Hacker News Reader

Comment by salient | Hacker News Reader

I blame Google for this. Yes, there were others who pushed "real name policies" before, but it wasn't until Google when they really forced people to do it, and now that they got away with it, others are taking the example from them, and doing the same.

View on HN

This isn't a "real name" policy.

It states that for certain types of changes/new contact details, there will be a verification email sent, with a link you have to click.

That doesn't involve giving your real identity to anyone.

Real name policies greatly benefit the community as a whole. Of course we all see that there is a rare need for anonymity, but it should be far from the default. I wish the net could be divided into two halves -- "Willing to put my name behind what I write", and "Anonymous Cesspool".

Anglo-American common law tradition allows me to manage my own identity. I am who I say I am, and I publish the name that I will answer to when strangers say it. And I am also free to have multiple nicknames, which might be associated with my public name, or not.

I am very disappointed in the cultural trend over the last few decades that makes a third-party entity, usually a government, the final arbiter over who someone is. If I want to be a certain name in person, and "logfromblammo" on HN, or another pseudonym somewhere else, I question the motives of anyone who wants to undermine that separation. I think it is a fundamental human right to decide who you are, and the ability to separate your social circles by the identity you use is essential to privacy and free discourse.

Several of the positions I hold as an on-line personality--religion, political views, spectator sport preferences--could be used against me in my job or hometown. An atheist anarchist that doesn't even like football is just one step away from social assassination in my physical location. If I cannot establish a separate and distinct identity to discuss such things in another venue, I cannot be free of the social prejudices of my neighbors, ever.

So I believe your assertion is incorrect. Real name policies promote self-censorship for everyone who is not blessed enough to live in a socially tolerant locale. I am content for logfromblammo to have a separate karma rating than my in-person name, and for it to be a discardable on-line identity. That arrangement can certainly be abused, but making that abuse impossible hurts far more than it helps.

Tell a transperson that. Or an abuse survivor. Or someone with HIV trying to get information. There are many, many, many situations where requiring real names is harmful to a community. As a further counterexample, look at news sites which use facebook comments as their backend. People are quite willingly assholes even if their "real" name is behind what they write.

As I said, there is a rare need for anonymity, and it should exist -- on the 'anonymous net'. Anonymity is abused far more often than used.

Or cesspit of trolls who don't care you know their real "Name"

Is there any reason you want everyone on "put my name" part of the Net to be forced to use traditional¹ name format instead of free-form pseudonyms? Is there any difference except for the looks? Or you want services to register accounts only after a notary confirms your identity?

Best regards,

John Doe Jr.

___

P.S. ¹) Some people will likely to be unable to use their "real" name with such policies. http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b...

... so now that YouTube did that, and it didn't help (as the trolls were, in fact, "willing to put my name behind what I write"), we aren't going to adjust our understanding and stop believing in this false dichotomy? :(

This is nothing to do with Google. It's the Law Enforcement Agencies who were pushing this with ICANN, not Google.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com