Hacker News Reader

Comment by kkowalczyk | Hacker News Reader

I'm kind of surprised that I haven't seen people stating the obvious: on a practical level Google+ has (and will always have) anonymous accounts.

You can create G+ account under any random, but plausible looking name. You can be 15 year French old girl and call yourself "George Bush" (there are already 3 of those on G+). It's not like Google requires valid proof of identity to sign up.

Do people, including Danah Boyd, do not realize that? Given that in practice G+ has anonymous accounts, what is the fuss about?

I understand that Google officially won't acknowledge that but the "no anonymity" is just posturing. They have no practical way and probably no intention of making sure that people provide the real names.

So the issue here seems to be not about anonymity but about being obvious about being anonymous and the many justifications given in favor of anonymity do not carry over.

View on HN

You're describing Facebook. Google+ has a link for reporting people who are using fake names. Someone who wasn't using Google+ much could probably slip through the cracks, but someone using it a lot with a fake name? Good luck.

Edit: as tomkarlo points out, facebook has an option to report fake profiles, too. Also I found this quote from Facebook's former Director of Marketing, Randi Zuckerburg, troubling: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2847491

A fake name can be 'George Bush' or 'random valid firstname from my region' + 'random real lastname from the phone book in my region'.

You think you can report me if I use the latter? Good luck.

That depends on the social mores that arise.

I have someone in my circles with over 200 people connected. Using a name that would not pass the Google+ name challenge. Yet not one would ever challenge that account because that pseudonym is the right name that that account should be using.

Wow, over 200 people and not a single hater. Consider yourself lucky. Or just wait a few months and see if that someone is still there, with the same name.

Facebook also has such as mechanism. They call it "This profile is pretending to be someone or is fake" under their reporting options.

Thanks - updating my comment.

Facebook has the same link.

>Google+ has a link for reporting people who are using fake names.

That's deep! That's what i call the real power of social. You can always trust that your neighbor is watching you...

How could a sane supposedly normal person come up with an idea of such a link? How could a group of such people to implement and release it to the public? Did they suppress their vomiting reflex? Or may be they just don't have it at all, like drones.

How could a sane supposedly normal person come up with an idea of such a link?

It's all part of the magical thinking. If you know someone's True Name, you have the power to require them to be polite. But if it turns out that you don't have their real True Name, your spells will fizzle!

Geez, the more you think about the "civility" rationale the harder your head hurts. Let's go back to the simpler explanation: Google wants to require everyone to use a canonical identifier to make it easier to perform the giant JOIN across your entire life. Now the rationale of the "report your neighbor" link becomes clear: People who don't use their True Names are committing the mortal sin of... (shudder)... denormalization. Off with their heads!

First, there is not a link for reporting people with fake names. At best, you can report people with "fake profiles" or "impersonation".

A lot of people have pre-existing pseudonyms that _are_ their online identities. Should they not be allowed to use that identity in Google+?

That's a completely separate issue from anonymity.

Let me ask you this: should frivolous whims of minority dictate product decisions at Google? Or your own startup, should you have one?

The serious pro-anonymity arguments revolve around people who have to keep their identity secret or something bad will happen to them (they will be stalked, harassed etc.).

That is very different from saying "I want to be called spud because that's what I want and that's my Live Journal handle". A different standard applies to evaluating this vs. evaluating "anonymity to remain safe" arguments.

Insistance on using real names is Google's product decision. It's also an important product decision which will have a profound effect on how G+ will play out long term. Maintaining the culture of a large community is pretty much the biggest problem in that space and insisting on using real names (and not, say, adolescent or whimsical nicknames) is an important part of steering the culture towards civility.

Why do you feel that random people on the internet should dictate product decision to Google team?

Would you feel the same if you were running an on-line community, doing your best to shape it in a way you feel is good, and then random people on the internet demanded that you change your product in a way that they think is good but you don't?

> That's a completely separate issue from anonymity.

I take issue with your premise. Anonymity is a scale including "real names" -> pseudonymity -> anonymity.

There are folks who want anonymity and folks who want "real names". Problem here is the "real names" supporters want to ban pseudonyms as well. I take real issue with that.

Pseudonyms aren't a recent thing. Stage names, noms de plume and masked balls have been around for millennia. The drive to purge that from our online public spaces is a real threat to society as a whole.

Did you read the OP? It mentions a lot of people who go by handles precisely to avoid stalking, harassment, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com