Google services should not require real names: Vint Cerf
news.yahoo.com
news.yahoo.com
Anonymous publication must remain a viable avenue in the digital future if we are to maintain our character as a free nation. There can be no two ways about it.
[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent_Journal
"Default marketplace" != only marketplace. Was The Independent Journal, which published the Federalist Papers, the largest publication around at the time? Did it matter, as long as the Federalist Papers got published somewhere?
A point that's overlooked: MySpace allowed pseudonyms to run free and wild, but that's what made the connections on the site all-the-more shallow.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...
Besides that, the internet benefits from pseudonyms; http://readwrite.com/2012/01/16/people_using_pseudonyms_leav...
And it isn't just blog comments; it's everything. If people here were using their real names and weren't allowed to create sockpuppets for one-off posts, we wouldn't see nearly the honesty and humiliation we do. People being fearful of their reputation just leads to less communication, particularly on topics that are controversial but need to be talked about. You don't need to look far to see how successful communities that embrace pseudonyms are. The argument that it leads to just as many trash posts might be true (although I see just as many idiots using their Facebook accounts to post bile on news sites); but that's why voting exists. Shame the comment, not the commenter.
But this isn't about making the Internet as a whole non-anonymous. I realize that Google is a rather large entity, but I put a lot more trust and faith in them than other big internet players.
> don't need to look far to see how successful communities that embrace pseudonyms are.
I don't find a community where some people can say immensely hateful things as all that great. Sure, they can regulate and ban the user, but there is absolutely no responsibility taken for the aggravator's actions.
In my opinion, I'd rather there be several levels of anonymity available. Competition will drive each platform and with any luck, some semblance of a standard practice may come out of it.
I personally want people to be responsible for their actions on the Internet, until it has been completely proven it won't help, I don't see a reason to do away with a "Real Names" policy.
But what action would be taken if you actually knew who they were in real life? You mentioned "hateful" comments, but assuming that isn't actual threats to someone, there is no accountability beyond banning the user, pseudonym or not.
This of course also assumes people aren't faking out the "real name" restriction to begin with...
I'm not talking about a service that half-asses the feature. I'm talking about a legitimate link between my online persona and my actual real name. G+ doesn't nearly meet my demands for this service, but at least they're trying it and hopefully making progress on legitimacy.
And how many of the serious online harassers would really be deterred by it? I suspect that many or even most of the people who would be deterred by a "Real Names" policy aren't the ones doing the harassment in the first place. Plenty of people are willing to attach their names to offline harassment (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church) and I don't see why online harassment would be any different.
Because if this service was worth any merit, the real name attached to the hateful speech will have the same reputation-destroying effect as it being printed in any literary source. I completely understand that this won't deter everyone, but it will deter most people.
I have very high demands for this type of service, folks assume that people using the platform will just fake the 'Real Names' policy. Well, I don't want some hokey system in place, when I talk about linking a Real Name to someone's content, I'm linking a real person to their content. How will this connection be establish, maintained and not abused? I don't know, but I do know if it worked in the appropriate manner, there wouldn't be so many functional holes as people keep saying.
G+ in its current form does not appease my demand for a service that utilizes a real "Real Names" policy - they half-ass it and frankly retard the prospect of someone trying to do it legitimately and true to form.
In what situation would it be advantageous to be pseudonymous on a social network that's for talking to people you actually know in the real world like Google+ or Facebook? I know people in the real world who use pseudonyms on Facebook in lieu of privacy settings, and all it does is lower the quality of everyone else's interaction with Facebook by causing confusion, and give those people a false sense of security that their unsecured profiles will never be associated with them.
Here's one: "Survivors of domestic abuse (most often women and children) who need to not be found by their abusers."
If someone leaves an abusive relationship, moves to another state, severs all old ties, and perhaps even decides to use a new nickname, then why should that person be required to use a real name and therefore be easier to find? Especially if the new ties know the person better by the pseudonym than the original name? I'm not saying that that person can't be found, only that it shouldn't necessarily be easy to be found.
In any case, Facebook is more widely used than you summarized. It also has topic-oriented internet forums. I've used it to talk with people that I don't actually know in the real world. And some topic-oriented internet forums use Facebook as a commenting system.
By your logic, Facebook should therefore not have a real-name policy, no? At least, obviously not for those people who primarily use it for forum participation.
I'm not saying you should be required to use your birth name, but Facebook/Google+ accounts ought to be the same as what you use in the real world. Anything else detracts from the quality of everyone else's UX. If that's not your legal name, then fine. It's still you real name, not a handle like superuser2 or dalke.
A good solution would be for Facebook to support pseudonyms for web comments and forum functionality, but display real names to your friends. Real names also make sense on Google+, but I don't support Google's actions wrt YouTube.
I emphasized the difference between "cannot be found" and "don't make it easy to be found." This is different than the extremist "delete and recreate their online presence every time someone accidentally reveals the connection." There's a difference between being found a year later vs being found two days later.
"Facebook/Google+ accounts ought to be the same as what you use in the real world."
Okay, then what's involved if one changes one's real world name?
One of the other points in that long list of objections to a real name policy concerns "those whose religious conversion involved taking a new name who have not legally changed their name."
If I become a Sikh and take on the real world name of Kaur Dalke Singh, how do I change my Facebook name? Do I have to get a legal name change first? Otherwise, Google+ allow accepts "proof of an established identity online with a significant following" (which assumes I have a significant following elsewhere) or "References to an established identity offline in print media, news articles, etc." (so, what, I announce something in the local paper?).
Why "ought" the modern versions of Yusuf Islam and Muhammad Ali wait for the law to acknowledge their name changes before making the change on Facebook? Why "ought" Malcom X wait upon the law before he can reject his slave name of "Little"? Would Google+ allow people to change their names for these situations? What if the local government bans me from using my new name as my official name?
Consider Blaer Bjarkardottir, a teenager in Iceland. Her given name was not allowed by the Icelandic Personal Names Register, so she has no legal name. She is referred to as 'Stulka' - 'girl' in legal documents. Ought she wait until the Icelandic government either allows her her name, or forces her to accept a new name, before she's allowed to use Facebook/Google+?
You said (of using a pseudonym) that "all it does is lower the quality of everyone else's interaction with Facebook by causing confusion, and give those people a false sense of security that their unsecured profiles will never be associated with them." Malcom X's reason for choosing a new name had nothing to do with the reason you assume is why people want to use a pseudonym. Malcom X was well known. If I had the same epiphany, and decide to no longer use my operating system name of 'dalke' but instead go by X ... would Google+ accept it? Or reject it because I'm not famous enough?
Look, you're right. Anonymity and even pseudonymity is part of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. But to say that no one is harmed by requiring a real name policy is to be oblivious to the real-world issues concerning what a "real name" actually is.
I guess he hasn't seen YouTube's argumentative 'give us your real name and link our accounts' wizard, then. While you can find a way to answer the questions to keep your handle, you may have to lie to do so.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not saying Youtube's dialog is a good thing. I'm just saying there is no lying involved and it's rather trivial (albeit annoying) to dismiss it without having to lie or use your real name.
Furthermore, they removed the 'No'/'Cancel' options from the modal dialog; the only way to dismiss it is to go all the way through it and try and figure out which of the confusingly worded options is the one to make it go away.
This, despite the fact that my audience knows me by my pseudonym and not my real name.
I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea but can we tone down the hyperbole a bit? It's not constructive at all.
Google has not required Real (legal) Names for quite a while now. Google requires your "Common Name", which is the name you use with your friends, family, or coworkers. And there is an undocumented policy that the name has to look "middle-class", have 1-3 spaces in it, and not look too artsy.
http://support.google.com/plus/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answe...
If your friends call you Mini Kites, Google+ won't shut you down. And if Google+ challenges you on a name violation, you can "clear your name" with purely online-evidence, if you like.
Their help page states that you may appeal with "Proof of an established identity online with a significant following"
That's more of a celebrity clause than an actual solution for real users. Yes, if you're Lady Gaga or 50 Cent, or if you're just an internet personality with enough followers to raise a stink about being blocked, then you'll get your pseudonymous account. The rest of us will be named what Google tells us to be named, or stay out.
And that doesn't mean by everyone except Google. I don't want Google to consider me a single identity across its different accounts, either.
Good luck with that.
I've had Google prompt me to associate separate accounts across different domains (each driven by google apps). And I've had Google prompt me to merge what it determined were 'duplicate' email addresses into one contact for several of my friends/family -- it connected work accounts, pseudonymous webmail accounts, personal domain accounts, etc.
You may not want to make the connection official, and I understand and respect that. But Google already has the data to know with some confidence. And that's not just a hypothetical capability; they're demonstrably doing it.
Even after they allegedly changed it to allow "well-known" pseudonyms, the Google+ naming policy just seems arbitrary and pointless to me. Real names that look fake get blocked, while fake names that look real stay. People who want to follow the TOS will stay away, while people who do not care will sign up.
I'd consider using a nickname a "web best practice". It takes minimal effort, is unlikely to confuse anyone you actually know, and lets you compartmentalize your interactions better than any "circle". I am disappointed that Google is trying to discourage it.
That was the day I stopped going to G+, and the day Google lost a boatload of my goodwill.
They mainly not want to go back to the day were everything was mydodoname123.
Is it acceptable to have an account with a fictitious name in addition to one's own account? It's not clear to me from their policy whether this is allowed or not. I had assumed not, but I know of at least one G+ "Suggested User" who maintains an account under a different name.
This coming from a search company? What else do they have. A free email. You need two parties verifying each other via free email? What else. Ads. There's only a single party in Ads.
What am I missing here?
The advertising company needs to know your real name as it is more attractive to clients to know they are dealing with a real person viewing their advertisements rather than a legend. The advertising company can charge more money and target advertisements better.
You are also working from the premise that you are one of the parties in the transaction. You are not. You are the product being sold.
Note that Nuuton does feature a good naming policy: Nicknames are encouraged.