars. Perhaps the best way is just give users a generic field for "name" (not first/last name) and make the good, old-fashioned username be the identifier.
I'm not sure incompetence is the same as "doesn't handle every conceivable edge case." As the algorithms take over, "sorry, but you are an edge case we didn't get to" is going to be a common problem.
If it's all going to be handled by algorithms, there shouldn't be an appeals process. It seems like in this case "appeal" meant "automatically reprocess and reject again with a form message" until they got the media involved.
This "if it's profitable it's morally ok" model can have legitimate applications, but this sure isn't one of them.
How do you explain it then? It's good enough for a BuzzFeed writer to get it reinstated, but not good enough to at least verify that it's a real name?
I will explain it. Google wants personal identity attached to posts on Google+ people Google thinks that people will value what they say when they are not posting anonymously. Some engineer wrote a thing to try to catch obviously fake names, and some kinds of real names, which actually are attached to real identity, get caught in the filter. They didn't target specific groups of people because they hate them ffs.
I agree that it's a stupid policy, but calling things which are not really racism racism only dilutes actual racism and victims of racism.
"Google+ naming filter thinks American Native Indian style names are not real names"
I agree that it's a stupid policy, but calling things which are not really racism racism only dilutes actual racism and victims of racism.
"Google+ naming filter thinks American Native Indian style names are not real names"
It sounds like your understanding of racism is not very nuanced. Explicit statements of racial hatred are the most obvious kind of racism. But that's not where it ends.
For example, consider the study "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?" [1] They found that resumes with black-sounding names were less employable than the same resumes with white-sounding names. Is that because a large number of hiring managers are also KKK members who put on their hoods before sorting applications? Probably not.
A more likely explanation is that, as Harvard's Project Implicit [2] demonstrates, a lot of people are consciously anti-racist but still have racist attitudes and reactions. If you live in a segregated society, it need not even be a bias against blacks, so much as a bias for people who are more familiar to you. Is that effectively racism? If I were somebody not getting hired because of the color of my skin, I'd sure think so.
So in the case of Google Plus, I doubt the mainly white, mainly male, mainly millionaires sitting in a suburban office park were consciously saying, "At last, our revenge for Custer!" But them saying, "Looks good to us!" and then enforcing it is effectively saying, "We believe our personal biases and local cultural norms are good enough for the entire world." That might not be explicitly racist in intention. But I don't think that's required to create a racist system.
[1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873 [2] https://www.projectimplicit.net/index.html
For example, consider the study "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?" [1] They found that resumes with black-sounding names were less employable than the same resumes with white-sounding names. Is that because a large number of hiring managers are also KKK members who put on their hoods before sorting applications? Probably not.
A more likely explanation is that, as Harvard's Project Implicit [2] demonstrates, a lot of people are consciously anti-racist but still have racist attitudes and reactions. If you live in a segregated society, it need not even be a bias against blacks, so much as a bias for people who are more familiar to you. Is that effectively racism? If I were somebody not getting hired because of the color of my skin, I'd sure think so.
So in the case of Google Plus, I doubt the mainly white, mainly male, mainly millionaires sitting in a suburban office park were consciously saying, "At last, our revenge for Custer!" But them saying, "Looks good to us!" and then enforcing it is effectively saying, "We believe our personal biases and local cultural norms are good enough for the entire world." That might not be explicitly racist in intention. But I don't think that's required to create a racist system.
[1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873 [2] https://www.projectimplicit.net/index.html
When everything is racism nothing is. For example, assuming Google is mainly white, mainly male, mainly white male when it's not. They go out of their way to ensure diversity in their organization.
Last time I ate lunch in the cafeteria there, it looked majority male and majority white to me. If you have stats, I will read them eagerly.
And the building isn't necessarily in an office park.
Are we talking about the same Google? Because when I was last at the headquarters, it sure looked like a suburban office park to me.
> calling things which are not really racism racism only dilutes actual racism and victims of racism.
I don't know your racial category, but people of color frequently mention how white people aggressively like to redefine racism so it doesn't include their own racism. This particular argument is common among them. Because after all, racism is one of those -isms which are a fundamental part of many cultures (like the US).
I don't know your racial category, but people of color frequently mention how white people aggressively like to redefine racism so it doesn't include their own racism. This particular argument is common among them. Because after all, racism is one of those -isms which are a fundamental part of many cultures (like the US).
> I don't know your racial category, but people of color frequently mention how white people aggressively like to redefine racism so it doesn't include their own racism.
And white people do the same thing about people of color, pointing to the not-infrequently-made redefinition of racism that anyone who isn't in the currently-dominant race cannot, ipso facto, be "racist" [1].
The fact that people of all races can point to self-serving and ridiculous attempts from people of other races to redefine their own racism as "not racism" does not, however, make the very idea that the term must have some boundaries to be useful invalid.
[1] for an example of this argument see, e.g., http://wwsword.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-black-people-cant-be...
And white people do the same thing about people of color, pointing to the not-infrequently-made redefinition of racism that anyone who isn't in the currently-dominant race cannot, ipso facto, be "racist" [1].
The fact that people of all races can point to self-serving and ridiculous attempts from people of other races to redefine their own racism as "not racism" does not, however, make the very idea that the term must have some boundaries to be useful invalid.
[1] for an example of this argument see, e.g., http://wwsword.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-black-people-cant-be...
That's really interesting, I'd never heard of this before. Can you give us an example you've heard of a redefinition of racism that would exclude whites from being racist?
Basically, people like to redefine racism to exclude everything less bad than the KKK and actual lynchings. A couple favorites from Reddit in particular:
"It's just a joke." - In defense of the slew of racist jokes that appear every time a POC is mentioned or seen.
"I don't hate black people, I hate black culture." - Every time a POC does something bad, or merely annoying. Mysteriously, nobody hates white culture.
"It's just a joke." - In defense of the slew of racist jokes that appear every time a POC is mentioned or seen.
"I don't hate black people, I hate black culture." - Every time a POC does something bad, or merely annoying. Mysteriously, nobody hates white culture.
>Mysteriously, nobody hates white culture
Man, that's been the exact opposite of my experience.
Obviously unscientific, but it's interesting to compare the difference between https://twitter.com/search?q=white%20people&f=realtime and https://twitter.com/search?q=black%20people&f=realtime .
Man, that's been the exact opposite of my experience.
Obviously unscientific, but it's interesting to compare the difference between https://twitter.com/search?q=white%20people&f=realtime and https://twitter.com/search?q=black%20people&f=realtime .
A filter to catch "fake names" based on dictionary words I presume.
If you do that for names of German origin (with a German word list) there will be hit after hit
Google apparently doesn't know much about names.
If you do that for names of German origin (with a German word list) there will be hit after hit
Google apparently doesn't know much about names.
So in other words, it's incompetence then. Which was the alternative to racism. Which is what I said.
Their policy on this has been pointed out to be bad and absurd so many times by now that I'm leaning towards Hanlon's razor now: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Shouldn't it be the other way round ?
Google's policy was pointed out to be bad and absurd countless times and they knowingly stuck with it anyway, understanding users were prejudiced from it. Isn't it malice ?
You mean like some sort of malicious incompetence? That's really twisting Hanlon's razor!
Exactly. I for one find it slightly annoying that people use the term _discrimination_ so lightly, even though its quite possible that the reason behind this issue is incompetence.
There was nothing light about how I used it. Even if this was not done intentionally, it still discriminated against her. Sort of like how gender fields with only a Male/Female option unintentionally discriminate against transgender people. Nothing intentional, but still happens - and still discrimination.
Since Facebook has now fixed this bug in their UI/database, safe to say it is intentional elsewhere. At least in the sense that "supporting gender fluid users is lower priority than adding more whizzy animations to the UI".
The two are not incompatible. If your incompetence leads you to implement a policy that disproportionally disadvantages a certain group, you are also discriminating against them.
Discrimination does not require intent.
Discrimination does not require intent.
you can "indirectly discriminate" if you implement polices that effect a larger proportionate of a particular group.
It's why stop and search that targets a large number of young black men is seen as racist.
It might be incompetence the first time but this has been going on for such a long time now that that is wearing a bit thin as an excuse.
It's why stop and search that targets a large number of young black men is seen as racist.
It might be incompetence the first time but this has been going on for such a long time now that that is wearing a bit thin as an excuse.
This called "disparate impact" in US law. Quite a controversial issue, and only getting worse ad.machine learning algorithms grow in power and influence.
How about "obstinacy"?
[deleted]
> Google, pick up your act. It's getting really old. Frankly, the fact that Elaine Yellow Horse appealed your policy three times and it was only once the media got involved that you did the right thing shows that your staff are either incompetent, or racist. ...
My guess is neither. They're probably very smart people, and they may just arrogantly assume that their specification of their algorithms are correct, are correctly implemented, and therefore produce correct results. All three assumptions are clearly and demonstrably wrong.
That said, good intentions and brains can inadvertently produce racist and incompetent results.
My guess is neither. They're probably very smart people, and they may just arrogantly assume that their specification of their algorithms are correct, are correctly implemented, and therefore produce correct results. All three assumptions are clearly and demonstrably wrong.
That said, good intentions and brains can inadvertently produce racist and incompetent results.
Arrogant assumptions that a specification is correct and implemented correctly is, in my mind, no different to incompetence.
If they want to maintain a real name policy for the whole of the planet? They're going to have to understand how people from many different cultures and nations identify themselves.
If they want to maintain a real name policy for the whole of the planet? They're going to have to understand how people from many different cultures and nations identify themselves.
I assume its basic incompetence due to arrogance, but they have a history. Google Voice blocked one of the tribal community colleges[1], but they were "saving costs"[2].
It doesn't help that Google simply refuses to let people talk to humans, and anything that doesn't meet with their algorithms is simply banned with no recourse other than to create bad publicity for them.
So, they supposedly know the problem they are creating for Native Americans, so can we assume further occurrences are racist or just more incompetence? Will someone with the last name "Afraid Of Ravens"[3] get their account suspended or not even able to create it in the future?
1) http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/public_policy/ATTLetter_F...
2) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/10/google-voice-were...
3) it's an actual name if you switch the bird.
It doesn't help that Google simply refuses to let people talk to humans, and anything that doesn't meet with their algorithms is simply banned with no recourse other than to create bad publicity for them.
So, they supposedly know the problem they are creating for Native Americans, so can we assume further occurrences are racist or just more incompetence? Will someone with the last name "Afraid Of Ravens"[3] get their account suspended or not even able to create it in the future?
1) http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/public_policy/ATTLetter_F...
2) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/10/google-voice-were...
3) it's an actual name if you switch the bird.
I'm sure the programmers who did this had no ill intentions, but when someone tells you about a broken algorithm multiple times and you ignore it then you are no longer smart.
A lot of very common names are also dictionary words (Jack, Jon, Dick, Smith, Smart, Baker, LARRY PAGE, etc...) so someone clearly sat down and figured out an algorithm to allow or restrict certain words. Whoever came up with that algorithm should have quickly realized they didn't have a good way to distinguish real names from fake names.
My vote is incompetence.
A lot of very common names are also dictionary words (Jack, Jon, Dick, Smith, Smart, Baker, LARRY PAGE, etc...) so someone clearly sat down and figured out an algorithm to allow or restrict certain words. Whoever came up with that algorithm should have quickly realized they didn't have a good way to distinguish real names from fake names.
My vote is incompetence.
As if Google's naming policy is a check against a list of words... More likely; Google has implemented an algorithm that uses machine learning and several other heuristics to try and determine the probability that the name is real or not. Still sound like incompetence? Does a name like "Elaine Yellow Horse" seem real or fake? You simply can't win all the time when you deal with billions of people. Google's customer support and appeal process leave a lot to be desired, but calling them incompetent and racist is just silly.
"Still sound like incompetence? Does a name like "Elaine Yellow Horse" seem real or fake?"
The name seems pretty real to me. Could you please explain what about it would indicate it was fake?
Yes, using fancy methods to get a wrong result is still wrong. Let's also remember we are talking about a company that indexes the web. Perhaps they could use that data to test.
The name seems pretty real to me. Could you please explain what about it would indicate it was fake?
Yes, using fancy methods to get a wrong result is still wrong. Let's also remember we are talking about a company that indexes the web. Perhaps they could use that data to test.
How many people do you know with adjectives in their name? If you met someone and they said their name was "Joey Red Puma", would you assume that's real or fake? You'd probably say something like "really? you're joking, right?" I would certainly be skeptical.
For all we know that might be a real name too, but all we can do is make an educated guess about whether or not it is. My point is that determining if a name is real or not is pretty arbitrary so if your objective is to verify if a name is valid or not, you simply can't be 100% accurate.
A wrong result is wrong, but making the best of what you have to try and get the right answer most of the time (while still being wrong sometimes) is in and of itself not wrong. Take any NP-hard problem, the best you can do is use heuristics to try and approximate a good solution, since the "right result" is simply impossible to compute.
For all we know that might be a real name too, but all we can do is make an educated guess about whether or not it is. My point is that determining if a name is real or not is pretty arbitrary so if your objective is to verify if a name is valid or not, you simply can't be 100% accurate.
A wrong result is wrong, but making the best of what you have to try and get the right answer most of the time (while still being wrong sometimes) is in and of itself not wrong. Take any NP-hard problem, the best you can do is use heuristics to try and approximate a good solution, since the "right result" is simply impossible to compute.
"How many people do you know with adjectives in their name? If you met someone and they said their name was "Joey Red Puma", would you assume that's real or fake? You'd probably say something like "really? you're joking, right?" I would certainly be skeptical."
Nope, I grew up around people with adjectives in their name. It is very, very common among the plain tribes[1]. I tend to be suspicious of people named "Smith" or "Johnson" since it seems like a common dodge on forms.
I am troubled that you think having an adjective in a family name should be cause to trouble someone. I realize European names have suffixes added in place of adjectives, but that should not blind people from other ways names are assembled. I am also particularly unhappy with an American company that has heuristics that flag a specific ethnic group in the USA.
"the best you can do is use heuristics to try and approximate a good solution, since the "right result" is simply impossible to compute."
Then don't friggin do it. Google is a SEARCH company and has indexed a huge amount of the web. Running names through their damn heuristics should have shown a problem. If you google "Yellow Horse" you see multiple examples of people with that family name on the first page of results.
Google especially shouldn't try it since they don't have support needed to handle the exceptions without people going to the press.
1) not sure about south or east or 1st Nations
Nope, I grew up around people with adjectives in their name. It is very, very common among the plain tribes[1]. I tend to be suspicious of people named "Smith" or "Johnson" since it seems like a common dodge on forms.
I am troubled that you think having an adjective in a family name should be cause to trouble someone. I realize European names have suffixes added in place of adjectives, but that should not blind people from other ways names are assembled. I am also particularly unhappy with an American company that has heuristics that flag a specific ethnic group in the USA.
"the best you can do is use heuristics to try and approximate a good solution, since the "right result" is simply impossible to compute."
Then don't friggin do it. Google is a SEARCH company and has indexed a huge amount of the web. Running names through their damn heuristics should have shown a problem. If you google "Yellow Horse" you see multiple examples of people with that family name on the first page of results.
Google especially shouldn't try it since they don't have support needed to handle the exceptions without people going to the press.
1) not sure about south or east or 1st Nations
I don't know how Google implemented their algorithm, but it is clearly some type of check against a list of words. There is literally no other way to decide that "Elaine Yellow Horse" is a fake name while "Pat Eve Smith" is a real name.
If Google's customer support and appeal process leave a lot to be desired and they haven't changed it in several years, you just gave us an example of incompetence.
The "Real Names" policy is the stupid policy.
The reason it is a stupid policy is Google has no intention of making sure every person signs up with their "real name."
So they create automated rules about what a "real name" is. And that's dumb.
The reason it is a stupid policy is Google has no intention of making sure every person signs up with their "real name."
So they create automated rules about what a "real name" is. And that's dumb.
same reasons why the FBI watch list and the CIA terrorist list is a farce..Why in certain cultures its common to change one's name to honor someone else,etc..For example, J Stain is not his real birth name...wqnt another example?
Adolf Hitler is not his real birth name..even than me Hitler is somewhat a non-existent name as its not spelled that way in German anyway.
People's names are imprecise due to the language and cultures underlying that naming.
Adolf Hitler is not his real birth name..even than me Hitler is somewhat a non-existent name as its not spelled that way in German anyway.
People's names are imprecise due to the language and cultures underlying that naming.
Obligatory:
patio11's Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names
http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b... (was dead, now live, if dead again it's in google's cache)
However, until Google's (and Facebook's) absurd name restrictions (or even the idea that "proper" "official" names exist at all for humans) start seriously affecting their real customers (advertisers), they will not give a shit.
Another link, this on the consequences of real names policies: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...
http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b... (was dead, now live, if dead again it's in google's cache)
However, until Google's (and Facebook's) absurd name restrictions (or even the idea that "proper" "official" names exist at all for humans) start seriously affecting their real customers (advertisers), they will not give a shit.
Another link, this on the consequences of real names policies: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...
I dislike when lists are written in such a way that the reader must mentally negate all of the statements the author is making. It's more difficult for me to quote or remember out of context correctly. I also feel like I learned a lot less than if the author had told me the things that are common problems and how to fix them or offered a model of names that is less-bad than the one most websites use.
The point is you shouldn't even try. The list is not there to get you to follow every point, but to illustrate that no matter what you think you can do to validate names, you're likely wrong, so don't even try. Think about what limitations are absolutely necessary for your specific usage instead.
E.g. if you want to be able to greet a user, ask them how they want to be greeted, rather than try to guess at which part of their name a user prefers to be addressed by and how to extract that part from their full name.
E.g. if you want to be able to greet a user, ask them how they want to be greeted, rather than try to guess at which part of their name a user prefers to be addressed by and how to extract that part from their full name.
This is a very deliberate stylistic choice. Compare:
"People have, at this point in time, exactly one official name." <-- phrase is false
"There exist at least some people who will, at at least some instants in time, have either zero or two or more official names." <-- phrase is true
Now multiply that sort of circumlocution by 40.
I frequently receive the feedback "I wish you had identified a solution", which suggests to me maybe I missed the opportunity to title the post "Names are intractable hard and any programmer who thinks their program has solved them is wrong." I thought that was pretty explicit in the first paragraph but people seem to really WANT this problem to have a Ruby gem available such that they don't have to worry about it. I want dragons, but will live with my disappointment.
"People have, at this point in time, exactly one official name." <-- phrase is false
"There exist at least some people who will, at at least some instants in time, have either zero or two or more official names." <-- phrase is true
Now multiply that sort of circumlocution by 40.
I frequently receive the feedback "I wish you had identified a solution", which suggests to me maybe I missed the opportunity to title the post "Names are intractable hard and any programmer who thinks their program has solved them is wrong." I thought that was pretty explicit in the first paragraph but people seem to really WANT this problem to have a Ruby gem available such that they don't have to worry about it. I want dragons, but will live with my disappointment.
That's the thing. I don't know if there is "a right way to do it." Maybe names are a domain that is hard enough that you can't propose the right way to handle them--you just have to know the problems that can arise, do your best for the users you expect to have, and be prepared to rework if you need to.
The problem with the google+ real names policy isn't that their algorithms aren't smart enough (though it seems that they could use some work). The problem is that they're too arrogant to recognize that their algorithms are unreliable and indifferent to the ways that this unreliability is bad for users.
The problem with the google+ real names policy isn't that their algorithms aren't smart enough (though it seems that they could use some work). The problem is that they're too arrogant to recognize that their algorithms are unreliable and indifferent to the ways that this unreliability is bad for users.
The problem is that handling names semantically "correctly" is a logistical nightmare that is even more difficult than dealing with timestamps and time zones.
No sane person thinks it's a good idea to just roll their own time zone implementation routinely, but people usually think rolling their own name handling system is a good idea. The purpose of patio11's advice is specifically to discourage people from doing that. And fortunately for names there are some reasonably good options, such as avoiding trying to handle names semantically at all and instead leaving them as more or less freeform user data.
No sane person thinks it's a good idea to just roll their own time zone implementation routinely, but people usually think rolling their own name handling system is a good idea. The purpose of patio11's advice is specifically to discourage people from doing that. And fortunately for names there are some reasonably good options, such as avoiding trying to handle names semantically at all and instead leaving them as more or less freeform user data.
It's satire.
12. People’s names are case sensitive.
13. People’s names are case insensitive.
32. People’s names are assigned at birth.
33. OK, maybe not at birth, but at least pretty close to birth.
34. Alright, alright, within a year or so of birth.
35. Five years?
36. You’re kidding me, right?"It's satire"
Absolutely not!
Case sensitivity varies amongst countries.
One very simple occidental example: in France names are usually written LASTNAME Firstname
So if you type Lastname and your DB doesn't normalize the capitalization of names you won't match
So for the last name the search is case insensitive but for the first name not so much.
Another example is Turkish, where there are two capital I's, one with a dot, one without.
And not alphabets have a notion of case.
Absolutely not!
Case sensitivity varies amongst countries.
One very simple occidental example: in France names are usually written LASTNAME Firstname
So if you type Lastname and your DB doesn't normalize the capitalization of names you won't match
So for the last name the search is case insensitive but for the first name not so much.
Another example is Turkish, where there are two capital I's, one with a dot, one without.
And not alphabets have a notion of case.
> Another example is Turkish, where there are two capital I's, one with a dot, one without.
It's even more complicated: they have two letter Is, one with a dot in both lower and uppercase (İ/i) and one dotless (I/ı) in both cases. So any automatic case change needs to take this into account or the letter will get switched. This also make using fonts with fi ligatures problematic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotless_I
It's even more complicated: they have two letter Is, one with a dot in both lower and uppercase (İ/i) and one dotless (I/ı) in both cases. So any automatic case change needs to take this into account or the letter will get switched. This also make using fonts with fi ligatures problematic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotless_I
This is also why quite a few programs have bugs when running on Turkish phones if they use locale-default case changes. Always specify a US English locale if you need to send along a certain code in uppercase, or process other inputs in ASCII. Internationalisation is tough. My favourite part is when systems don't allow last names with "special characters" including spaces, hyphens and periods.
And even normalizaing capitalization of names isn't always simple. How do you correctly capitalize "mcgee"? "Mcgee" or "McGee"?
It's not satire. They are both bad assumptions, bound to be false somewhere. Don't let your code rely on either of these assumptions.
Is it? I read it as: depending on culture, the name may be either case sensitive, or not. (alternatively - someone's name may use alphabet with no concept of "case")
I wouldn't call it satire; they are, as the title indicates, falsehoods. That is, if your code makes any of the assumptions listed, then you're handling names in a way that inevitably won't work for users of certain cultures.
Case sensitive and case insensitive sound like they're the only two options, but they're not.
Take SQL as an example: are programs case-sensitive or case-insensitive? Neither!
Take SQL as an example: are programs case-sensitive or case-insensitive? Neither!
I just got bit by inconsistent case sensitivity. My tool inspects SQL schemas. I switched from hand-rolled queries, which weren't portable, to using JDBC MetaData methods. Mostly worked. Until I did a live demo. Oops. Now have a hybrid solution.
Satire is a deliberate mockery of the subject material in order to criticize it. You don't call something satire just because one of its bullet points is kinda funny.
I really can't think of a better way to get this fixed than to write an angry blogpost about it like this. Google's feedback loop can be arrogantly useless at times, and this is a fantastic example of one of those times.
[deleted]
I hope that OP isn't seriously suggesting that “discrimination” was a factor, it’s too serious an accusation to be thrown around so carelessly.
There are enough past incidents of “unusual” names being erroneously flagged to suggest it's no about irrational human discrimination but about imperfect mostly automated processes.
The policy is about using “real names”, the automated system was obviously tripped and the appeals fell through, imperfect systems don’t imply malice.
Seeing that eventually the issue was resolved and I assume they’ll be more mindful of native American names from now on, is there really a need for name calling and further escalation?
There are enough past incidents of “unusual” names being erroneously flagged to suggest it's no about irrational human discrimination but about imperfect mostly automated processes.
The policy is about using “real names”, the automated system was obviously tripped and the appeals fell through, imperfect systems don’t imply malice.
Seeing that eventually the issue was resolved and I assume they’ll be more mindful of native American names from now on, is there really a need for name calling and further escalation?
> imperfect systems don’t imply malice.
... but they can still discriminate. In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, intention or malice is not required. If Google has a policy or system that disadvantages a group of people who share a protected characteristic, it is discriminating. This is defined in law.
http://www.equality-law.co.uk/news/106/66/Types-of-discrimin...
... but they can still discriminate. In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, intention or malice is not required. If Google has a policy or system that disadvantages a group of people who share a protected characteristic, it is discriminating. This is defined in law.
http://www.equality-law.co.uk/news/106/66/Types-of-discrimin...
[deleted]
Notice how that article uses the term "indirect discrimination", rather than just "discrimination"? That qualifier is there because without it, most people understand "discrimination" to mean intentional prejudice.
Well, racism is actually common; it's a fundamental part of the culture. Something which needs to be chipped away. Racism isn't just about some people wearing white hoods.
Not to make a statement about your racial category (because I don't know it), but more privileged people irrationally fear claims of racism because it's one of the few ways they feel vaguely limited. (Of course, the minor social consequences they fear are nothing in comparison to less privileged groups who are regularly imprisoned/invaded/starved.)
Not to make a statement about your racial category (because I don't know it), but more privileged people irrationally fear claims of racism because it's one of the few ways they feel vaguely limited. (Of course, the minor social consequences they fear are nothing in comparison to less privileged groups who are regularly imprisoned/invaded/starved.)
They need to be called out on it. There was one BuzzFeed article, which I couldn't submit because it automatically gets killed by HN (fair enough). So I wrote a blog, expressing my opinion then submitted it to HN.
I hope that someone from Google is reading and takes note of this. The Real Names policy has actively discriminated against many people in the past. They were meant to sort this out, but they have not. It behooves Google, who want real names, to accept real names. And to understand that even if the names are a little strange, they are all too often actually real names.
I once heard of a couple in Kent who called their child "Depressed Cupboard Cheesecake". The point being is that there are a number of oddball names out there. How is Google going to tell what is fake and what is not fake?
I hope that someone from Google is reading and takes note of this. The Real Names policy has actively discriminated against many people in the past. They were meant to sort this out, but they have not. It behooves Google, who want real names, to accept real names. And to understand that even if the names are a little strange, they are all too often actually real names.
I once heard of a couple in Kent who called their child "Depressed Cupboard Cheesecake". The point being is that there are a number of oddball names out there. How is Google going to tell what is fake and what is not fake?
> I hope that OP isn't seriously suggesting that “discrimination” was a factor, it’s too serious an accusation to be thrown around so carelessly.
Perhaps, but this isn't Google's first screw-up where tribes are involved[1].
> imperfect systems don’t imply malice
Imperfect system do imply malice when the only appeal that works is embarrassing a company via PR.
> I assume they’ll be more mindful of native American names
That is a rather large assumption given their customer care history.
1) http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/public_policy/ATTLetter_F...
Perhaps, but this isn't Google's first screw-up where tribes are involved[1].
> imperfect systems don’t imply malice
Imperfect system do imply malice when the only appeal that works is embarrassing a company via PR.
> I assume they’ll be more mindful of native American names
That is a rather large assumption given their customer care history.
1) http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/public_policy/ATTLetter_F...
"Name calling" is exactly what Google needs more of...
Interestingly, google didn't bat an eye when I put my nickname as my first name and the full stop symbol (.) as my last name. Yellow Horse? Totally made up. .? Obviously a legit name, why my best friend is named $. (I write too much perl).
Obviously they read XKCD. "Little Bobby Tables we call him".
http://xkcd.com/327/
http://xkcd.com/327/
A period as last name is the way to enter a mononym of Google+, hence why that is supported. (The period will be dropped when the name is displayed.)
They probably hardcoded it in as a stopgap when they were getting pushback on mononyms.
This happened to my coworker, last name Tower. It sucks, but it wasn't too difficult to clear up the issue.
Google's stupid name policy is probably their worst idea ever.
Interestingly, it's somewhat undone by one of their other bad ideas: merging Youtube and Google+ accounts. Because nobody had a real name for their Youtube account, and suddenly Google creates a bunch of Google+ accounts that nobody asked for and are obviously pseudonyms.
Interestingly, it's somewhat undone by one of their other bad ideas: merging Youtube and Google+ accounts. Because nobody had a real name for their Youtube account, and suddenly Google creates a bunch of Google+ accounts that nobody asked for and are obviously pseudonyms.
I eliminated by Google+ account for a reason and I'm pissed to hell that I have to sign up again if I ever want to vote up or comment on a Youtube video again.
They are neither racist nor incompetent programmers. They simply are a company with little to no customer care culture. I suspect this will bite them in the rear in the future.
In this case they are actively working to hurt their users in order to serve their customers' interests. This is not a customer care issue.
He didn't say incompetent programmers
Try having an apostrophe in your last name. O'Brien, O'Keefe, O'Dell and my fave O'Charley's. It is really simple to accommodate this in software and databases, but the problem is getting worse and worse. The pharmacy can't find my prescription, the cleaners can't find my clothes, my doctor's office can't find my appointment. My passport doesn't match my drivers license. Some of my credit cards have the apostrophe and some don't. I have to use the right credit card to pay certain bills (Straight Talk, I'm lookin' at you). One employer's system set email addresses from your name in the payroll system, and believe me, you really don't want an email address with an apostrophe in it. The sneering response to this is that I should change my name. Really? It's part of our Irish cultural heritage. Sigh.
That really stinks. I can't imagine how annoying that must get. I work at an email service provider, and I deal with about two billion email addresses from all around the world. Apostrophes are certainly a consideration when working with emails, loading them to and from databases. But the spec for what's a valid email is very very wide. Lots of special characters including apostrophes are technically valid, so if I'm doing an analysis that requires email as a unique key, but I don't actually need to know the addresses, I'll just hash each address. It's lazy, but man does it solve a lot of special cases.
I call it the apostrophe catastrophe. Once in the 90s, my email system would send my email with an apostrophe in the address, but would only deliver email without an apostrophe in the address. The IT department told me that was "impossible" until I demonstrated it in front of him.
For electronic systems, I pretend the apostrophe doesn't exist. I'll still use it in writing, but if it's going to be an entry in a database, I leave it out.
For electronic systems, I pretend the apostrophe doesn't exist. I'll still use it in writing, but if it's going to be an entry in a database, I leave it out.
NY's E-ZPass website tells me my last name (hyphenated) isn't valid every time I go to change billing details.
Some places I'm Sternal-Johnson, others SternalJohnson, others Johnson, others Sternal.
Some places I'm Sternal-Johnson, others SternalJohnson, others Johnson, others Sternal.
Too bad that the president's name isn't really O'Bama as was reported (jokingly) a few years back when he visited Ireland. If it were, this problem might have been resolved by now ;-)
> The sneering response to this is that I should change my name.
REALLY? Computers exist to bend to our needs, not the other way around!
REALLY? Computers exist to bend to our needs, not the other way around!
I would assume there were quite a few people of Japanese or Chinese origin utterly annoyed at the generation of computers that only had ASCII character representation.
... of course, that era was a long time ago. :)
... of course, that era was a long time ago. :)
What is an American Native Indian? That's a new one to me.
Having grown up on a reservation, I really have never heard that combination. Its "Indian", "Native American", or "American Indian". Canada adds "First Nation". Using three words is pretty unnatural. Really not sure why people are down voting you.
Why did Yellow Horse want to use her real name? Attaching your real name and photo to everything Google knows about you seems like a pretty bad idea.
Because she is a professional that needs to use her actual name, plus she was following the rules.
There was a nice DjangoCon talk by Russell Keith-Magee. It's about the custom user models in Django 1.5, but the first 15 or so minutes of the talk deal with exactly this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHg6AoExYjs
"Yellow Horse", "Good Iron", are extremely common style of names on the northern plains for Native Americans. This is one basic reason why we had to go with Microsoft versus Google. We couldn't trust Google's name policy not to screw a goodly chunk of our students. Plus, after the whole Google Voice thing which blocked one of the Tribal Community Colleges without many people caring, we just had to go with a company that we could call.
My surname is quite akin to the OP first example, but in a "foreign" (non-English) language. Were it instead to be expressed in English -- just a literal translation -- I could well be in the same position as Ms. Yellow Horse.
I've forgotten the multiple names academia has come up with for this situation. But in a nutshell, Google, you are conflating two "problems" you are trying to solve: "True" and "Names".
We could and do debate the merits of these separately. E.g., I think your "true" initiative is kind of full of shit -- based upon my and others' experience on the Web.
But even if you want to and decide to pursue "true", that doesn't give you any authority to judge and decide what is, or isn't, a "name".
Perhaps your overwhelming mountain of data and analysis capabilities might enable you to establish a leading position in some de facto opinions on the matter. But, as the OP example demonstrates, even there you are most obviously failing -- it appears to us, the general public, to be in good part due to a lack of real effort to analytically and functionally back up your "initiative".
So... as a result, once again your "initiative" and "policy" looks to be full of shit.
Just drop it. Treat names like the name qualifier in email -- or I guess that is now, for Google, a field within Contacts: People enter a string, and that's the name. Maybe some subsequent processes try -- more or less successfully -- to parse it into components. But at the base level, it's an arbitrary string.
There, that was simple, wasn't it?
(Now, focus some effort on keeping that name from unintentionally bleeding across properties via Google+, etc.)
I've forgotten the multiple names academia has come up with for this situation. But in a nutshell, Google, you are conflating two "problems" you are trying to solve: "True" and "Names".
We could and do debate the merits of these separately. E.g., I think your "true" initiative is kind of full of shit -- based upon my and others' experience on the Web.
But even if you want to and decide to pursue "true", that doesn't give you any authority to judge and decide what is, or isn't, a "name".
Perhaps your overwhelming mountain of data and analysis capabilities might enable you to establish a leading position in some de facto opinions on the matter. But, as the OP example demonstrates, even there you are most obviously failing -- it appears to us, the general public, to be in good part due to a lack of real effort to analytically and functionally back up your "initiative".
So... as a result, once again your "initiative" and "policy" looks to be full of shit.
Just drop it. Treat names like the name qualifier in email -- or I guess that is now, for Google, a field within Contacts: People enter a string, and that's the name. Maybe some subsequent processes try -- more or less successfully -- to parse it into components. But at the base level, it's an arbitrary string.
There, that was simple, wasn't it?
(Now, focus some effort on keeping that name from unintentionally bleeding across properties via Google+, etc.)
I hate seeing this stuff always get blamed on the programmers. As someone who had to implement a stupid "real name" (where real name = precisely a first and last name) system for a web site, it is not my fault. I pointed out the problems with it repeatedly. The suits own the company, they own the site, they decide how it works. Place the blame where it belongs, it is unlikely that the programmers at google decided this was the way to go.
There is a meta-issue going on in this discussion. Funnily enough, it has to do with nomenclature, but not of people. Specifically, the meaning of the word 'discrimination,' and how it can refer to two different concepts (intentional and indirect). I think this problem merits direct discussion on its own. I don't expect a comment on HN to solve the issue once and for all, but I would like to hear people's opinions.
So, I think it's a fairly common thing that people, with absolutely no intention of doing so, accidentally create a system that disadvantages some group of people compared to others. My question is, what term should we use to describe this action? I want to be able to bring this problem to the attention of the people performing it, without making it seem that I am accusing them of ill intent.
Quite a few people (myself included) are/were of the belief that "discrimination" is the correct term to apply in this context. (To us) the word "discrimination" is a description of effect, not intent. In a technical sense it only means treating two groups differently (it's a common term in systems analysis), without implying judgment.
Apparently, some people think that the word "discrimination" does imply intent. That's fine, words mean different things to different people, and I'm glad I learn that. But, that leaves me in a bit of a quandary: if discrimination is not the word to use here, than what is?
Right now I'm leaning towards compound terms like "accidental discrimination." I've seen "indirect discrimination" used elsewhere (as a UK legal term), but I don't like that one. If "discrimination" implies motive, adding "indirect" to me implies being sneaky about it as well.
So, I think it's a fairly common thing that people, with absolutely no intention of doing so, accidentally create a system that disadvantages some group of people compared to others. My question is, what term should we use to describe this action? I want to be able to bring this problem to the attention of the people performing it, without making it seem that I am accusing them of ill intent.
Quite a few people (myself included) are/were of the belief that "discrimination" is the correct term to apply in this context. (To us) the word "discrimination" is a description of effect, not intent. In a technical sense it only means treating two groups differently (it's a common term in systems analysis), without implying judgment.
Apparently, some people think that the word "discrimination" does imply intent. That's fine, words mean different things to different people, and I'm glad I learn that. But, that leaves me in a bit of a quandary: if discrimination is not the word to use here, than what is?
Right now I'm leaning towards compound terms like "accidental discrimination." I've seen "indirect discrimination" used elsewhere (as a UK legal term), but I don't like that one. If "discrimination" implies motive, adding "indirect" to me implies being sneaky about it as well.
Thinking about it, I do have a question for the Google folks: When testing your "Real Name Detection Algorithm" did you use actual names from phonebooks (or other sources) that could have included Native American names?
I guess my big problem is the thought that "Yellow Horse" triggered your automated systems in the first place. It's not like "Yellow Horse" is that uncommon a name with the Lakota. You would think with the obvious resources of a search company that had to scoop up tons of addresses and vCards from the internet, Google would have found out some Native American style names. Did some programmer think they were just fantasy names and ignore it or did they not test this thing.
It was bad enough with the Google Voice crap, but this is just too far. Has Google made an official comment on it?
I guess my big problem is the thought that "Yellow Horse" triggered your automated systems in the first place. It's not like "Yellow Horse" is that uncommon a name with the Lakota. You would think with the obvious resources of a search company that had to scoop up tons of addresses and vCards from the internet, Google would have found out some Native American style names. Did some programmer think they were just fantasy names and ignore it or did they not test this thing.
It was bad enough with the Google Voice crap, but this is just too far. Has Google made an official comment on it?
I thought it would probably be a good idea to fire Vic Gundotra for a while now.
Even people who don't have a middle name can have problems on some sites.
Not to mention
Admiral Sir Reginald D'Arcy ffolkes-O'Harris
And in college I knew someone with a name very similar to the name in the article, a "normal" first name, and family name <adjective> <animal>.
Not to mention
Admiral Sir Reginald D'Arcy ffolkes-O'Harris
And in college I knew someone with a name very similar to the name in the article, a "normal" first name, and family name <adjective> <animal>.
(Some part of me thinks we should just give everyone a GUID or something and be done with it...)