Hacker News Reader

Comment by sp332 | Hacker News Reader

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+.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com