

Google is gagging user advocates - timf
http://infotrope.net/2011/07/29/google-is-gagging-employees/

======
fpgeek
The title should be clear that the advocate or advocates in question here are
Google employees. That doesn't make any gag right, but it is _vital_ context.

~~~
carbonica
And it should also be clear that it's not even clear any gag orders have
occurred. The entire evidence to support this thesis is:

> @Skud: ok, unless someone tells me otherwise, it looks like google employees
> who don’t support the names policy have been gagged. #nymwars

> @Skud: @lizthegrey this is your chance to tell me i’m wrong, btw.

Somebody not responding to your tweet is hardly proof employees are being
gagged. Here's one idea: maybe Liz doesn't want to be the center of attention
on this anymore.

~~~
starwed
Maybe I misread this, but this seemed the basis for assuming it was a gag
order:

> _On July 25th (four days ago) she stopped posting on the subject altogether.
> Looking at her stream, though, I see that she did post, without any comment,
> a link to a Wikipedia article talking about gag orders._

Further, the poster says liz is a friend, so it seems likely they'd get _some_
response to a direct question if she wasn't gagged.

~~~
yanw
Maybe she just got tired of discussing this subject, as opposed to the author
who seems to be on a crusade.

~~~
reemrevnivek
She posted 46 articles on the subject in less than a month. If you don't call
that a crusade, I don't know what is.

Of course, if you're suggesting that she simply got burnt out, that's a
possibility. I could understand decreasing the number of essays written on the
subject, but responding to a tweet seems like something that she'd do, given
her previous crusade.

------
orangecat
I wonder if this is related to Steve Yegge standing up in front of the entire
Internet and saying that Google+ is a huge waste of time. That happened on the
25th as well, and could easily have annoyed a VP to the point of prohibiting
negative comments by Google employees.

------
rachelbythebay
What a ridiculous mess. It would not surprise me if it's come to this. When
all else fails, whip out the lawyercats.

How much will it take to make people quit(quitquit)?

~~~
esrauch
I'd be surprised if lawyers were involved, even if the 'gag' description is
accurate. The most likely 'gag' would probably just the woman's boss pulling
her aside and saying "you can say anything you want internally, but when you
badmouth the company in public you are hurting the company".

I mean we really have no idea, but it seems far far more likely something like
that occurred than Google sending a formal C&D to one of it's own employees.

~~~
rachelbythebay
One might say that being evil is hurting the company more, especially when
knowledgeable employees quit rather than being associated with such actions.
People who push back on such things actually care about the company they
joined, not the company it has become.

~~~
rmrm
so offering a web service, any web service -- that requires using real names
is _evil_. Now and forever. Is that right?

Are you sure it's not just a service that some people won't want to use,
because of this design decision? Or is it fundamentally evil to offer a web
service some people might not want to use?

I have no argument whatsoever that services should not exist that not only
allow pseudonyms but where pseudonyms are embraced and expected. I love many
of these services, and would defend their right to exist to no end.

But I do not even remotely understand what seems to be a prevailing argument
here that there must _not_ exist any service based on real names.

All of the argument in favor of pseudonym is really an argument in favor of
those types of services existing -- which they do, in spades. Millions of
them. No one is, or has, killed anonymous or pseudonymous interaction on the
web. No one is, or has, hindered the ability of a person seeking such cover
from the ability to publish anything on the web and to be found.

Its an additional service offering, its not a subtraction of what already
exists (rampant, multitudinous options for anonymous and pseudonymous posting
which can and are being used by folks seeking avenues for anonymous and
pseudonymous posting and sharing and community building).

~~~
rachelbythebay
Offering a web service and ignoring the pleas of those who know a minefield
when they see one is evil. Launching it anyway despite unprecedented pushback
is evil. Pretending it's somehow new and unexpected, like wow, we didn't think
anyone would care... is evil.

Also, right now, you're right, this doesn't matter. You can just ignore their
dumb little toy and go on with life. Trouble is, future services are planned
to be integrated. That means you either suck it up and create a profile (thus
running into the Real Name fiasco) or opt out of anything which needs one.

Using one thing to force people to do another thing. Where have we seen this
before?

If you're inside the company and you care about this stuff, you're probably
freaking out because it reflects on you, too.

From a business perspective outside of the company, it's brilliant. It means
there will be a lot of people looking for alternative ways to do things where
they were previously relying on the big G since it was good enough. I guess I
should just shut up and let them keep digging that hole. It'll mean more
business for the rest of us.

~~~
rmrm
"Offering a web service and ignoring the pleas of those who know a minefield
when they see one is evil. Launching it anyway despite unprecedented pushback
is evil. Pretending it's somehow new and unexpected, like wow, we didn't think
anyone would care... is evil."

You and I have dramatically different definitions of evil. Basically you are
saying that yes, launching a service that some people, in your eyes (or in
someone's) will not like, is evil. Pretty narrow little circle of goodness
you've left yourself with, one that likely encompasses nothing.

"Using one thing to force people to do another thing. Where have we seen this
before?"

Except there exists no force.

"From a business perspective outside of the company, it's brilliant. It means
there will be a lot of people looking for alternative ways to do things where
they were previously relying on the big G since it was good enough. I guess I
should just shut up and let them keep digging that hole. It'll mean more
business for the rest of us."

That is why anonymous and pseudonymous activity will exist and thrive as it
always has, because there is a market for it.

Funnily enough that also roughly describes the effect Facebook is having on
the broader web, in many ways. Hundreds of millions of people prefer the safe
confines of Facebook to the broader web. They have found it to be the better
alternative way to do things. Apparently, there is a very strong consumer
demand for that market, as well. Real names is not a hindrance to Facebooks
success with _that specific market_ , it is central to it. Facebook is not a
small community.

What your argument boils down to -- is that Google is both stupid and evil for
wanting to serve both markets, to have two types of services. EVIL, mind you.

It just seems an odd criticism that is far over-the-top, relative to the
actual situation of offering a web service to compete for a market that is
obviously huge, in demand, and dramatically underserved (choice of 1 real name
social network, basically, vs in essense hundreds of thousands of anonymous
networks).

------
jrockway
This sounds like a classic conspiracy theory. How exactly could Google defend
itself, even if it wanted to?

Citizen: The government is dissecting aliens!

Government: Uh, no we're not.

Citizen: Further proof that you are!

This sounds a lot like that.

------
mikecane
That they would do that to Liz is ... disappointing. (Otherwise biting tongue,
for her sake.)

------
juiceandjuice
I can't take this article seriously. That page and this post/article/whatever
is a mess. It's like I'm reading forwarded emails from my mom.

------
badclient
Google+ on its present trajectory is headed to the deadpool.

------
RexRollman
I like Google and I really hope this isn't true.

------
brettcvz
I would imagine a large part of this is that if someone launches a lawsuit,
anything said will be twisted into an admission of guilt or at least knowledge
of the offense.

------
yanw
This is getting silly and borderline paranoid. I think this whole pseudonym
thing is an overreaction, and an unfair criticism to an incomplete project.

As for the this 'gag' stuff she offers no proof and seems like she is just
conveniently picking narrative to complement her disapproval.

Just let it go already.

~~~
ubernostrum
Well, the pseudonym thing was a valid complaint, and it is a genuine issue for
some people.

Though I don't think it's an issue that deserves the sort of day-after-day-
after-day-after-day-after-day-after-day nonstop coverage it's getting. It's a
minor-ish problem some people have with a new product or service, though, and
for some reason the tech press loves to latch onto those and make them into
OMG ONLY THE BIGGEST PROBLEM EVAR (see: "antennagate").

~~~
datn
Though even there, the difference between this and "antennagate" was that
Apple shipped a finished product. Google+ is decidedly in field test beta (and
did not cost $200-$600).

