Hacker News Reader

Comment by CapitalistCartr | Hacker News Reader

The key to it all is this quote: “Real names” policies aren’t empowering; they’re an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people.

People who, like me, are privileged white Americans can easily afford to use our real names, although I don't. What Google will get if they keep this policy is only people who don't care. Blacks, Latinos, rape, abuse, and stalking victims, people who have something controversial to say, gays, people in repressive countries won't join. It'll be a nice Stepford village.

View on HN

It's also easier in relatively liberal and fluid-employment industries like tech (where you can freelance, work for bosses who don't care what you post online, start a company, etc.). If you work a typical Big Company job, for a relatively conservative/straightlaced company, you might not want your current or future bosses Googling for what you say off the clock, even if it's not actually about your job.

A contributing reason for why I'm fighting tooth and nail to start my own company.

The internet is a big place. There's room for all kinds of social networks. You don't have to join every one of them.

That's the default answer. While true, technically, it ignores that there are no viable alternatives right now.

Facebook is worse in every way regarding privacy (although they don't actually enforce their real name policy as far as I can tell/from the experiences in my peer group).

Other networks don't exist (see below). Twitter is a different beast. Don't start with LinkedIn or something or recommend niche products.

A social network, in my world, is a place where you can reach out to a lot of (like-minded/known/interesting) people. The point for me is that you need to have the critical mass so that the network works and is interesting in the first place (I won't find my friends on identi.ca..). But this should allow a lurking mode. A careful approach, picking friends by contacting them out of band ("I'm Foobar on G+") should be a fine use case.

I think the major reason to complain about G+ now is, apart from issues with the name verification process itself, that the offended community is just disappointed. It could be a good alternative to FB for quite some people, especially for those that didn't join FB in the first place. And Google failed to deliver.

Is it their decision? Sure. Is it a right to be a G+ user? Certainly not. Are there people that are unhappy about this situation and interested to voice that opinion: Yep.

We're both using a social community right now, of like minded people. I'm using my real name, you're not. That's HN's decision and I respect it. In this case I don't particularly care to know your real name. It doesn't add to or detract from my interactions with you.

On a site like Google+ or Facebook it's more complicated. I interact with people I know in real life, and with people I don't. I feel that if "darklajid" commented on one of my posts there it might negatively influenced a real life friends' decision to also participate. People who do not interact with strangers on the internet find it easier to do so when the person they are interacting with is using their real name. I think this is the right decision for the target use-case of Google+ and Facebook.

On Google+ you have the right to post to specific people or specific groups of people. People can, and I would wager actively are, using this feature right now to protect their privacy. They only thing they cannot protect is their true identity (they cannot hide their existence entire).

For some that's still too much and I respect that. However these networks should not cater to every niche need, and indeed there are plenty of communities out there willing to fill the void.

I'm a fan of comic books but they don't sell them in grocery stores like they used to. I have to drive a bit out of my way to pick them up (or wait on them in the mail). I've chosen this niche hobby and accept that I have some slight inconvenience because of it. That's life.

Let me start with this: This post is (one of) the best contra pseudonyms posts that I've read. Thank you.

The biggest point for me is your point about people with pseudonyms scaring away people that you actually care more for, close friends/family. I never thought of this point, but I do agree that my mum would be more hesitant to post if l33tGuy and WhooItsMe have a conversation with me.

Your point is, therefor, in my opinion great, but I still don't think that pseudonyms should be banned:

- You didn't comment on the inconsistency (LadyAda? Lady Gaga? Ok. darklajid? No) issue.

- You are masking the issue that there's no way to verify names anyway (so far. I hope it'll stay that way). So you're cheating yourself if you hope that this strategy leads to everyone using his real name

- I could take your argument further, to dangerous levels, by saying that a lot of people in my offline social network would probably be uncomfortable participating in discussions that are in English. Or with people that have obviously 'foreign' names, the more different the scarier (Asian countries come to mind, Israeli names could be good as well). My mum wouldn't comment if WhooItsMe comments on my picture, but she also wouldn't comment if Yuval would write something..

You cannot protect people from the world around them. You can try to find ways to cater for everyone, but in my world the solution to your scenario is:

- Allow people to choose their name

- Give people a great deal of (simple/intuitive) control about visibility and privacy. I'll help my mum set it up..

One last note: I'm 'darklajid' here, but I voluntarily give away my real name, as email address in my profile. That's the _right_ way around for me: I chose my name, lurked, participated - and _then_ decided to give away that information here.

I've just started running into the "unneccessary to cater to special interests" argument aganst pseudoanonymity on g+, and I haven't seen any data that indicates that there are more people who generally use their real names on the internet than ones that generally don't. I'd love a link to anything like that from anyone.

But in any context on the internet other than the social networks in question or when people are intentionally marketing themselves, if I see someone using their first and last name I assume that they are either very elderly, or very new to the internet. When I'm commenting on tech blogs, I'll sometimes use my firstname.lastname resume-heading email address - but I'm a tech guy, so it's obvious why. I could also see eventually using a real name on hn, but only for the same reason.

An email address is the id most people got first when they got on the internet, and is the model for pseudoanonymity. When I email my grandmother, I am pseudoanonymous and she is pseudoanonymous; it feels like the default state of the internet.

Limiting those with non-mainstream needs or desires (like pseudonymous interaction) to niche sites, effectively amounts to total segregation. Those people may want to interact with their real-life and online-only friends using the same system (e.g. Facebook or Google+), and some of them want to use their nicknames or handles to do so. If your friends would be put off by "darklajid" or "nitrogen" commenting on your posts, then you can prevent the posts for your real-name friends from being visible to your pseudonymous friends (if you have any).

I'll take my argument further: Google+ and Facebook grown beyond mere commercial offerings to become essential services like e-mail or the telephone system. Forcing certain classes of users onto a different network prevents them from interacting with the main body of the network. I consider this an inherently bad thing. Imagine if certain people were told they could only use niche telephone networks that were incapable of dialing the network that everybody else uses.

I am on Dreamwidth, which is very pseudonym-friendly. It's a pretty cool place.

No, I don't use my analog name there. :-)

Email me if you want invites.

"This is where the cool kids go. But you don't fit in, so please go somewhere where you do. Like with the other abnormals."

Not at all, there is no all-or-none proposition. One can participate on Google+ while simultaneously participating in other social communities. We're both doing it right now even!

It's completely analogous to real life. You interact with different groups in real life differently (your coworkers vs. your dungeons and dragons friends). Some of the people you interact with in real life know your real name and some do not. You're free to make the decisions of how you handle your identity.

So you're only allowed to interact with one particular group on Google+? If I invite my coworkers to interact with me, I'm not allowed to interact with my DND friends, or vice versa? Why? And what control should I exert over my coworkers and DND friends in order to make this boundary clear? How do I do that?

Yes indeed; if you want cultural diversity, head on out to the ghettos!

but you have to join the one your friends are in

I think it goes a little overboard to say that racial minorities aren't safe using their real names online. As for people who have something controversial to say, I generally avoid saying it in public under my real name anyway. Such is the human condition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com