
Google+ relaxes real-name policy, allows pseudonyms - rryan
https://plus.google.com/u/0/113116318008017777871/posts/SM5RjubbMmV
======
bad_user
Relevant opinion by jwz [1] ...

    
    
         Google's statement is obvious bullshit, and 
         here's why. The way you "support" pseudonyms is as 
         follows:
    
         1. Stop deleting peoples' accounts when you suspect
            that the name they are using is not their legal 
            name.
    
         2. There is no step 2. 
    

UPDATE: Also, Google hasn't "relaxed" their policy. The name(s) you choose are
still passing a review process and once a name is "flagged" you'll have to
provide evidence that the name(s) in question represents you and is an
"established identity".

And for example, in case the name represents an online identity, you have to
have a " _meaningful following_ " -- basically, there can be only one
+Madonna, except these aren't random/made-up user handles, such as on Twitter.

Also, most importantly, Google+ still bans anonymity.

UPDATE 2: I was partly mistaken in my conclusions. See comments by @ElbertF
below.

[1] [http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/10/eff-declares-premature-
victo...](http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/10/eff-declares-premature-victory-in-
nymwars/)

~~~
ElbertF
Yonatan Zunger (who works on Google+) posted this in a comment:

 _"Our name check is therefore looking, not for things that don’t look like
“your” name, but for things which don’t look like names, period. In fact, we
do not give a damn whether the name posted is “your” name or not: we will not
challenge you on this basis, nor is there any mechanism for other users to
cause you to be challenged for this."_

~~~
dkl
I recently make a new google+ account with a handle name (obviously wasn't a
real name), got a huge number of +1's with a public post and then google
stepped in and said they'd remove my account if I didn't use a real name. So,
I used a random name, and then "approved it". How is a fake name better than a
handle of some sort? It isn't. Google's position is just dumb.

~~~
ElbertF
He addresses this too:

 _"The other important thing it’s trying to catch is people who are creating
individual accounts, rather than +Pages, for non-human entities such as
businesses or organizations. The behavior of +Pages is deliberately restricted
in the system, and we don’t want people to be creating fake human accounts to
circumvent that. The name check turns out to be a very powerful tool to catch
these."_

This is followed by the previous quote.

------
hythloday
I'm normally a massive Google fanboy, but I quit using Google+ because I find
the no-pseudonyms policy unacceptably discriminatory[1], and I don't think
this announcement really makes a difference to that. Non-Anglo-Saxon names
will continue to be routinely flagged as fake, and people who want a
persistent identity unlinked to details that could expose them in real life be
continue to be unable to use the service.

In short, Google allows cosmetic pseudonyms, which is great, but they didn't
remove any restrictions that made the no-pseudonyms policy obnoxious in the
first place. I'm hopeful that the "first steps" they refer to this as presage
changes that will make the service more inclusive (and I can go back to my
usual unthinking approval of the company).

[1]
[http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F)
\-- originally I said I found it "racist and sexist", but it's not confined to
racism and sexism - pretty much everyone who suffers from disadvantage is
further disadvantaged by Google's stance.

~~~
fennecfoxen
I quit G+ because it's much easier to violate the terms of service on G+, and
because they also take away your Gmail access when you violate the terms, and
when you get down to it I need Gmail more. Ironic, I suppose.

~~~
raldi
> they also take away your Gmail access when you violate the terms

Are you sure? This seems to be a persistent rumor, but other than COPA-
mandated takedowns of accounts belonging to children, I haven't seen any such
reports like that which stood up to scrutiny.

------
sp332
I see where it allows nicknames, but I don't see where it allows pseudonyms.
Did I miss it?

Edit: I see, Mashable got some quotes from Horowitz that aren't in the
original Google+ post: [http://mashable.com/2012/01/23/google-plus-allows-
pseudonyms...](http://mashable.com/2012/01/23/google-plus-allows-pseudonyms-
nicknames/)

 _Google+ is not, however, accepting new pseudonyms. This is designed for
“established ones.” Horowitz explained that the new account naming option is
intended for “people who have earned credit in other social systems and want
to redeem that credit in Google+”._

This is really important since you have to fill out a Google+ profile when you
sign up for a Gmail account. I can't believe they would throw away the ability
to make an anonymous email account.

~~~
mahyarm
Just put in a generic name, like Victor Huntsman. Put in whatever you want for
the email address and nickname.

~~~
bad_user
If you'll read the announcement, it's pretty clear that Google+ names must
pass a review process. And in case the name is "flagged", then you must
provide:

    
    
         - References to an established identity offline in 
           print media, news articles, etc
    
         - Scanned official documentation, such as a 
           driver’s license
    
         - Proof of an established identity online with a 
           meaningful following
    

By giving a bogus name, you'll end up losing your online Google+ identity and
access to other Google services, such as Gmail.

~~~
tonfa
Wasn't it established that a bogus name would _not_ make you lose access to
gmail/docs/etc?

~~~
bad_user
Well, considering how some kids lost their Gmail account after signing up for
Google+ and told the truth about their age, I wouldn't count on it.

~~~
magicalist
That's COPPA, though.

You could argue that they should be supporting accounts for kids under 13 with
parental permission (like Yahoo does, for instance), but that's not the same
thing.

Edit: and to preempt some class of responses: yes, as has been covered on HN
before, COPPA has a clause that says not to warn users that setting their age
to under 13 will prevent them from accessing content, and that you can't
(generally) let them go back and change it later.

~~~
bad_user
Yeah, but why take away the access to Gmail?

If Facebook/Twitter bans you, you don't lose access to Gmail. It makes no
sense.

~~~
true_religion
Google is a single company, and just finds it easier to ban you completely
from their entire network than to let you have access in piecemeal to certain
services.

~~~
tomkarlo
A company can't ban a user from one service because they believe they're
underage (to comply with COPA), then pretend to not know they should be banned
from other services of the company where COPA would also apply.

It's not "easier" to do that, it's just what you have to do since it's so
difficult to make any social / messaging service COPA-compliant.

~~~
true_religion
I inititially wrote just that but changed it....

I'm not sure that COPPA applies to GMail. Certainly, Yahoo mail doesn't stop
me from entering a birth-date under the age of 13 when signing up for it.

~~~
tomkarlo
Yahoo will let you create the account, but then you'll have to go through a
whole set of other steps to create a COPPA-compliant email account, including
having a parent provide a credit card.

That's different from how they would handle it if they had an existing account
on Yahoo Mail and found out that the owner was less than 13 - I suspect they
would have to turn it off as well, because they won't let you create a non-
COPPA account once you've admitted you're under 13.

------
bdg
I wrote an article in this to some length that discusses what kind of name you
should be asking for, and why.

[http://cowbelljs.blogspot.com/2012/01/whats-in-name-
database...](http://cowbelljs.blogspot.com/2012/01/whats-in-name-
database.html)

Names aren't simply complicated, they're mutable, they fit into Chris Pool's
concept of "people are prismatic".

------
krosenberg
Google owes its users a better explanation for why they require a real name
(or real sounding name). The should go farther than just "make google like the
real world". What are the benefits? Who is it really benefiting--the users or
Google?

------
RexRollman
For pete's sake, Google, if I have to reveal my real name to you at any point,
then the policy equals fail.

~~~
mvgoogler
You don't have to reveal your real name. Did you see Yonaton Zunger's reply on
that thread?

~~~
nknight
Since that's been the problem the _whole time_ , why is the supposed magical
"it's fixed!" announcement buried in some unofficial comment?

Google isn't exactly a babe in the woods anymore, they know better than this,
why is everything around Google+ policy issues being handled in such a half-
assed, tone-deaf manner?

~~~
mvgoogler
_"buried in some unofficial comment"_

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree, but I wouldn't characterize a public
post by the Product VP for Google+ as an unofficial comment that's buried.

I'm sorry that the handling has come across as tone-deaf. From my perspective
the leadership had a strong vision for the product and had some strongly held
assumptions and opinions about how best to achieve that vision.

I see today's announced change as evidence that the leadership is listening to
the feedback and looking at data and then re-checking some of their basic
assumptions and adjusting.

There is - of course - plenty of room to disagree. I'm not trying to get in an
argument here, or to re-hash the arguments that have been going on within the
company. I'm just an engineer that cares about the product and I'm trying to
provide information and answer some questions

~~~
nknight
> _post by the Product VP for Google+_

This is kind of the point, actually. Or perhaps a side-effect of it. You (that
is, Googlers in general) live in a bubble where that sort of information
becomes common knowledge. You have large quantities of context unavailable to
the outside world, and seem utterly unable, at least when it comes to Google+,
to step outside of that context and figure out how to communicate with people
outside of Google who have a billion other things to worry about in the
ordinary course of their lives that are far more important to them than
Google.

> _From my perspective the leadership had a strong vision for the product and
> had some strongly held assumptions and opinions about how best to achieve
> that vision._

This is more indication of the bubble. Google's leadership may have had such a
vision, and may have communicated it with some clarity internally, but it was
not communicated to the outside world.

By and large you guys have huge brains, but you need to shut them off for a
minute. Read about Google+ from the perspective of what you probably consider
to be a stupid person. Notice how nothing makes sense. Then realize that the
"stupid" person you're envisioning is actually the 7 billion people on Earth
who _do not have the context of working at Google_.

~~~
mvgoogler
To make sure we're clear - I'm an engineer and I spend my days writing code.
I'm not in PR. Also, I appreciate the dialogue and the discussion. I hope I
don't come across as defensive or argumentative. My specialty is writing code,
not communicating with the public :-)

We all live in bubbles of various sorts. Working at Google is clearly a bubble
of a sort. A lot of more information gets shared internally than gets released
publicly. As a mild digression - sometimes it gets hard to keep track of what
information is private and what has been shared publicly. I think most of us
err on the side of caution and default to talking less than more.

 _"figure out how to communicate with people outside of Google who have a
billion other things to worry about in the ordinary course of their lives that
are far more important to them than Google"_

This is where I'm sure there is a lot of ground for debate on how an
announcement like this should have been made.

On one hand, I could argue that - given that there _are_ a lot of people that
could care less about Google, or about this announcement - posting it on
Google+ was _exactly_ the right thing to do, since the announcement was about
Google+.

After all - HN is itself a big bubble and there are plenty of topics that
people within the HN bubble care passionately about but that people outside of
this particular bubble care much less about <shrug>. The G+ names policy is
(IMO) one of those issues. It's a topic that people seem to either be _really_
passionate about, or completely indifferent. I'd say the portion that care
passionately is over-represented in the HN community (for the record - there
are probably even a higher percentage that are passionate about it within the
company. This was, and is, a hotly debated topic internally).

I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong about whether making this particular
announcement on G+ was the best move - just that I think it was a reasonable
one.

" _Google's leadership may have had such a vision, and may have communicated
it with some clarity internally"_

It wasn't really messaged much differently or with much more clarity within
the company, as far as I can tell.

My perspective comes more from having a front-row seat for watching the
sausage being made :-) (obviously this is something that is hard to scale)

There is - unfortunately - very little hard science or hard data available for
how to put together a product like G+. A lot of it comes down to having a
vision, making some assumptions and trying to build a product around those.
And then paying attention to what happens.

There have been plenty of decisions about the design and policies surrounding
G+ that I haven't agreed with over time. What I have respected, though, is the
fact that the team and the leadership _have_ listened and have paid attention
and have made course corrections as things have developed. There have been
more of those that we got to witness while the product was still in internal-
only beta. This is kind-of the first significant course correction that is
publicly visible. I'm sure it won't be the last.

I've also observed during the making of G+ that it can be easy to posit
ulterior motives to people when they are making decisions that just seem so
_wrong_ to you. I've been guilty of this myself :-) Over time,
Vic/Brad/Yonatan/et al. have won my trust that there aren't ulterior motives
behind the decisions, just strongly held opinions/assumptions/visions that are
different than my own.

I don't know how to share that with the world, other than to show up here and
talk to people when I have something to say :-)

------
bobbles
Does this actually allow someone to have a nickname as their only name
displayed? It seems like it will only let you show it alongside your real name
anyway...

------
shadowmint
uhuh, right.

\--

Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:23:51 +0000

Subject: Your Google+ Appeal

From: 1165307103153794475-noreply@google.com

Hello,

After reviewing your appeal, we have determined that your name does not comply
with the Google+ Names Policy.

...

~~~
mvgoogler
From the announcement: _"To reiterate, the features described herein will be
rolling out over the next couple days."_

Maybe give a few days?

~~~
shadowmint
Nope, I very much doubt it.

[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/pseudonyms-on-google-
pl...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/pseudonyms-on-google-plus-wrong)

~~~
mvgoogler
The linked article seems to mis-understand the new policy. Please read
Yonatan's comments on the OP, or refer to the conversation that is happening
on Yonatan's own post
([https://plus.google.com/u/0/103389452828130864950/posts/YJbz...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/103389452828130864950/posts/YJbzDptWGQt)).
I have a lot of respect for Violet Blue, but I'd say that Yonatan is much more
of an authority on the new policy than Violet.

You didn't include in your post any context about the rejection - when you
changed you name, what you tried to change it to, why you think it meets the
need policy, etc.

If you think you have a legitimate false positive, I can assure that Yonatan
would be very interested in hearing the details and I would be willing to bet
that if you asked a question on his post you would get a response.

------
creativityland
A little too late, don't you think?

~~~
Xlythe
It's because Google+ was an attempt to appeal to the masses, not be a hackers
cove. The benefit of real names is that people who know you offline can easily
find you. They already know you by your given name and, because of Facebook
and MySpace, they expect that to continue online. The products you can offer
to people who know each other outside of the net differ vastly from the ones
you can offer to people spread out among the country/world (With examples
ranging from event planners to geo-tagging and facial recognition).

The subgroup of people who prefer pseudo-names is relatively small compared to
the larger population. It seemed pretty clear that they'd become more lax
after attracting enough users who didn't mind using their given names. I am
surprised that they added another field for it, though. I figured they'd just
stop enforcing the policy.

~~~
querulous
do your friends call you xly or just x?

apart from facebook (which cleverly leveraged existing relationships to create
a culture where 'real' names were expected) virtually every single internet
community is comprised of people operating under pseudonyms. i'd say the
subgroup of people who prefer pseudo-names is the larger population.

~~~
Xlythe
Facebook is the model they had in mind when building Google+. The default
circles were “Friends”, “Family”, “Acquaintances”, “Following”. The main
method of recommendation was through your most contacted gmail contacts, a
private form of communication. Discovery isn't structured like a forum, sorted
by topics of interest. Instead, posts are limited in scope by circles, and
organized by poster. (There is the stream, but that's built from people you've
personally added)

They wanted a product that took your social life online. To that end, they
tried to attract those kinds of people. The majority of sites with pseudonyms
are open forums or comment boards. Most of the people you meet there you've
never met offline. You can't offer people like that photo-tagging software or
groups to set up real-life meets.

To chadmalik and gurkendoktor: Both of you are right. There are justifications
for concern over privacy and I think Google went too far in enforcing its
policy.

------
sabret00the
I find this whole thing frustrating, why can I still not get my name to be
"Paul (sabret00the)". I write in the first name box Paul in the nickname box
sabret00the and then I can't remove the holding letter I applied previously. I
then try and simply remove the W and I'm told I need to have my full name up.
Why can't I just have Paul and in brackets sabret00the?

------
camiller
I thought they did that at the same time the opened to the public instead of
being invite only?

------
querulous
how does google+ handle cultures where multiple names are routinely used?

------
beastman82
Just call me Joe Montana.

------
zotz
How many Google execs that are formulating and implementing these policies
spent their formative years on irc, usenet or on web boards being
"ultim8haxor" or "l33tGOD"?

This is akin to Metallica's BS move regarding tapers after gaining their
position because of tapers. You can't ever really trust people that forget
where they come from.

------
fred_nada
This is great. I will add the pseudonym of Mortgage Loans and my profile will
be the #1 result in Google.

