

Nymwars: A view from the trenches within Google - bootload
https://plus.google.com/u/0/110295984969329522620/posts/ExKJZgBAYxM#110295984969329522620/posts/ExKJZgBAYxM

======
thristian
A friend of mine reshared that post on G+ yesterday and I left this comment
there:

"nymwars" is a big complicated thing that has far outgrown my ability to keep
track of the nuances, so I don't understand what this means for my personal
pet feature (showing different names to different people), but it's
encouraging to hear that there is raucous debate inside Google.

I still think that the strongest argument for pseudonyms is that a system that
doesn't handle them is Wrong, in the same way that "everything can be
losslessly converted to ASCII" is wrong, or "an accurate map of a geographical
area can be drawn on a flat surface" is wrong. Pseudonyms aren't a feature you
can decide whether to support or not, they're part of the problem that you're
trying to solve.

~~~
InclinedPlane
The worst part is that google+ does support pseudonyms... if you're rich or
famous enough. Personally I thought google was better than that.

~~~
starwed
That's not what OP means... Your point is that google allows famous folk to
use their RL pseudonym as their primary ID on google+.

What _thristian_ means is that the system itself needs to allow a single
account to present multiple nyms, depending on context.

~~~
InclinedPlane
That's only part of the problem. The core problem is that google doesn't allow
pseudonyms at all (even a single pseudonym across all circles) unless you
happen to be famous enough, regardless of legal identity. It's a double
standard.

------
jrockway
How is Google's policy different from Facebook's? Google is enforcing the
policy more strictly? People are just complaining because it's new and they
think they can change it?

I don't really get it. Host your own blog and you can be called whatever you
want.

~~~
neilk
Facebook doesn't go out and actively eliminate users they think have
pseudonyms. Google+ does.

Facebook just reserves the right to ask you for your government ID, if there's
a dispute or you need to reclaim an account. But in practice pseudonyms are
tolerated unless you make a nuisance of yourself.

~~~
comex
I was banned from Facebook a while back for having a fake name; no dispute or
issue that I know of, just a random banhammer.

~~~
neilk
Ok, I didn't know that. But half my Facebook friends have demi-pseudonyms,
like "Dan Aestetix".

------
natesm
Is this really a huge deal? I haven't really been using Google+ (after I
finally dropped Facebook, I guess I just... stopped caring about this sort of
thing), but this topic keeps showing up everywhere.

I'm not sure why it's a problem. Google+ isn't that kind of website to me.
Reddit, HN, etc. are really in a different class of websites and should be
treated as such. Google+ is like my Address Book. I _want_ real names, because
they look nice. I should not that (in my mind) this doesn't make "JK Rowling",
"Mark Twain", or "Jon Stewart" unacceptable. "rms" or "natesm", on the other
hand, aren't the sort of thing that I'd want to see on Google+.

Similarly, I have Adium set up to display real names and real pictures instead
of ugly AIM screen names. I don't talk to ladygagafan05, I talk to "John
Smith".

~~~
thwarted
_"rms" or "natesm", on the other hand, aren't the sort of thing that I'd want
to see on Google+._

You, as the recipient or the viewer, don't really get to decide how people
would like themselves to be referred to. That doesn't really stop people from
referring to others however they want to, which leads directly into...

 _Similarly, I have Adium set up to display real names and real pictures
instead of ugly AIM screen names._

And that's most likely the best or real solution to all of this: allow people
to change the labels they see for other people to something custom, which only
they see. This actually mirrors how the real, non-Google+ world works.

------
mypov
So sad that we are like sheep waiting to see what" Vic" and big G decide in
regards to our (practically) our social identity and the nature of the social
space as well.

One certainly can have the equivalent. Of real-life anonymity. The issue is
institutional will.

------
yuhong
>(ironic that these anonymity requirements are needed to talk about nymwars)

Anyone know what is exactly happening here? I am not advocating for real
names, but things like this should still be fixed if possible.

------
nl
[http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/02/freedom-to-
be...](http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/02/freedom-to-be-who-you-
want-to-be.html)

------
sciurus
Recent discussion on this topic at
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2906434>

------
motters
The nymwars demonstrate that dictatorships in "the cloud" are not always
benign ones. Why is Google trying to control the identities of its users, and
why doesn't it seem to care about the legitimate needs of certain groups of
people?

------
JulianMorrison
Fuck their attitude that LGBT people are expendable.

~~~
homosaur
Could you like, explain this?

~~~
JulianMorrison
From the link:

\- "Women, LGBT, abuse victims, etc, will be disadvantaged"

Larry/Vic: "There are other places they can go to, we don't have to fight
every ethical and social injustice every time in everything we do, G+ is one
of the occasions when we don't seek to right the wrongs of the world, we just
want to get the work done."

~~~
homosaur
Yeah, I read it, and I keep hearing people saying it. I just don't know what
it's supposed to mean. Are we saying gay people are going to be using
pseudonyms on G+ to avoid harassment? I keep hearing this and I don't get the
angle.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Gay kids who don't want to be outed to their parents.

Gay Ugandans who don't want to be shopped to the authorities for jail or
worse.

Trans people, newly out to themselves, experimenting with a name that they
have chosen, not the mistake foisted upon them by parents who thought they
were cis.

Trans people asserting their real names, the ones they use in public every
day, in the face of bigoted official refusal to change their paperwork.

And so on.

Edit to add: for what it's worth, playing cross-gender characters in WoW has
been a common thread among my trans friends before they came out. So what
looks like a playful profile of your elven mage or something, might actually
be part of a disguised foray into publicly presenting as the other gender.
This is an example of why it's a mistake to force either real names or single
profiles per user (though I think it would be OK to internally cross-link all
pseudonyms of a given user, so they all take the same hit if any of them goes
trolling).

~~~
homosaur
okay, thanks, makes more sense now.

