
On the obnoxious entitlement of the “nymwars” crowd - yanw
http://enpassant.posterous.com/on-the-obnoxious-entitlement-of-the-nymwars-c
======
InclinedPlane
It's beyond ridiculous for a company to claim title over what individuals have
a "right" to use as a name or not. Nicknames and pseudonyms are at the very
core of social identity and to avoid recognizing that is I believe a fault on
google's part. Surely google can say "we choose not to support pseudonyms for
X reason" but it's too far to say has any sort of absolute authority on what
names people can use to call themselves, their authority begins and ends
within the confines of google's own services.

The only good argument on google's side is the "my roof, my rules" argument.

P.S. Some interesting google-plus-y names: samuel clemens, edwin aldrin, john
draper, charles dodgson, allen konigsberg, paul hewson.

~~~
anigbrowl
Not as ridiculous as claiming a right to a free account using the name of your
choice. Nobody expects this from a bank or other commercial supplier. If you
care about your pseudonym that much then set up a corporation and trademark
it.

~~~
InclinedPlane
This isn't banking, it's chatting with friends. If google wants to make
chatting with friends as stringent as banking they are not going to win a very
high level of satisfaction or be able to keep up with competition who
understands that chatting with friends is a casual endeavor.

~~~
anigbrowl
So? Nobody's making you use Google+, any more than you're forced to use
Facebook or LinkedIn or any other social networking platform.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Of course not. I'm just saying Google is _fucking it up_. The fact that
facebook also fucks it up is no consolation. All it will take is a smart
competitor who knows how to cater to their user base better than google or
facebook to steal their userbase out from under them.

Nevertheless, it's a free country, google is free to fuck it up to their
heart's content.

------
molecule
Why all the presumptuous name calling? There is no cited evidence that this
has anything to do w/ the article author, it has to do w/ others' opinion of
how they want to use a third-party commercial service. Complaining about
others' opinions of how they want to use a third-party service certainly
smacks of obnoxious entitlement.

~~~
tariqk
It's certainly very ironic. So the OP is unhappy about people complaining
(when the OP could certainly... I don't know, not bother to follow the
issue?), and thus OP decides to complain about people wanting to use
pseudonyms... while using a pseudonyms.

Maybe it's satire.

------
jinushaun
I don't understand what all the hoopla is about. Real names is, IMO, part of
the reason why Facebook is so successful compared to the earlier social
networking sites. Unlike MySpace, Facebook friends were real people you know
in real life. As a result, Facebook has become the de-facto internet identity
provider. Google is just following that recipe.

------
molecule
Arguing against pseudonyms from behind one doesn't really support your
argument.

Additionally, "I’m certain these rules are supported by data that outsiders
aren't privy to" is a non-starter.

~~~
yanw
I'm all for pseudonymous actually, and I've never argued against them. I use
them where allowed and don't where they are not (or not participate at all).

What gets on my nerves however are those comparing their grievances with a
project not yet mature to those currently struggling in freedom struggles
around the world.

~~~
molecule
"What gets on my nerves"

is irrelevant to the discussion of how others want to use a third-party
service. make a valid point, or recognize your incessant axe-grinding for what
it is.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=yanw>

