
Google+ Updates Real Name Policy - ender7
https://plus.google.com/109179785755319022525/posts/YcvRKqJeiZi
======
jdp23
They didn't actually change the policy, just the enforcement: you'll now get a
4-day grace period to produce ID or change your name before your account is
suspended.

There's lots of discussion about this on G+:

Mike Elgan of Computerworld is at
[https://plus.google.com/113117251731252114390/posts/e3nC5XyA...](https://plus.google.com/113117251731252114390/posts/e3nC5XyADD9)

Marshall Kirkpatrick of Read Write Web is at
[https://plus.google.com/117421021456205115327/posts/BPKvVJm7...](https://plus.google.com/117421021456205115327/posts/BPKvVJm7kiM)
and
[https://plus.google.com/117421021456205115327/posts/EAMD7Pc9...](https://plus.google.com/117421021456205115327/posts/EAMD7Pc9fmH)

In all of these threads the comments are overwhelmingly pro-nym.

~~~
jsdalton
I don't understand. I just read the policy and it doesn't say anything about
using your legal name (i.e. the one on your ID). It says:

"Your common name is the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call
you. For example, if your legal name is Charles Jones Jr. but you normally use
Chuck Jones or Junior Jones, any of these would be acceptable."

It doesn't seem like their _policy_ precludes Lady Gaga from calling herself
Lady Gaga. I guess I don't quite understand where the criticism you linked to
is coming from.

~~~
jdp23
The stated policy differs from the reality. If your account is flagged for
potentially having a false name, you have to produce government ID or online
evidence that it's your name, and they're very selective about what online
they accept. And the details of the policy forbid single-word names, names
that mix languages, or anything involving a number or punctuation.

~~~
sixtofour
I have a single word name. I got around the signup code by this: (name) Name.
With parentheses.

I've been waiting for the ax. Although now I suppose it's an evite with the
executioner.

------
cmars
I left G+ a week ago, deleting my G+ account and profile. I'll be shopping for
a gmail alternative as well.

After trying G+ out for a bit, I decided that I just didn't need it. A lot of
my less technical friends & family use FB. I don't care much for it, but I've
come to regard it as an inherently privacy-free unsafe/insecure zone and treat
it accordingly. I stay logged out of it when I'm not using it and keep it out
of my usual online activities.

G+ blurred the line too much between regular browsing, search, gmail, my RSS
reader, and all these "circles" of FB/Twitter-like social interaction. It just
felt like it would be too easy to make a mistake and say the wrong thing in
the wrong context, or find that I was sharing in a way I didn't want to. And
that's assuming the service works as intended without flaws, without FB-style
policy changes.

I've come to realize that fragmented, disconnected identities on separate
websites is a feature. Yes, the dots can be connected by someone with
significant resources. But why should I make these connections easy to make,
or searchable? Doesn't do anything for me.

~~~
revscat
> I've come to realize that fragmented, disconnected identities on separate
> websites is a feature. Yes, the dots can be connected by someone with
> significant resources. But why should I make these connections easy to make,
> or searchable? Doesn't do anything for me.

I've come to a similar realization, and reacted against G+ in much the same
way. Maybe the NSA or ONI can figure out who 'revscat' really is -- and
honestly, in my case it wouldn't be that difficult -- but Google already knows
more about me than I feel comfortable with. The only way I would consider
switching from FB to G+ was if Google completely reversed their 'real name'
policy and allowed/encouraged pseudonyms.

The internet has a long, long history of anonymity. I will continue to do what
I can to support this.

~~~
Sargis
> Maybe the NSA or ONI can figure out who 'revscat' really is

I decided to do a little experiment and try to find out who you really are. In
about 20 minutes I found out your internet service provider, in which city you
live and your username seems to be linked to "Rev. Scatological Warfare". Am I
on the right track?

> but Google already knows more about me than I feel comfortable with

But how exactly are they going to link all your google searches to your real
identity, if you've always used a pseudonym when using Gmail or any other
Google service?

------
yariang
"We’re listening, learning, and iterating to give our users the best
experience possible."

No. You're not. Nobody has complained about lack of a grace period. We
complain about the policy in the first place. This grace period is almost a
little bit insulting. It's like saying "beg for mercy and repent for your sins
and we will forgive and let you use our social network."

Perhaps the above is a bit sensational, but the point stands.

~~~
pasbesoin
And if you _can't_ change your policy, at least be honest and make a
straightforward, cogent, logical statement as to why.

For me, the policy smells. And I think for many, that's enough to make their
decision.

(Even though I decided I was willing to give Plus a try, with restricted
participation/circles, until account freeze-out became a concern.)

------
sp332
There are a lot of good comments on that page, too.

Also, the policy page now lists examples of violations.
<http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271>

------
doctoboggan
I know this opinion might not be popular here, but I support the enforcement
of real (istic) names. If you are honestly that concerned about your privacy,
but still want desperately to join an online social network where you share
personal details, why not make up a name that simply sounds realistic? They
won't ban an Alfred or a Henry, and you can still enjoy all the anonymity you
can handle.

I guess I just don't see the big deal here. If I am missing something, feel
free to fill me in.

~~~
silverbax88
Well, what's your real name and address, 'doctoboggan'?

~~~
doctoboggan
If I friended you on G+, you would know it. (well not my address) But we are
not on G+, we are on a site that allows pseudonymous and is designed around
that idea.

------
huhtenberg
> _... we strive ... to make connecting with people on the web more like
> connecting with people in the real world_

Oh, man... where do I begin... I am certainly not the only one who
specifically does _not_ want to connect to the people on the web like I would
connect in the real world.

------
RexRollman
I think I will be closing my Google account. Google won't miss me but that's
okay.

------
libria
I would prefer Joanne Rowling, Mauritus Escher and Clive Lewis use their more
common monikors than Google compliant ones. I don't even know DMX's real name.

It feels like Google is trying to enforce something most of us associate with
our identity. What's surprising is how stubborn they are about it.

It will only lead to people creating fake names that pass the filters, as
"Holden tattboy" demonstrates in the comments.

------
sixtofour
The emphasis on "real" life is an absurdly ironic policy for a company that
made its billions online, where people have been known by email addresses
("dragonworrier@hotmail.com") or chosen pseudonyms ("dragonworrier") since
before people started asking "are you on email?"

EDIT: Changed "stopped" to "started."

------
JeffffreyF
The only reason to banish anonominity is to prevent dissenting opinion.
Period.

~~~
jsnell
That's a ridiculous and paranoid claim, bordering on tinfoil hat territory.
There are plenty of practical reasons for why you'd want an online service to
be tied to real identities. Reasons that a business would actually care about.

Which isn't to say that real names are necessarily the best choice. There are
of course other reasons to be somewhere else on the continuum, like real
identities with some freedom of presentation like nicknames, full pseudonymous
identities, or full anonymity.

~~~
lukesandberg
I think what google is trying to prevent is not dissenting opinion but rather
things like the fact that 80% of newt gingriches twitter followers being fake.
They want to create a community based on honesty and real world identities. if
you need to post something anonymously on the internet, there are plenty of
ways to do that. For instance googles blogger TOS doesn't disallow pseudonyms.
So if you need to publish anonymously then maybe G+ just isn't the place to do
it.

Real names is obviously a tricky policy to enforce but there is value in it. I
think that eventually the policies and enforcement will converge on a better
solution. This is probably one of the reasons G+ is still in field trial.

~~~
timwiseman
_They want to create a community based on honesty_

Often the best way to get an honest opinion is to gauruntee anonymity, not
remove it.

~~~
lukesandberg
That is one way to do it, but it is also a way for conversation to devolve
(youtube comment threads?). So it is a balance. While anonymity may allow some
people more freedom to express themselves in a positive way, it also makes it
easier for people to express themselves in a negative way that may be
considered harmful as well.

------
darklajid
The fun part is that, if you are suspended, as I am, you cannot use G+ at all
anymore.

You end up with a dialog on all pages that basically tells you to go screw
yourself and go elsewhere. Or - change the name. So - delete it is, now.

<http://ben.sh/GoodbyeGPlus.png>

------
jemeshsu
Can Lady Gaga join Google+ since it is not her real name?

~~~
lhnz
I'm sure they will allow you to use a fake name if you fashion yourself as a
brand backed by wealthy investors... :)

~~~
sixtofour
I suppose celebrities will all use business accounts, once Google implements
that.

------
smokey_the_bear
I use Google Plus less because of this system. I got married in May, and would
like to display my name in Google Plus the same way I do in Facebook- Smokey
Bear Husbandsname. At least for a year or two it would really help people find
me. Alas, there's not an option to display middle name, and it is stuck as
Smokey Husbandsname.

I don't have an ID in that name yet either, so I guess I'm even at risk of
losing my account.

------
dredmorbius
What's particularly stunning is this damning peremptory indictment of G+'s
"Real Names" policy by some rabidly anti-Google zealot:
[http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/02/freedom-to-
be...](http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/02/freedom-to-be-who-you-
want-to-be.html)

"Pseudonyms and anonymity are also an established part of many cultures -- for
good reason."

------
majmun
> As always, Google believes you own your data

joke of the week

------
ltamake
Google just doesn't get it.

------
jhdavids8
Why doesn't Google force you to register with your real name but allow you to
display a pseudonym? I usually support Google but this makes little sense.
Force me to register with Jamie, but if I decide I want to be displayed as
some nickname, who the hell cares.

~~~
rjd
Thats the same thought I had.

After some thought on my latest project I wrote a membership provider for the
.net frame work to specifically handle this.

I decided I wanted single sign and opted for oauth via Facebook (maybe more
later). I understand users don't there personal details in my system so I've
create a hybrid persona construct (or "Actor" as I called the instantiated
entities, inherits the system "MembershipUser" class so I can plug it straight
into anything .net).

I store a Authentication record from FB for the oauth to work, a few other
bits and pieces. Then users can create "Persona" entities, and from the
combination of those two the "actor" exists.

Doesn't seem like rocket science to me... and hopefully user testing will show
it makes it smooth and seamless for the users and offer them plenty of
protection (as in the site involves politics and being anonymous is very
important).

------
nirvana
I've noticed I use Google+ a lot less these days. Stopped when I first heard
about this policy. Not in protest, just a whole lot less trusting of them now.
Kinda like I stopped using Facebook when they made previously private data
public by default. (Only reason I opened a Facebook account in the first place
was their strong privacy policy.)

I'm not putting my foot down, but mulling it over, and I think I'm done with
google. They did a good job with plus and I had high hopes, but their ...
rigidness... shows what I see as a disrespect for their users.

I'll be moving my mail off of gmail onto paid mail hosts, etc, as soon as we
get mail setup for the new company.

In the 1990s I removed Microsoft from my life completely. I think I'll keep a
company page on Facebook, and maybe the equivalent on google plus if they
allow it, but no more for the personal stuff.

I think there's a huge opportunity for a startup that operates a social
network that actually caters to people's desire for anonymity and privacy.

~~~
sixtofour
"I think there's a huge opportunity for a startup that operates a social
network that actually caters to people's desire for anonymity and privacy."

The problem here is that any successful endeavor will inevitably turn evil in
some way. Once millions and billions are on the table, investors and
shareholders will force the proprietors to scrape every bit of money possible
off the table. That will usually involve some user-unfriendly behavior, like
Google's real name, Facebook's ever changing privacy policy, and LinkedIn's
recent emulation of FB.

The only way that social networks can be pro-user is if they are a standards-
based commodity like email, where anyone is free to implement the standard and
offer the service. You can get the same email service anywhere you want,
interoperable with every standards based server on the planet. It should be
the same with twitter-like message bursts, and social networks.

As it is now, bursting and socializing is built similar to early telephone
networks, where many companies offered networks, they didn't connect to each
other, and businesses had to have multiple network accounts to be able to
interact with all their customers. That's just wrong.

fastmail.fm offers excellent email service. They should also (be able to)
offer standards based bursting and socializing; so should anyone else who
wants to.

~~~
politician
"The only way that social networks can be pro-user is if they are a standards-
based commodity like email, where anyone is free to implement the standard and
offer the service."

This already exists for social data, it's called The Locker Project.
<http://lockerproject.org/#vision>

~~~
sixtofour
This is great, a great start. But this is an implementation, not a standard.

I think it remains to be seen whether github repos give us anything like the
long term stability and stewardship of RFCs. Not to mention the longevity of
github.

Yeah I know, you can fork. Everyone can fork.

