

 Google Plus Tells Pseudonym Lovers to Shove It - jdp23
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_plus_tells_pseudonym_lovers_to_shove_it.php

======
raganwald
I’m not going to throw a hissy-fit over every social application that doesn’t
cater to my perceived personal needs, but as someone who is well-known on the
Internet by my pseudonym, I have no use for Google+ and its “circles” unless I
can be raganwald to some people and Reg Braithwaite to others. Or until they
drag me into it my getting practically everyone I know to use it instead of
Facebook.

------
joebadmo
Disclaimer: I am a Google fanboy.

I am as unhappy about this development as anyone. I don't understand the
insistence on real names, not just because I think it's wrong, but I just
don't understand what the motivation is. What's the upside?

Here's the only thing I could come up with:

Community. This early in its life, they don't want Google+ to become a
cesspool of fake/joke accounts, youtube comments, spam, and "brands." They
want it to be a real place for real people to share about real things. They
don't want it to become Myspace. [Edit: I think you can also see this emphasis
on noise reduction in how Circles are set up and how game notifications aren't
part of your stream unless you want them to be.]

But I hope the plans are bigger. I hope they're just going for a nice clean
introduction for a large enough user base, while temporarily marginalizing
edge cases in order to give the mainstream a pleasant initial experience, so
they can leverage that user base into a more successful version of what they
tried with Buzz and Wave: an open, standards-based interoperable social
networking environment that's more like the open web than a closed social
network.[1]

The fact is, if they're planning on opening it up eventually, there's no
stopping pseudonymous/anonymous activity or brands or even spam to some
degree.

That's my optimistic fanboy take on it. I just don't see what else they get
out of the policy. I definitely don't buy the "it's for advertising" line.
They don't need your real name for that. And it just seems like too much of an
obvious backlash and logistical mess to have to deal with unless they have a
good, large, long-term reason.

[1]: [http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/07/google-plus-social-
backbone...](http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/07/google-plus-social-
backbone.html)

~~~
MatthewPhillips
I've said in other threads, I think the average Facebook user would be put off
commenting on a post where "joebadmo" is a participant.

I don't see anything wrong with having a division between real people and
brand/pseudonyms. I think this is one thing Facebook got right.

~~~
sixtofour
"the average Facebook user"

I think G+ could aspire to so much more than being an average Facebook clone.

------
sixtofour
Nothing with real consequences at stake relies on a name, real or otherwise.
We rely on social security numbers and credit card numbers in the US. Drivers
license numbers. Telephone numbers. Account numbers.

No organization that really cares who you are gives a flying eff about your
name, they rely on the relevant number, because _names are not unique_. _Names
do not identify, they merely suggest_.

It's so bizarre. Even if Google's motivation is to uniquely identify you to
advertisers, they already have that information (your unique Google account
ID) and yet cannot guarantee that unique you is the same John Smith as other
John Smiths in the advertising universe.

They seem to be getting nothing from this, nothing but lost good will.

EDIT: Changed money to consequences.

~~~
rue
> _[…]because names are not unique._

Mine is. There's nobody in the entire world with the same first and last name.

~~~
sixtofour
Yes, some specific names are currently unique, but naming in general is not
unique, so you can't rely on it to uniquely identify a population.

------
nancye
They have that right, no matter how much I may disagree. But everyone I was
actually talking to has been suspended or left preemptively, the organization
I work for got booted, my non-tech-savvy friends and family aren't budging
from Facebook, and my circles are dead. I was really excited about Google+
when it launched, but from where I sit, they've done a much better job of
discouraging people from using their service than of actually building it up.

------
dhimes
From the company that advocated being able to re-invent your identity when you
come of age. So obviously they recognize that there is a problem, they just
don't know what to do about it.

Has anybody else been getting the feeling that the company vision has been
very confused since they changed CEOs?

------
ck2
If I wait long enough is it going to be hip again to have your own website?

You can have any name you want on your own website and run it any way you
want.

~~~
dendory
That's why I never stopped having my own site, and posting EVERYTHING (even
photos, bookmarks, likes, check-ins) there, and using scripts I made to
propagate the info on Facebook, Twitter, etc.

It's the only way to be safe against any company shutting you down.

------
sixtofour
In following threads pointed to by the various +pseudonym threads, I've
learned that many states allow common law naming, i.e. your name is what you
say it is based merely on usage for N years.

It would be refreshing for Google to be as tolerant as government.

------
molecule
so this doesn't apply to those famous enough to be recognized by their
pseudonyms? e.g. Bob Dylan, Bono, The Edge, 50 Cent, Eminem, Dr. Dre, etc.

Sounds like selective entitlement on the part of Google.

~~~
unwind
I read it the other way around, that it very much applies to them, and thus
might make it less interesting for Mr David Howell Evans and others like him
to join Google +.

~~~
jamesbritt
Hasn't stopped Lady Gaga.

------
jdp23
There's also discussion on Google+ at
[https://plus.google.com/117421021456205115327/posts/BPKvVJm7...](https://plus.google.com/117421021456205115327/posts/BPKvVJm7kiM)

~~~
sp332
There's more discussion on the official announcement:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2877442>

------
MisterMerkin
And from reading the comments here, I think people don't realize that the
reason Google is insisting on real names is so they can be a central identity
management and login service which Facebook is trying to do now.

------
MisterMerkin
How did Facebook make it to now without this controversy- or did they?

