
Google Begins Practically Begging You to Use Your Real Name on YouTube - iProject
http://betabeat.com/2012/07/start-using-your-full-name-begs-desperate-youtube-message/
======
morsch
I got that prompt recently and I want to emphasize just how obnoxious it is.
I'm still really angry about this.

I wanted to quickly fire off a comment, something I almost never do. Instead,
and completely unexpectedly, I get a scary modal dialog "Start using your full
name on YouTube". Really, that's bad enough as it is. I didn't interact in a
way that'd make me expect any kind of dialog (e.g. logging in/out or a major
account modification). And there is no easy way to dismiss the dialog without
making a decision, no X in a corner, clicking the background does nothing.
Also really, really bad. Opening another YouTube window doesn't help, either,
you just get another copy of the dialog.

But the reaction to declining the request -- which is the non-default, non-
highlighted option -- is just outrageous. Instead of simply going away
silently, or maybe telling me where to activate the feature if I change my
mind, it tells me _it'll show my real name anyway_ , but just in a preview
mode that's only visible to me, if I just click the default, highlighted
button. That's not exactly the opposite of what I wanted it to do when I
declined their unprovoked offer, but it's pretty damn close. And again, there
is no easy way out, you have to chose a reason why you dare refuse them, with
none of the options being "I decline to answer" or "Go to hell"; the closest
thing being "I'm not sure, I'll decide later", which I chose and which I
expect will just mean I'll be assaulted again in the near future.

This is the kind of hostile user experience I expect on cheap travel websites
and other scummy parts of the net, but not on a Google property and certainly
not on a website I visit a lot.

~~~
ralfn
You comment on YouTube?

Are you a social worker? If so, you are aiming too high. There is absolutely
nothing you can do for those people in those comments.

~~~
xxbondsxx
The less popular videos with smaller audiences (coding tutorials, science,
academics, etc) have very civil discussions.

------
patio11
This isn't about Youtube, this is simply use of a property with a massive
userbase owned by Google to promote its strategic priority du jour, which is
getting traction for Google+. This is hardly the first time Google has done
this -- for example, they'll often bootstrap key products with "Oh yeah, we
have a mortal lock on navigation on the Internet." That's why Google Video
(and later Youtube) got such prominent billing in the search results, why
Chrome has a front-page-of-the-Internet banner ad on the homepage of the
company that doesn't do banner ads, etc.

\+ Edit to add: A quick check of a few diverse searches show that Youtube is
substantially less prominent than I remember it being.

~~~
sodafountan
Not necessarily just to get traction for Google+ but I believe that Google is
also competing directly with Facebook to control your "Identity on the
internet". Once one of these monolithic companies controls your identity they
can then directly target you no matter where you are on the internet. It's
kind of scary, and I believe that it's a fight that Google is destined to win.

------
chmike
What is the rationale of such demand ?

This reminds me Schneir's objection to biometric identification. What do we do
if it's compromized ? There is no way we could change it.

One should obviously be able to publish a video that we made without
disclosing our identity. Supose I film my cat in my living room showing also
the nice HiFi installation behind it. If it is published under my name, it
would be like publishing my address on the HiFi.

If as a teenager I film and publish a party where I wouldn't be at my
advantage, I don't want that my name is associate to it forever.

I must be able to reset my Internet image and reputation. Especially for young
people. Google is already very reluctant to remove references on demand.

At least this now gives something competitors can differentiate with.

We need a place where we can create a virtual identity we can throw away. An
identity that we can use as signature for publishing comments, articles and
videos.

~~~
jmillikin
(disclaimer: I work for Google, and dislike the Google+ names policy)

In this case, it's not a demand; the user has already entered a Google+ name,
and Google is offering to show that name on the user's YouTube account.

    
    
      > Supose I film my cat in my living room showing also the nice
      > HiFi installation behind it. If it is published under my
      > name, it would be like publishing my address on the HiFi.
    

That's ridiculous. Unless you're also posting your address in the video
description, it's practically impossible for a viewer to match a name (even
your legal name) to your physical location.

The concern here is about privacy, not physical security. Thinking up
unrealistic danger scenarios is not productive.

    
    
      > If as a teenager I film and publish a party where I wouldn't
      > be at my advantage, I don't want that my name is associate
      > to it forever.
      >
      > I must be able to reset my Internet image and reputation.
      > Especially for young people. Google is already very
      > reluctant to remove references on demand.
    

Currently, the idea of interacting with the web through multiple disposable
identities is constrained to nerds. I believe that as time goes on, and the
privacy implications of a single identity become widely apparent, the majority
of users (especially younger users) will learn to use multiple identities.

You ask for the ability to "reset" an identity, but this is impossible. You
can't un-break an egg. Everything posted to the internet is public and
potentially eternal.

In twenty years, the idea of posting something risqué under one's legal name
will be considered as foolish as stapling bank statements and tax returns to a
telephone pole.

    
    
      > We need a place where we can create a virtual identity we
      > can throw away. An identity that we can use as signature
      > for publishing comments, articles and videos.
    

You mean, like a Google account? There's no restriction on the number of
accounts a single person can create, and the censors won't blink twice as long
as the name sounds caucasian (citation:
[http://infotrope.net/2011/08/04/google-plus-names-policy-
exp...](http://infotrope.net/2011/08/04/google-plus-names-policy-
explained/#govtid) ). Accounts at any major internet site, including Google,
are inherently ephemeral and disposable.

~~~
biot

      > it's practically impossible for a viewer to match a name
      > (even your legal name) to your physical location.
    

You could count on one hand the number of people in the world who share my
first and last name. Of those active online, there is myself and one other.
Historically, my address has been available online and until I move that will
not change. Even if I move, I have no doubt my new address is only a few
dollars away for anyone who wants to find it.

Your premise is fine for single videos from someone named Mike Jones, but
surely you're familiar with the concept of "bits of information" needed to
uniquely identify someone online?

~~~
dkersten
Agreed. The book "how to be invisible" makes a good case for how easy it is to
match a persons name to their address and why this is a bad thing.

------
stellar678
Am I the only person who really enjoys YouTube comments? It's obviously not
the place to go for high-brow discussion.

But the fact that it's a no-holds-barred space means that occasionally some
genuinely hilarious and unexpected stuff pops up. I really wouldn't want that
to change...

~~~
WiseWeasel
What kills YouTube comments is the same thing that kills Ars comments, along
with pretty much every blog ever; there's no threading and no peer moderation
or ranking. No one wants to sort through a river of random comments.

~~~
CamperBob2
Yet for some reason this model works well on Fark (and, I agree, nowhere
else.)

~~~
groby_b
The entire _point_ of Fark is to make off-topic, off-color remarks. So yes,
for that, it works well :)

~~~
mey
This also explains how Reddit works so well

~~~
ramblerman
reddit has peer moderation and ranking. Which is why it works well, it's
nothing like flat fark or youtube comments

------
z92
> UPDATE: A YouTube representative got back to us and said: YouTube users with
> existing Google+ profiles see this option when they comment or upload a
> video.

I am glad that I decided to delete my G+ account when news started to float
that Google was forcing everyone to use real name in G+ and was closing
accounts in cases of un-cooperation, which unintentionally affected someone's
gmail account.

~~~
jmillikin

      > I am glad that I decided to delete my G+ account when
      > news started to float that Google was forcing everyone
      > to use real name in G+ and was closing accounts in cases
      > of un-cooperation, which unintentionally affected
      > someone's gmail account.
    

To my knowledge, nobody has had their gmail account suspended because they
didn't enter an approved name. You are probably thinking of the guy who had
his account suspended for uploading illegal porn to his Picassa account.

~~~
z92
I clearly remember closing my G+ account to protect my gmail account.

Did a quick google search for the news articles of that time, and these were
the first links. Spending a few more minutes would have given even better
results.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-
equilibrium/201...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-
equilibrium/2011/jul/25/1)

[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-deleting-
ac...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-deleting-accounts-en-
masse-no-clear-answers/567)

[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-
un...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-unnecessary-
drama/652)

The Picassa incidence was a later happening.

------
aestetix
Why does this keep coming up? Google seems to not learn.

1\. There is no such thing as a real name. You might have a legal name, but
they'd need to validate it somehow if contested. Up until now, Google has just
been suspending names that didn't look "real" to them.

2\. How do they validate this? Do they expect you to send a copy of an ID?
What if you photoshop it? What is their data retention policy? Do they have
procedures in place for handling sensitive data?

3\. Most important, using a legal name does not somehow make the conversation
more valid, or more useful. I have yet to see a strong argument that using a
name on a government issued ID somehow makes your discourse better. There are
countless arguments against this.

I've had to deal with this before. Here's an idea of what happens to you if
you run afoul of this policy:
[https://plus.google.com/115896012705745653160/posts/Kdg2nPzM...](https://plus.google.com/115896012705745653160/posts/Kdg2nPzMB4M)

------
runjake
What's the point of forcing "real names", when they're not forcing REAL names?
Google will throw a fit if I use Red Ghost, but not if I use John Smith. What
value does that actually bring? A weak perception of legitimacy?

~~~
ams6110
Is there a "real name" that communicates "this is not my real name" but could
just as easily be a really name?

Nathan Roberts (NR = Not Real)? Frank Nash (FN = Fake Name)?

Art Vandelay?

~~~
fluidcruft
Some ideas here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe#Other_variants>

------
thehotelambush
The real reason for this isn't to improve comment quality; it's so they can
store information on you more effectively and then sell it to the government.
Facebook has a leg up on this because of how it started, but Google wants to
level the playing field more and more.

~~~
eli
Sell it to the _government_? Using it to better target ads (which translates
directly into more revenue for Google) seems a lot more likely them some
secret government profiling conspiracy.

~~~
thehotelambush
Certainly that's a motive too. And it's no secret that the government (in
particular the NSA) has been amassing large swathes of data on what could be
the entire population of the US.

------
stfu
I gave up commenting on YouTube at that point where Google forced me to auto
login with my Gmail account. It is already bad enough that they can trace my
viewing behavior. But I can see their side of the story. YouTube is holding a
massive marketshare in the online video segment and they might have no problem
with a few percent less comments when at the same time the overall quality of
the comments might rise.

------
dacilselig
This reminds me of the time where Blizzard wanted to do something similar for
their forums as people would troll often. From what I remember, there was a
huge backlash. They seem to be trying to take a safer approach by suggesting
you do it versus forcing you. I wonder if they had that incident in the back
of their mind when taking this approach.

For those interested:
[http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101916-Blizzard-
Fo...](http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101916-Blizzard-Forums-Make-
Real-Names-Mandatory)

~~~
thornofmight
This is a little bit different because it's only giving users with pre-
existing accounts an option to change their username to their real name.
Anybody who registers a new account is forced to use their real name (or a
fake real name).

------
adrianwaj
Since when does real name equate to a better quality comment? Perhaps it is
more about Big Brother tracking people's points-of-view on controversial
issues? Or is it for better targeted ads?

I am uninclined to comment with my real name generally because my opinion
changes, and I change over time.

I recently left a FB blog comment simply as "I like it" and felt almost
uncomfortable with that. Does it matter what my real name is or what I look
like? HN shows that anonymity works with just modding and the option to reveal
one's identity. Why doesn't YouTube tally user comments and comment scores if
they want to improve quality.. that's why I think this is a Big Brother or ad
push.

Comments that self-destruct after a set period are another answer to comment
quality, or ones that revert to a pseudonym, either fixed or random after a
period of time.

------
stevewillows
Without the real names -- or at least names that aren't 'basketballstar69' --
Google won't have the same perception of authenticity as facebook.

They should reward 'real names' (first, last) with more Drive space and an
opt-out of the nickname option.

------
thinkbohemian
The only thing stopping me from linking my channel to my G+ account is them
changing my username to my real name. I've built an online brand around that
username and changing it would mean i'm harder to find on Youtube. (funny
enough that name is different from my HN name, since I can't change my HN
username and don't want to lose my Karma.)

------
lazyjones
Youtube has had many issues lately that should affect its popularity, from
legitimate content disappearing because of some (non-)copyright holders having
tools to "delete first, ask later", to issues with Google harrassing users to
do things of no benefit to them. I am also getting "this video is currently
not available" messages frequently because I don't have a browser with H.264
(which Google was supposed to drop in favour of free alternatives? Go convert
uploaded video then...). Youtube has reached a dangerous annoyance level,
seems like a good time for competitors to grow.

~~~
Flow
I surf using Chrome for the latest and most secure Flash. I like being up to
date and secure. On YouTube Flash crashes in about 50% of trying to load the
videos. Really annoying. And even more annoying is that if I disable Flash
altogether there are quite a few videos on YouTube that can't be played.

I'm beginning to see the bundling of Flash as a negative thing, it only
prolongs the life of that hell-hole called Flash.

------
fluxon
"Real" (heh) names don't improve comment quality. What improves comment
quality is moderation (approve/decline/delete), enabled by default for every
single user.

I moderate when I answer the door, who I answer the phone for, who I hang out
with, and which mail I open. Who _wouldn't_ moderate their YouTube comments?
Sheesh.

Yes, it can be abused. To prevent "damage to the community", users who misuse
the moderation system by deleting too many comments, declining only specific
users, or declining polite (negative) comments, can be flagged as moderation
abusers.

------
millzlane
I don't feel they begged. They asked, I said no, they then asked why, and then
I answered. Man that was simple.

I applaud Google. At least they don't do things without your permission. I'm
looking at you Facebook.

------
Jach
I never got the prompt, just a broken reply button that took no action.
Searching for others with the problem revealed it's due to wanting my real
name. I went through my settings looking for an option to use my real name,
since I don't care, but couldn't find one. On a screen that was supposed to
contain that option for other people, it was not there for my account.
Solution? Delete all G+ data and log out and back in to Youtube.

------
ww520
Youtube has problems lately. It has suddenly started to send me notification
emails everyday non-stopped. The unsubscribe links had no effect. Even after I
have unsubscribed a number of times, the spam kept coming. Finally I deleted
my account but the spams kept coming in anyway. Of course marking the spamming
emails as spam in GMail doesn't work. Worse there's no way to contact Youtube
to report the problem.

------
munin
comments on youtube are a cesspool?

why not remove the comments feature?

------
petitmiam
I use my real name online for professional work-related things.

I use a username for non-work related things like posting a videos of toy
animals to youtube.

The way things are headed, I guess I need to invent a "real name" for my
online personal persona, to replace my username.

------
ars
Related to this: <http://www.wired.com/business/2012/06/youtube-commenters/>

------
johnbenwoo
YouTube comments may be the lowest common denominator of the internet, but at
least they're a common denominator.

------
yuhong
Personally I am not for a real name policy, but I do prefer that people post
under their real name if possible.

~~~
Bootvis
May I ask why? Personally I don't see any benefit whatsoever.

~~~
yuhong
In the long term I want the problems with using real names to fixed properly
if possible.

~~~
Bootvis
But what are these problems? What is it that requires fixing?

------
leif
Often the simplest solution is the best: don't comment on YouTube videos.

------
joe_the_user
I have a youtube account in my "real name".

I use only to satisfy my particular taste in videos. I have stale old accounts
for other Google stuff but I never use them and don't care about any of it
except to browse videos. Google still keeps demanding my cell phone number.
constantly. I use my real with the youtube account but I actually don't want
anyone to see anything I do there.

Google's opinion that it should be my world is quite obnoxious.

~~~
thornofmight
I really truly wish that there was an option for "No, I don't want to give you
my cell phone number, and I NEVER want to give it to you."

Also, I used to love making throw-away Gmail accounts for various spam
purposes. Now, my cell phone # is associated with 3 accounts so I can't make
anymore.

~~~
newman314
Google Voice to the rescue

~~~
thornofmight
Nope, that doesn't work. I tried that too.

