

Google services should not require real names: Vint Cerf - mhb
http://news.yahoo.com/google-services-not-require-real-names-vint-cerf-120515311--sector.html

======
siculars
You do not have to look far as to why one might want to remain anonymous. I
submit The Federalist Papers[0] as exhibit A. If the Founding Fathers deemed
it necessary to publish under a pseudonym then who are the likes of Facebook
and Google to say otherwise? Yes, you may say that FB and Google are private
entities and as such we must play by their rules. But I would retort that FB
and Google are the default market places of the day for connecting with people
and spreading ones ideas. I submit they have an obligation to maintain
anonymity for those that choose to remain anonymous. The Federalist Papers
were not self published. They were published by The Independent Journal[1], a
journal of the day. That journal saw fit to publish those works anonymously
under a pseudonym.

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>

~~~
eurleif
>But I would retort that FB and Google are the default market places for
connecting with people and spreading ones ideas.

"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?

------
minikites
Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy?

[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)

~~~
smokinjoe
Wouldn't the people who perform much of this harassment also fall under this
"Real Names" policy? While I'm not saying that the issues would be completely
eliminated, could this perhaps be progress towards reducing such cases?

~~~
mnicole
No one wins in a "Real Names" policy; those who follow it are vulnerable and
those who don't care about their reputation or the consequences of their words
will be jerks and then find ways to spoof their identities after such a ban.

Besides that, the internet benefits from pseudonyms;
[http://readwrite.com/2012/01/16/people_using_pseudonyms_leav...](http://readwrite.com/2012/01/16/people_using_pseudonyms_leave_better_blog_comments)

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.

~~~
smokinjoe
> 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.

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.

~~~
ShirtlessRod
>> "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."

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...

~~~
smokinjoe
> 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.

------
Terretta
> _"Using real names is useful," Cerf said. "But I don't think it should be
> forced on people, and I don't think we do."_

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.

~~~
RobAtticus
What? Just say no when prompted by the dialog. It then says they are
considering other options and asks you which you'd prefer. There is no lying
involved.

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.

~~~
bluntly_said
It's a dialog that shows up every time I log into youtube, and requires (as of
the last time I went through it) clicking about 5 different buttons to keep my
real name off the service. I didn't have to lie, but it DEMANDED that I select
a reason for not wanting my name on the service, and you can tell they're
trying to get users to cave and just click "yes" once. It's shitty,
argumentative, and unpleasant to use.

~~~
lawdawg
If it asks you more than once after selecting a reason for picking no, then
its a bug. I hear your complaint a lot, but I've never seen it happen in
person to anyone I know personally.

~~~
lucian1900
My anecdote beats yours. I've never seen it do anything _other_ than ask on
every login.

~~~
citricsquid
I just tested (logged out, logged back in) and did not get the real name
prompt after selecting to keep my username back when the change was first
announced. That seems to confirm it's not something everyone encounters.

~~~
mehrzad
It would show it for me over and over, but suddenly stopped. Maybe installing
Ghostery and ABP helped?

------
trhtrsh
G+ official tagline is "Google+ makes connecting on the web more like
connecting in the real world."

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...](http://support.google.com/plus/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1228271)

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.

~~~
tveita
> 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.

------
AdrenalinMd
I was never able to use google+, I always have "Your profile has been
suspended.". Screw google plus.. <http://i.imgur.com/frHh5dt.png>

------
summerdown2
The major unexamined assumption here for me is that identity is unitary. In
fact I have different names for different groups and I don't want them linked
together.

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.

~~~
roc
> _"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.

------
tveita
A good and well thought-out appeal on the Google+ naming issue:
[https://plus.google.com/103112149634414554669/posts/WAu688n8...](https://plus.google.com/103112149634414554669/posts/WAu688n8JgZ)

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.

~~~
mullingitover
The whole 'we changed our policy, you can now _add_ a pseudonym field to your
profile' was total bullshit in my experience. I tried adding 'mullingitover'
as a pseudonym and got shot down. WTF is the point of adding a pseudonym field
and then being inscrutable and pedantic about what you'll allow there?

That was the day I stopped going to G+, and the day Google lost a boatload of
my goodwill.

------
netrus
Does Google actually ask for validation of user names? I prefer real names for
aesthetic reasons, but if someone chooses to make up a false name, i wouldn't
bother.

~~~
Trufa
They worry because they want G+ etc to be your real identity much like
facebook. I had a nickname in Facebook, they found out and they put my name
and I can't change it back. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are some
very valid arguments for allowing fictional names (privacy, security, etc).

They mainly not want to go back to the day were everything was mydodoname123.

------
jgw
I'm still not entirely clear on what Google's policy is on real names, even
after reading it.

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.

------
webwanderings
> ... there are cases where in the transactions both parties really need to
> know who are we talking to.

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?

~~~
spiralpolitik
You are starting from the premise that Google is a search company. They are
not. They are an advertising company.

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.

~~~
webwanderings
I think based on the content of the linked article, it appears that he's
talking about non-advertising situation, i.e credit card transactions or
otherwise. From that perspective, it does however makes sense that "both
parties know each other". However, I agree with the rest of your comment.

------
orangethirty
Real names for standard web usage does not benefit anyone except Google. With
it they can track you more effectively, which is the only reason they demand
it. There is no value for the user. No matter what they say.

Note that Nuuton does feature a good naming policy: Nicknames are encouraged.

------
Executor
It's about time this opinion started spreading. Let's hope we can change
google... though I doubt they'd be moved by a news article.

------
yuhong
I am not for real name policies, but I do want the problems with posting under
real names to be fixed if possible.

