
Why Google cares if you use your real name - davewiner
http://scripting.com/stories/2011/07/25/whyGoogleCaresIfYouUseYour.html
======
Matt_Cutts
For a counter-point, this is what Robert Scoble wrote about his conversation
with Vic Gundotra, Google's head of social:
[https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/Fddn6rV8...](https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/Fddn6rV8mBX)

"He [Vic] says that he is trying to make sure a positive tone gets set here.
Like when a restaurant doesn't allow people who aren't wearing shirts to
enter.

He says it isn't about real names. He says he isn't using his legal name here.
He says, instead, it is about having common names and removing people who
spell their names in weird ways, like using upside-down characters, or who are
using obviously fake names, like "god" or worse.

....

He also says they are working on ways to handle pseudonyms, but that will be a
while before the team can turn on those features (everyone is working hard on
a raft of different things and can't just react overnight to community
needs)."

Just wondering: can non-Google+ users follow the link above and read the post?
I ask because Dave Winer said "I can't point to those articles because only
people with Google-Plus accounts can read them, apparently." But I could pull
up that Google+ post just fine, even with a non-logged-in Firefox or incognito
Chrome window?

~~~
class_vs_object
"it is about... removing people who spell their names in weird ways, like
using upside-down characters"

Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The
round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. The ones
who dare to spell their names with upside down characters.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
The ones whose parents didn't give them enough attention so they have to spend
their days testing the boundaries of internet communities and then throwing a
fit because their wingding character isn't supported.

~~~
throwaway32
That's a pretty flippant attitude, considering people are losing access to
critical stuff like all their emails for making the mistake of violating some
rule buried in a 20 page TOS.

~~~
Matt_Cutts
People don't lose access to Gmail just because of the common/real name policy.
I posted this earlier in the thread:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2803334>

------
jonknee
Dave's been for a long time the tech version of an old man screaming at kids
to get off his lawn. Matching your "Real Name" to advertising partners isn't
at all why Google wants your "Real Name". They want it because it makes for a
better social network. Most Gmail users provide a "Real Name" so Google
already had hundreds of millions and so far as I know, hasn't decided to hook
up with my grocery to somehow advertise better to me. They do use interest
data, but it's one-click to opt-out of (<http://www.google.com/privacy/ads/>)
and knowing someone's name adds little to being able to target ads.

~~~
raganwald
Your comment reads better without the Ad Hominem. You have an opinion, it
differs from his, that’s fine, and that’s all you need to say.

~~~
jonknee
I don't think it's a stretch to characterize Dave Winer as a curmudgeon. He
has made valuable contributions and I respect him, but he's still a
curmudgeon.

~~~
raganwald
I don’t think it’s a stretch to look at my comments here on HN and say that
I’m cranky. Nevertheless, that doesn’t in any way add to a debate over my
specific comment: Either I’m right or I’m wrong. If I’m wrong, say so and
explain why. Saying (correctly) that I’m a cranky guy is still an Ad Hominem.

Summary: Ad Hominems can be factually correct yet they are still Ad Hominems
and still the lowest form of disagreement.

And my point in this case isn’t that the entire argument was an Ad Hominem,
but rather that it was a (possibly correct) Ad Hominem followed by a perfectly
reasonable point. I stand by my assertion that the point is stronger on its
own without the Ad Hominem.

~~~
jonknee
Point taken, and lest I myself appear persnickety, I'll leave it at that.

~~~
raganwald
And likewise, I will mention that while I’m quibbling about one little bit, I
consider the rest of your comment worthy of an upvote.

------
Vivtek
Oy. Maybe if you have a relatively Googleable name like "Dave Winer", you
could expect your theory to hold. But GOOGLE SHOULD KNOW BETTER. Try
correlating my name (Michael Roberts) with _anything_ just by name. It can't
be done. There are an estimated 5589 Michael Robertses in the US
(howmanyofme.com) and several of us in any given town. And my legal first name
is actually James, so you can't correlate that with airline reservations
anyway (thanks so very much, TSA).

No, Google really didn't think this through here. And the "hoo-ha" (I'm not
sure that means what you think it means) is about more than that. It's about a
ToS that says "use the name your friends know you by" - often a pseudonym.
Google will still delete your account with no recourse.

(This even omits the real-world examples of people who don't fit Google's
Anglo naming assumptions - the real world really does consist of about 20%
impossible hacks, and you'd think Google, _of all companies_ , would get that,
but they seem not to.)

Of course, Google's famous omission of any discernible customer service or
appeals process only plays into this even more.

No, it's a trainwreck. Google is responding well, and it's true it's still
actually a beta - but pseudonymity is important, and the ability to correlate
with banking records is broken anyway. So why stick with it?

~~~
davewiner
There are lots of other signals to triangulate by. Name is just one and the
primary one.

BTW, there are lots of people with my name, exact same spelling, in the US.

~~~
Vivtek
That's nice. The factor is about 5000. Census records are used for
howmanyofme.com (1990 and 2000) - there were 423,777 Robertses versus 2,406
Winers, and there were over 4,000,000 Michaels versus 82,000 Daves.

I'm sure there are "lots" of people with your name in the US, but you aren't
named Michael Roberts. Trust me. I am unGoogleable.

------
wisty
I doubt it. Google wants your real name so it's easier for your semi-friends
to find you, and drive "engagement".

I'm pretty sure my classmate from high school won't find me I sign up under
the name "wisty". Which would be a mixed blessing, but very bad for business.
OK, there are a few internet celebrities who are best know by "handles", but
they aren't the bread and butter of social networks.

~~~
maratd
This has never been a problem for Facebook. People find other people through
common friends, not by searching for names.

~~~
jcampbell1
Correct me if I am wrong, but Facebook has the same policy and deletes
suspiciously named accounts as well.

~~~
wccrawford
They technically have the same policy, but they don't seem to be proactive
like Google is.

Also, Facebook doesn't use your name to find your friends, they use your
friends list to suggest their friends might be yours as well.

Reason and method are both different.

~~~
notahacker
In the beginning Facebook was far more restrictive in requiring a university
email as well as a real name to sign up. If it had instead launched based on
an open invitation system and _not_ policed pseudonymous accounts then
marketers and trolls would have ensured it remained an insignificant niche
site.

If anything, real names were far more critical to Facebook's success than they
might be to Google+

------
Dwatson783
Yeah, this article is off. The idea that Google + would then take your name
and sell it to it's partners while linking to its DFA data is an incredible
breach of PII and they would be hit hard by the government immediately. As
someone who works with these data feeds and digital marketing, I know it's not
what they're aiming for and that it would be in violation. As others have
pointed out the effort is in better matching and spreading of social circles.
In doing so, Google + becomes a more widely used tool and, the relationships
that a user has with others increases. Couple that with the idea of circles
and future search, discussion and buying habits of the user, Google can then
understand the influences different parts of the network have on the
individual and tailor the advertising a user sees to the messages coming from
the influential networks.

~~~
sethg
They don’t have to sell the information to their partners. They could, for
example, _buy_ information associating last names and ZIP codes with estimated
income levels, and then tell advertisers, “if you pay us $X we will put your
ad on those Google+ pages where, according to our statistical estimate, at
least 75% of the readers make over $100K.” The advertisers wouldn’t actually
know the names of the people that Google forwards the ad to; they would just
get the clicks.

~~~
Dwatson783
There are a number of ways for Google to do that based on network, searches
and other information that give them a high statistical probability of being
right without having to go through the trouble of actually matching names with
lists. That's a capability that goes right into retargeting/remarketing lists
and certain ad servers.

------
jrockway
I think there are two reasons for making people use their real names, and it's
not this. One is preventing non-person entities from using the service. Nobody
wants a "friend" that's "Mashable News" or "Coca Cola". When these accounts
start following you, it's worse than spam. If you want to advertise, buy an ad
so I can block it.

Secondly is the "anonymous people are jackasses" problem that's pervasive
everywhere on the Internet. If people have to use their real names, they will
behave on G+ as they would in person, which makes for a nicer experience.

Anyway, you can legally change your name to whatever you want (I have a friend
whose US passport says "Ingy döt Net"), so if you really consider yourself to
be your nickname, get a government ID with that nickname on it. Problem
solved. (This problem is also solved with Photoshop, FWIW.)

------
dlss
> There's a very simple business reason why Google cares if they have your
> real name. It means it's possible to cross-relate your account with your
> buying behavior with their partners.

The idea that google somehow wants track your behavior through your name is
laughable. Do a facebook search for your name. Do you see all those results?
Those are all false positives that google would have to build algorithms to
try and weed out.

... or (assuming they actually wanted to track users in this way), they could
just use the unique-by-definition email address you registered with, or the
unique-by-definition credit card number you used in google checkout, or get
that information from AdWords partners when they track conversions ...

Since there are a thousand better (and less noticeable/public) ways to track
users, we can safely ignore google wanting to "cross-relate your account with
your buying behavior" as a possible motivation.

------
maurycy
I think that's illegal in many European countries to match the ads so closely,
so it is unlikely that Google's had this in mind[1].

In my opinion, the actual reason is slightly gentler. There is a lot of
research that says that people behave more responsibly under their real names.

(I'm short on time right now, but please let me know if you're unable to find
the papers within five minutes.)

[1]. There is a huge difference in the privacy laws between the US and the EU.
Shortly, in the EU you own your data, not the company hosting it.

------
joshu
Can we change the title? This is opinion presented as fact.

------
Hyena
I doubt the marketing rationale. Most G+ accounts will be connected to older
Gmail accounts, which are themselves likely to be the point-of-contact for
most online transactions (and, if not, it's going to be same_name@yahoo.com,
etc.). So it seems like Google already has the best identifier it could
possibly get, the Gmail name, which can be cross-referenced even to otherwise
anonymized data.

------
glimcat
That would be a great argument, if not for the fact that Google doesn't need
to get that information from Plus. They most likely already have it.

------
Info_Addict
The only reason is for their power.People have some tolerance for corporate
greed, but little to none for blatant corporate power grabs. They are
literally killing it right before our eyes for lack of understanding. People
won't use the system if they insist they get to know everything about you
solely for their benefit. No matter how they spin it, it's just not gonna fly.
Watch.

------
buster
I'd argue that using the real name helps the community in the end, because
people behave "better" when taken away this anonymity. I have the feeling that
up until now the conversations i had on google+ and the content i have seen
has a far better quality then facebook or twitter.

If this is worth the trade-off is up to everyone himself...

~~~
icebraining
'Better', for varying definitions of the term. When identified, people behave
as to protect themselves from social criticism. That may involve not post
profanities in others' posts, but it may also involve not posting stuff that
goes against the status quo.

~~~
buster
good point. i'm still not sure if this is a good thing or bad thing. My
personal experience was: i entered google+ with my nick name and switched to
my real name on my own, before those deletions took place... don't ask me why,
it was just a feeling?

As i especially enjoy the locality based stream, i enjoy not having to read
too much crap :P

Also, posting against the status quo is kind of natural in the internet, the
difference is HOW and not WHAT is said..

On the other hand:

Around 15-20% of my facebook friends use fake names out of privacy concerns
and in general don't post crap. They still have their own, good reasons to not
use their real name..

------
MatthewPhillips
I think a social community should either be completely anonymous or completely
named. Both Google+ and 4chan are great in their own ways. It's when there's a
mixture of anonymity and not (twitter) where things can get frustrating.

------
alexknight
The reason why Google et al want your real name is very simple — to help you
connect with friends easier. This isn't a difficult concept.

------
Astrohacker
A screen name is no less "real" than a legal name.

~~~
lutorm
To the extent that you can change it at will without effort, yes it is.

~~~
Astrohacker
What does that matter? If people know you by your screen name, that's a real
name. Legal names are just nick names that are recorded by the government.

~~~
lutorm
It matters because if people can change names at will, they are effectively
anonymous. And anonymity can bring out the worst in people.

------
gojomo
Let me suggest the true issue isn't _real_ vs. _pseudonymous_ or _common_ vs.
_contrived_ , but whether names are _cheap and disposable_.

When identities are _cheap and disposable_ , lots of mischief becomes more
prevalent, like spam and harassment.

When Google says they want 'common names', what they mean is they want names
that already have a history of investment. That is, nothing created solely for
the purpose of participation on GooPlu.

This benefits Google a lot: it makes you less likely to 'burn' your GooPlu
account with one-time mischief. It makes it easier for other acquaintances to
build out their 'circles' by finding you. It even lets Google loosely
correlate data from other sources (like their web crawls) with your GooPlu
presence (for customization and ad targeting).

Temporary, single-purpose identities are like masks. Society only welcomes
masks in certain places and times. Even just a few masks in a forum that
otherwise doesn't have them can change (or ruin) the character completely.

~~~
felipemnoa
People that want to be anonymous will be anonymous. Using a real sounding name
does not mean that it is the real name of the user.

------
nodata
What a terrible article, it completely misses the point that for many people
there is no such thing as having a Single Real Name.

~~~
burgerbrain
Uhhh, did you read this article?

~~~
nodata
Yes.

It says "Simply put, a real name is worth more than a fake one."

and we've already decided that a single real name doesn't exist for many
people.

~~~
burgerbrain
You are missing the point entirely. This isn't a justification at all, it is
an explanation. The article asserts that they can monetize single real names.
Some people don't have those, but if Google thinks that they can't monetize
that, why should they care?

 _That_ is what the article is saying. It didn't miss a thing, it just didn't
spell it out in simple english for you.

And for the record, I do not agree with the article that this is the cause of
Google's actions.

~~~
nodata
Look again at the other post from yesterday - the post that talks about how
Google realises that there may be a case for not having a single name to rule
them all, and that they were looking at way of making the alternative model
work, i.e. make money for them.

~~~
burgerbrain
The article is suggesting that they at least initially did not see a way to
monetize it. The topic article is not faulty in the way you suggest.

------
arihant
Without real names, G+ will become Yahoo Pulse. Won't help anyone.

------
jvc26
Doesn't look like the URL is functioning ...

------
hn_decay
Google knows who you are. Google knows where you've been on the web, and what
you're doing. They long have. Google told me on my own + page several of the
pseudonyms I've used across the web.

The "Google wants to sell you" bit is not insightful. It's not a unique
perspective. It's the same superficial analysis we see with every single thing
Google does.

Google wants an online community of real people, with what that entails. There
is a long and documented trail of discussions on this topic regarding the
downsides of anonymity. Yet there are also upsides, and if someone wants an
anonymous discussion forum that supports that, there are plenty of options for
that.

But it is wholly inconsistent with the goals of Google+.

Alas. Whatever Google does, just say it's because they want to sell you out.
It's a clean, pat answer.

~~~
jerf
"It's the same superficial analysis we see with every single thing Google
does."

Superficial isn't a synonym of "wrong". Sometimes the superficial explanation
is the correct one. Sometimes people expend a lot of cognitive effort looking
for the complex, nuanced answer when the superficial one was correct all
along.

And sometimes not, of course.

But I would argue that the idea that Google isn't giving one thought to how
much money Google+ is going to make them is the bizarre position, absurd on
its face.

I'd also observe that any given action does not need to have one motive.
Google can want a "real community" (also because a "real community" is more
likely to be active, cause people to spend more time on Google+, and thus see
more ads and generate more ad revenue), and _also_ want to have better
information with which to target you. There's no contradiction, and there's no
way in which one is the "real" motivation and the other is false, they're all
just mixed together. There's a whole lot of people here trying to draw lines
about what's the real motivation and what isn't when there's no room to draw
the lines in the first place.

~~~
hn_decay
* Superficial isn't a synonym of "wrong". *

It is a synonym for "barely worthy of anyone's time.

And yes, of course Google wants Google+ to make them money. But saying "they
want a healthy, vibrant, non-threatening community...thus allowing them more
page visits and thus ad impressions, thus allowing them to make lots of money"
has a completely different synergy than "they want your name so they can sell
it".

------
yanw
Hogwash! it is not legally permitted to target advertising using real
identities, ads are targeted at demographics, and a name has no value to ad
targeting anyway, interests are what used for targeting ads not names.

There are many legitimate reasons to insist on real names within a social
application, adding trustworthiness to sharing and trusting that you are
communicating with the right person being among them.

Also it's in beta testing and a pseudonym option will be introduced:
[https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/Fddn6rV8...](https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/Fddn6rV8mBX)

 _Edit: clarifying that ads aren't allowed to be targeted using real
identity._

~~~
anonymous246
Hmm, so Gmail showing you ads based on the email you're currently reading is
unlawful? I think you have a weird (i.e., excessively narrow) definition of
"target advertising to inviduals".

~~~
m0shen
They are targeting you, yes. But "you" is loosely defined as someone who reads
email newsletters about cat toys, not necessarily "John Smith, cat toy
enthusiast".

------
napierzaza
Kind of obvious, I just hope this kind of idea is picked up by the media. It's
also why Google+ has some very tricky rules in regards to what becomes public
on your profile, because publicly indexed information can be used and
monetized more than the private information. That's why Google has made all
the "revolutionary" platforms that it has been, and why Schmidt says so many
scary things that should make us feel sick.

Facebook's doing the same thing though, Google and them are both selling our
identities, interests, social connects and other data to the highest bidder.
But the handsets are cheap.

------
kenjackson
It's becoming more and more clear that _we_ are Google's product and not their
customer. Google is bending over backwards to ensure we are a saleable
commodity.

I feel like at this point the "don't be evil" motto is not useful. The real
question is "who wins when the interests of us, web searcher/service users,
comes into conflict with their customers, advertisers?"

