Hacker News Reader

Comment by zippergz | Hacker News Reader

I hate responding to anecdata with anecdata, but my experience is that Real Names was a HUGE DEAL in a very small and specific sector of the internet (some of which has clear overlap with HN), and an absolute non-story in the rest of the world. I worked at G at that time also, and while I agree that Real Names was a dumb decision, at the time I did not see any direct impact on interest or engagement from my friends because of it, aside from the small pocket who we truly incensed. While the incensed group was extremely loud, they were also a tiny, tiny minority, and I don't think we should mistake their volume level as an indicator of quantity.

View on HN

For me, the real names debacle was a wake up call that too much of my online life depended on Google. What if using a new product caused my email to disappear without any recourse? What if Google subscribed me for something I didn't need or care for, then wiped out my digital life because of it?

I was interested in google+, but it wasn't worth the risk. This was also the point where I stopped playing with new Google stuff, and started logging in only for email, and logging out.

Now there is no way for Google to know all this, so I assume I got classified under the 'no big deal' group in your analysis.

Realnames stopped influencers who didn't use their Realnames from signing up.

If you didn't have contact with either marginalised groups who as a matter of survival didn't use their real name or ancient extremely online people who for the entirety of their internet experience had been known as a handle it wouldn't have crossed your radar.

But it was a huge thing.

The irony here is that no one in this comment chain is using their real name, which proves the point that there are indeed chilling effects on speech when you could be punished for a simple difference of opinion. Real names is what made me drop g+. If I want to publish something as me, I don't want another platform controlling that for me. I absolutely concur with your comment that for the people this was big for, it was huge. For the rest of the population there was no compelling reason to switch.

That’s because HN culture isn’t to use real names or post too much in your description. Hell thats the only public thing you get. One description box. HN not using real names means nothing. They essentially and culturally have pushed that through.

G+ sometimes resembles the way Mozilla develops Firefox: Lots of aspects make just a small group unhappy. However, taken together all of those unhappy groups mean that you have no early adopters left and the project fails to get traction.

>small pocket who we truly incensed. While the incensed group was extremely loud, they were also a tiny, tiny minority

Thing is, that small group is your grassroots, influencer base without which you fail to thrive. G+ never got beyond the starter 'tech nerds' blogger type adoption and out into mainstream headspace.

You don't have to bow to that crowd to succeed, but at the very least you have to avoid annoying them away from your offering.

What about as an indicator of impact?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com