Nym Wars (Google+ "real name" rules) | Hacker News Reader

Nym Wars (Google+ "real name" rules)

jwz.org

123 pointsbigiain71 comments

The proposition that "real names" significantly enhances a user experience is a bit silly, I think. It may contribute in some small way as far as what you're willing to admit, but generally it doesn't seem to change behavior a lot.

The quality of commentary on a public comment platform has much more to do with a given community's moderation and social mechanisms than the username that appears above the comment. YouTube is a mess because it's a hit-and-run system, there is no social obligation, you just type what you think about the video and never look at it again. Additionally, YouTube has a short length limit on comments precluding in-depth discussions, and YouTube's audience is very varied and primarily non-specialized.

There are many public messaging systems online that have flourished and maintain a high level of quality even though they allow pseudonyms. Hacker News, for instance. I can think of five or six high-quality messaging systems wherein I have actively participated off the top of my head that were not flooded with YouTube-esque idiocy -- the name policy really has very little to do with it, I think.

Google+ is completely controlled by its users; you must explicitly accept any author's content that you wish to view and you can block and explicitly reject any author's content that rubs you the wrong way. It is a fundamentally different model than YouTube. In this case, people are generally only going to accept you into their circles if they know who you are at least vaguely, whether the displayed name is "cookiecaper" or "Jeff Cook". I just don't see the point in even having the argument regarding Google+ when it has to be explicitly regulated by the user anyway. Facebook likewise.

I think the real motivation here on the part of both Google and Facebook is to discourage the use of multiple identities so that it's easier to target advertising.

Pseudonymity is still possible, though, so I'm still not sure why this is such a major deal, because you can just go create a Google Account with whatever plausible name you can dream up. You can then reveal your identity to the persons you'd like and everyone else knows you as generic John Smith. In fact, I do this on Facebook, and I presume that many others with an interest in pseudonymity do so as well.

I don't want to have to deal with pseudonyms to talk to people I know in real life just because I'm using a computer.

Facebook understood this, and Google does too.

Pseudoynm communities can still be awesome for situations where you want your persona to stay within the internet. I love HN, and I wouldn't want to use my real name here. Same with most forums. But pseudonyms have no place in social networking. As Zuckerburg figured out from watching MySpace unfold, having Internet-only "friends" is sketchy, unfulfilling, and kind of dangerous; the mainstream wants to use the internet to connect to their real-life friends. That was the principle behind Facebook, and that's what Google+ is trying for.

There is still a segment of people that likes talking to anonymous strangers. Usually it's about some topic, but some people still have MySpace "friends." There is certainly a market there, but it's not for everyone. Google tends to build products for the widest possible audience, and I don't see why Google+ would be any different.

Are you kidding?

The proposal isn't to force you to learn two names for every person, one for "real life" and one for when you're using a computer. That's a straw man.

Facebook began as a network for Harvard students, then island networks for other universities, and so on, and it only got merged into one monster network later on. Because of that history, it tends to be a social network for people to connect to school friends, family, work colleagues, etc. (i.e. people you've met in real life).

Google+ has much different beginnings.

Twitter seems to be doing quite well allowing pseudonyms. Same with Hacker News. You wrote "pseudonyms have no place in social networking" but what is Hacker News if not (in part) a social network?

An anonymous comment isn't the same thing as a comment under a pseudonym. People tend to use the same pseudonym (or set of pseudonyms) everywhere they go: people can get a sense of who they are, what they believe. They can even use that pseudonym when not online (e.g. Mark Twain never had Internet access).

"Real names" and pseudonyms are just handles. They're like variable names when programming. The computer doesn't care what you call the variables. Why should you care whether someone goes by the name their parents gave them or something else? Shouldn't that be their choice?

Except if I want to see if Steve Yegge or Steve Jobs or Steve Wozniak or X has a twitter it is extremely difficult. In general you have to search on google for their personal website and hope that it mentions their twitter info on the page.

The situation is even worse for finding your friends if they have their username as Rogue7777; you can't sit down at a computer and determine if your friend has a hackernews or reddit account for example. That is fine for some communities where it is a feature that any random schmo can theoretically have the same visibility as Linus Torvalds, but that is the exact opposite of what Facebook, Twitter and Google+; you care foremost about who is saying it and want to listen to what specific people have to say, not hear what any random anonymous 13 year old thinks about copyright law.

The issue isnt "real names", its "name you are commonly known by", unfortunately that is an extremely difficult thing to determine by looking at usernames; in general people don't call their friends "texans for marijuana legalization" or "darth vader" in real life though.

  site:twitter.com steve wozniak

Not all famous people will have a twitter account, but if they do, it'll probably be in the top few results.

Those people who want to use pseudonyms, and have less visibility, can do that too.

I do not think a social networking site itself needs to distinguish between famous people, ordinary people, and pseudonyms. Link popularity and user-generated status within the social networking site will do that, and search is pretty good at picking up on those cues.

If anything, perhaps G+ and twitter need [better] tools that enable the userbase to ensure that a "real" Steve Jobs account can be given more status (let's call it whuffie), but Google and Twitter themselves do not need to take it upon themselves to unilaterally declare one account or another as special or reserved. That way madness lies. It will stress out the companies who have to pay employees to vet accounts. It will stress out the companies when they get it wrong or get into disputes over well-known identities. It will stress out users when they see network effects being overridden by corporate administrative fiat.

That search only works if their actual twitter page says that name on it, which is probably true for celebrities but almost certainly not true for your friends.

> Those people who want to use pseudonyms, and have less visibility, can do that too.

I think the point is that most people do not even realize the impact that going by Rogue7777 instead of their real name has. The people who post on HN probably do understand the implications of it; if you meet some random dude at a bar or a conference he will simply not be able to add you on Google+. Reconnecting with people you wouldn't usually connect with in real life is one of the things on the very short list of legitimate advantages that social networks can provide, and that is lost if you don't use your real name.

Generally social networks' rise based on what they don't let people do. Twitter's character limit is an oft cited example; under exactly the same type of argument that you are making, why shouldn't they let people write any length they want? Allowing 5000 character tweets wouldn't prevent people from tweeting 100 characters if that is what they want to do. Why shouldn't I be able to change my font and put autoplay music on my facebook profile like I could on Facebook?

These types of restrictions (and real names) are centralized overriding of people's feature requests because the company thinks it knows better (and it actually does in the examples above). You are perfectly free to buy your own domain name and write anything you want in any font with any autoplaying music and any xbox-live-handle-esque juvenile pseudonym you want, but when you use another service you are gaining the advantages of rules being enforced on other people in exchange to submitting to those same rules yourself. Maybe you don't care about if people have a red font on a green background, but that would be a worse experience for most people. Maybe you don't care if your friend is signed on as "SmokeBluntzAndPoundVag", but that is a worse experience for most people, even excluding the fact it would be difficult to find your friend and any behavior differences about someone who is signed in with that username versus their actual name.

> That way madness lies. It will stress out the companies who have to pay employees to vet accounts. It will stress out the companies when they get it wrong or get into disputes over well-known identities.

I think this is a demonstrably incorrect assessment. Facebook does a good job keeping people to real names (including dispute resolution that involves sending an image of your license if you have a name that looks fake), and Twitter does a pretty good job with "validated accounts". I don't think it is too extreme of a burden for either company; noteworthy celebrities and people whose legal name is Optimus Prime are extreme minorities and are easily manually dealt with with a minimal team of people.

It'd be a lot easier to find your buddy if he went by the handle Rogue7777 than his real name, Fred Jones.

That's only true if he told you that he signed up as Rogue7777, in which case he could just give you a link to his profile.

>Facebook began as a network for Harvard students, then island networks for other universities, and so on, and it only got merged into one monster network later on. Because of that history, it tends to be a social network for people to connect to school friends, family, work colleagues, etc. (i.e. people you've met in real life).

>Google+ has much different beginnings.

Google's real name policy pretty clearly indicates that Google+ is intended as an extension of your real-world identity (like Facebook) rather than a forum for alternate personas.

>Twitter seems to be doing quite well allowing pseudonyms.

Twitter positioned itself as primarily a public venue for alternate personas. Kind of like HN, or pretty much any forum. I do not know anyone who actively uses Twitter to talk to their real-life friends. They use Facebook for that.

>Same with Hacker News. You wrote "pseudonyms have no place in social networking" but what is Hacker News if not (in part) a social network?

Hacker News is a forum with voting. It doesn't track any sort of connection between users, and doesn't encourage sharing of personal lives. I don't consider it a social network at all.

>An anonymous comment isn't the same thing as a comment under a pseudonym. People tend to use the same pseudonym (or set of pseudonyms) everywhere they go: people can get a sense of who they are, what they believe. They can even use that pseudonym when not online (e.g. Mark Twain never had Internet access).

I understand that. I fully support pseudoynm-based discussion boards like HN (and blogging under pseudonyms), and I am appalled at people who want to enforce real name use everywhere. Those are useful, essential to free speech, etc.. But Google+ and Facebook are not trying to build pseudonym communities, they're trying to facilitate non-internet relationships online.

>"Real names" and pseudonyms are just handles. They're like variable names when programming. The computer doesn't care what you call the variables.

Actually, Facebook knows you by uid anyway. I never argued that we should care what people are known as to computers, but that I should see my friends' vacation photos /location checkins/status updates under the name I know them by, not soccaluv18273084.

>Why should you care whether someone goes by the name their parents gave them or something else? Shouldn't that be their choice?

Because in social networking (or, since you have a broad definition of social networking, the kind of social networks intended to extend your non-internet relationships) I want to call people by the same name we use in person. So do a lot of other people, hence Google and Facebook's policies.

Just because someone is using a pseudonym doesn't mean they're using an alternate persona.

Google allows pseudonyms on almost all of their other services, which are supposedly getting integrated with Google+. How is that supposed to happen, exactly?

Twitter isn't primarily for alternate personas. Where did you get that idea?

Futhermore, what makes you think pseudonyms are for just for alternate personas? There are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to be using pseudonyms, both online and offline.

Many people are known only by their pseudonym (even when not online). How are their friends supposed to find them on a social network where they're only allowed to use their "real name"?

To quote you: "I want to call people by the same name we use in person."

>Futhermore, what makes you think pseudonyms are for just for alternate personas? There are plenty of legitimate reasons for people to be using pseudonyms, both online and offline.

In their personal dealings? That's a pretty weird edge case. I can't think of anyone that does that besides con artists. (Dissidents, yes, but again, Google+ is for extending your personal identity; your alter ego belongs on a Facebook Page or Twitter or Blogspot or Wordpress).

>Twitter isn't primarily for alternate personas. Where did you get that idea?

Because Twitter accounts tend to be a way for organizations and celebrities to push information. Case in point: http://twitter.com/#!/paulg is about Paul Graham the entrepreneur, the professional persona, not Paul Graham the friend/son. I don't live in the Valley, but I have never encountered anyone with an active personal Twitter account. (Lots of people, including myself, made one, tweeted a few times, and gave up because nobody else we knew was there.)

To quote you: "I want to call people by the same name we use in person."

Unless I am dealing with a con artist, that is usually a real name. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Google has an issue with normal first-name shortening/common nicknames). In what situations would someone be known to their friends and family by a pseudonym?

I've gone by the name "Otto" for about half my life. It's a nickname I got in college. Many of my best friends didn't know my real name for years. It just never came up. My mom is the only person who uses my real name, and every now and then even she slips up. So when I go online, I tend to use "Otto" instead of "Samuel". Not trying to fool anybody, it's just the name I go by.

There's nothing special about a nickname, is there? Or do you not consider those to be pseudonyms?

Now, Google+ might have no problem with this, but I can't use just "Otto" there. It requires a first and last name, I believe. Also, I can't be "verified" under the name Otto. I currently am verified with my real name, via the old Knol trick from Google Profiles way back when. I kinda like the verification, and so use my real name there. But it's weird, as almost everybody both on and offline knows me by Otto, not by my real name. And if I change it, I'd lose the verified checkmark. Kinda annoying, that.

I laughed when I saw this because MY Twitter account is @paulgraham and I get mentions all the time where I get credit for @paulg's writings.

Twitter is not a Facebook killer. If you want to follow Lady Gaga's latest tweets (broadcasts), Twitter is for you. If you want to narrowcast photos for your friends to see, Facebook is for you. Then there's email / Skype / QQ / MSM for private communications.

No, I think it's that real names are bad for privacy, but friends can find you more easily using your real name. Google+ doesn't suffer much if you damage your career using a real name, but it does suffer if your friends don't find you and so you go back to facebook.

Google could easily promote and encourage real names a la Facebook and still let pseudonymous profiles slide. I think that the typical first/last name convention is good, and that it'd be fine to require pseudonyms that follow that convention.

Posting things you want to keep private on the internet is bad for privacy. Real neames are not.

Privacy is about as binary as security - that is, not at all.

Friends can find you more easily using your real name? Try that if you have a very common name. There are over 80 pages of G+ results to sort through if you have mine, and I have it easy. Friends with common Chinese or Indian names have it a lot worse.

People who aren't friends can too, and you can't exactly coyly avoid people in many forums.

It creates precedents. And just as in real life people will still be assholes, regardless of any naming policy.

I had hopes that Google+ would be a better Facebook in regards to my privacy.

It isn't, so why should I switch from Facebook? Is it because it's newer and shinier?

I don't think there has to be an ulterior motive to this sort of policy, they have decided upon a set of rules to build their community and that is it.

And persons with theories about how socializing on the web should be, start chiming-in as they chose this pseudonym topic to publicize and unfold their theories and criticisms. They can go elsewhere to be as pseudo-anonymous as they like, I recognize that pseudonyms have legitimate purpose but all this self entitled rhetoric is just trolling.

You, as "yanw", have accumulated a karma of 7218 on HN, which is quite impressive, even though I have no idea what your "real life" name is. Do I need to know? Of couse not. But you're not welcome on Google+ (as yanw).

Good point, although I feel that real names would make things better on Hacker News by giving (1) accountability for comments (2) credentials and justification for opinions. By the latter, I mean that it constantly seems that (for example) on many posts lately involving mathematics there's an argument where one side is forcefully saying one thing that's false and covered in any good college pure math course. For third-parties it isn't obvious that one side is correct and that one side may be a professor or PhD.

I like to think my HN comments are more likely to be believed by others and useful to them because of my cogent observations or clear writing style, than because of my name which is probably not known to most people, or my degrees which are not relevant to most topics.

Most topics yes, but is it hard to accept that education and degrees are useful when talking about math or physics or whatnot? If both sides are well written I'd like to know if one side is an expert in the area and if the other side just has cursory knowledge of the area from blog posts and Wikipedia. My personal opinion is that deferral to authority can be a useful thing. If one is a Putnam fellow, ACM gold medallist, pure math PhD, and head of research at a hedge fund, with experience at Google etc, then occasionally some post comes up in ones area of expertise and there is some blatant misinformation, but it's not worth it to reply since the people with more time to write posts and reply in the thread will control the conversation. Hacker News has some truly great people coming in all the time, and I want to listen to them. If a world expert stops by he/she may have only time for one sentence, but that sentence is highly valuable (see: reactions to pg, spolsky, etc) You are right that posts should stand on their own merits, but it would be nice to be able to keep track of some kind of reputation.

Are you arguing that we should share our degrees, grades, upload a CV with a picture (maybe I'm more believable when we're talking about white middle-class people if I prove that I'm white a middle-class guy)? A driving license showing that I'm allowed to drive trucks of all sizes, for the off-chance that I'm making comments on stories relating to that?

Your idea starts out simple and innocent, unless you think it through. You are not entitled to know these things. If people argue about math and you cannot judge who's right: Bad luck. That's not a reason for them to prove anything to you. If you actually care about math topics and notice that usually X is supported by most people or - after investing some time of your own - is right according to your own investigation, X gains your trust. Y, always arguing against X, is probably talking bull..

It's the same in real life. If you meet a guy in a bar and you start talking about something other than weather and nonsense, how do you judge him? Unless you're way out of line you probably need to learn if he's talking sense or regularly pulls things out of his rear end as well. Do the same here.

The notion that using "real names" improves the quality of communication is not just wrong, it's utterly ridiculous. What it impels is that the (best? fastest? surest?) way get "better" conversations is to make sure that everyone is afraid of some sort of retribution for what they say. As far as I can see, that is the only thing "real names" achieve. After that, you can coat it any rhetoric you want, it still remain an ugly idea.

Google's handling is pretty cold. They encountered a critical issue with having a social [human] network, their support isn't human.

They prefer automation over everything. And that aim will keep biting them in the ass.

I'm not so sure. Look at all the companies that have non-automated support: Best Buy, Comcast, Bank of America, and so on. Nobody likes those companies either.

Ultimately, being nice to people doesn't scale. And making money requires scaling.

What are you not sure about?

They prefer automation over everything. And that aim will keep biting them in the ass.

The other companies people hate don't automate anything. But everyone still hates them.

I had a feeling the policing of this was stupid, but I didn't think it would be downright incompetent. If you can't police a policy properly, don't have it in the first place! Especially one that serves no real purpose and incites so much anger. Jeez.

Any anger here is manufactured. It's just a way for social-media types to publicize their social web theories.

Yes, my account is scheduled for suspension tomorrow, for attempting to use my real "wallet name," which happens to be a mononym. I'm angry. I'm particularly angry at their oily statement that I don't "comply" and that I'm free to leave. Google has manufactured that anger.

The knowledge that it is still a beta product should soften your anger, it's a matter of tweaking the system it's nothing to be offended by.

And yet, I'm offended.

"When the rebuttal to your argument is The Federalist Papers, generally that means that you've lost the argument."

That is one of the golden lines of the article and so true. This quest for better targeting of ads is painful.

Also, I cannot wait until some of the folks on the reservations start getting flagged by Google. Many of the names people are know by violate Google's naming policy.

Some of the best, most meaningful and informative "social" participation I've had online has been with pseudonyms. And those people would not have been there if not for the pseudonyms.

(People shared their real names if and as there were ready, and one-to-one. I'm still in touch with many of them, a decade and more later.)

I'm not terribly interested in Google's (and Facebook's, et al.) seemingly self-serving "speculation" on this topic. I'll base my opinion, and decisions, on real experience.

Buzz. Wave. Get on the clue train, folks.

To solve the perceived "quality" problem (and that perception is itself a problem), Google has, true to form, relied on a technical barrier (must have one and only one first name, one and only one last name). They have then all but automated catching the ones that get through the barrier, by soliciting users to report fakes. Whether they review those reports before notice to suspend is an excellent question, one that Violet Blue has probably asked. https://plus.google.com/105822688186016123722/posts/LWySptwh...

Google's monolithic lack of customer service is well known, and I believe it starts with good intentions, trying to automate the management of the problem as much as possible. The problem comes from believing too much in their algorithms and automated solutions. They're all very smart, but their solutions are not as smart as they think. Or, maybe they're even smarter than I think, and they've gone the Pinto route and calculated that a certain amount of customer "disasters" is relatively tolerable.

About the McLovin ID thing, I don't think it's Google's responsability to police which ids are fake and which are not. As far as I know faking an ID is a misdemeanor or a felony in most US states [1] and some other countries (like Brazil), so if there is any complaint against a reporter and he is found to have submitted a fake ID he is in for a fine and maybe jail time. I'm personally ok with requiring a user to commit a crime to cause antisocial behavior, as this ensures that they can be prosecuted in some way (this is the same principle behind DMCA takedown notices, where the person sending the letter is liable for a number of crimes if they are not who they claim to be or if they do not in fact own the right to the media at hand).

[1] http://www.celticfringe.net/teenlife/fakeid.html ) and

This isn't about liability. They already have common carrier status, which means that they won't be held accountable for what users say. This is about the kind of community they want to have. Unfortunately, by putting restrictions on the kind of community they want, they have also restricted the number of people who will be able to participate. Google+ can never be universal if they limit the interactions people are allowed to have.

"[x] I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is correct."

From http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--qy3pZh_8qI/TkFAOdMMLvI/AAAAAAAABi...

No idea how enforceable that is, from any legal standpoint, but you can't claim you didn't know about it, at least.

I haven't seen anywhere noted that a significant part of humanity don't have surnames, eg many Indonesians. How to enforce a real name-like policy under these conditions?

Or the massive variation in transliteration from non-latin alphabets.

Not to mention, the vast majority of Chinese students I met at uni would pick an easily pronounceable "English" name. I bet that's not on their passport.

Chinese people with English names: a bit off-topic but the current trend for Chinese where I work and around (Beijing Web corps) is to avoid these English names and use the pinyin translitteration or abbreviations instead, but this also is a can of worms if one want to enforce real name policy. In the South of China some people's family name is just "Ng", some legitimate transliteration of a given name could be "nvzhi" where "i" is not a vowel but "v" is! I which a good time for the humans or the bots that will have to enforce real name policies there...

Personally, I am not for real name policies, but the problems with using real names needs to be fixed if possible.

It's a shame that Google hasn't chosen to address this in the empirical fashion they're famous for: why not have two google+'s for a while, one which enforces the "real names" policy, and one which is free for all. See which results in the better data.

Because that wouldn't replicate a world in which either one existed as the sole Google+...like, at all.

It's nowhere near the big issue that the self-described activists think it is.

I'm certain the data suggests that using real names isn't a problem for the vast majority of people but merely the obsession of the very loud and self-righteous few, besides it's still a closed beta product and any such criticisms don't apply until they say that it's ready and open for all.

Have you even looked at http://my.nameis.me/ ? These aren't (just) activists, these are individuals who are directly affected by this issue and have many individual reasons for using pseudonyms. None of them are allowed to participate in Google+.

Right. And? G+ isn't some right that Google is required to make available for everyone.

Google's handling of this is a bit ham-fisted to be sure, but equally irksome is the vitriolic entitlement mentality that a lot (not all) are bringing to the discussion.

OK, the entitlement of people who are simultaneously claiming to be un-privileged is annoying. But Google has global influence, so for them to exclude a bunch of people seems strange. And they're really shooting themselves in the foot. Because of the network effect, they've just made their social network geometrically less valuable to the people in it, and less attractive to anyone looking to join.

Not to mention loss of other google services. When my account is suspended tomorrow, they tell me I will also lose access to Picasa and Reader. People have lost access to gmail, although that is supposedly a bug (although I have already moved all my mail to fastmail.fm).

To their credit, they gave me time (four days) to download my data, which I've done.

And even if I don't lose access to gmail, who's to say that won't happen on purpose in the near future? It's obvious that Google wants to leverage + as much as possible.

What about ad sense? Google apps? Everything is potentially targeted for pulling into the Plus system.

Finally, I've heard that beyond Picasa access, loss of your G+ profile interferes with Android utility. I don't know specifically what, or even whether that's true.

This linking of services is very irksome, and has driven me off of several. Microsoft was there first, as usual, but Google is following in their footsteps.

Other services aren't affected. Period.

That is just a vicious rumor. They explicitly said the no other service of theirs will be affected.

They've said that repeatedly, but it keeps happening so I'm still not believing them. http://www.docpop.org/2011/08/googles-antisocial-behavior/

I'm not saying that pseudonyms are without legitimate purpose, I'm saying that Google has decided to enforce certain rules to build their community and this response is deafening and unnecessary.

You're right. We should allow companies as big and potentially malicious as Google to build the biggest walled gardens they can afford to support.

If people don't like walled gardens, they won't go there. If they do go, that means they are OK. I myself enjoy my real name and walled gardens.

Says the man posting with a nickname on a non-walled site. >:3

Rimantas is my real name, not a nickname.

Your complete and full name? Able to identify you uniquely? My name's "Corbin Simpson"; see what happens when you Google it.

Okay. Let's take Andie. Google+ doesn't want to be your PR tool. It's not for pushing a message. It's for talking to the friends and family and coworkers who you trust with your real name.

Gwyneth. Google+ is not deviantart or IRC. You are absolutely entitled to a second life (inside and outside of Second Life) but that's not what Google is trying to enable.

Talel. Google+ is only interested in Talel. The person with Talel's ideas doesn't have coworkers or friends; Talel does. That person belongs on Blogger or Wordpress.

Jin Shei. Facebook and Google+ are for your friends, family, and coworkers. Blogger and Wordpress are for the web at large. I would share your outrage if if you needed to use your real name to blog, but that's not what's happening here. You're only being forced to use your real name to share vacation photos with your parents.

Fyodor. Absolutely! Everyone deserves privacy. Google+ is for your friends, family, and coworkers. You don't have to make your real name public to get a Linode and slap Apache and Wordpress on it.

I believe most of this outrage comes from people misunderstanding what Google+ is and isn't.

>I believe most of this outrage comes from people misunderstanding what Google+ is and isn't.

I find the assertion that you know "what Google+ is and isn't" myopic and naive.

Google's enforcement of real names on Google+ clearly establishes the service as an extension of real identities.

I've seen no basis for much of the HN community's assertion that Google+ should be a venue for secondary personas. There is absolutely a reason these venues should exist, but not that Google+ needs to be one of them. I find the outrage at Google's decision unwarranted.

Okay, then don't worry about it and stop posting defending them. I find the outrage warranted. It's a personal thing and a lot of folks on G+ and on here just want to be the loudest about it.

Google explicitly says that they're not accepting companies or groups yet. They even ask users not to sign up as a couple sharing and account. I'm sure it'll happen eventually, but for now, "what Google+ is" is pretty narrowly defined.

It doesn't have to be a big issue. My name and identity is what I say it is, because I say it is.

Your site hurts my eyes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com