

Bradley Horowitz on Google+ naming policy - phil
https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU

======
edash
Several commenters on this post claim this is an issue of safety:

"The ability to add nicknames/maiden names etc is of no use to people who
actually need to keep their identity secret for their own or their family's
safety."

"There are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons for someone to need, not
just want, to use pseudonym."

I'm sorry, but you don't need to use Google+. And for the love of Peter please
don't if you'll endanger yourself or your family.

Wanting to remain anonymous on Google+ is like going to a dinner party and
insisting on wearing a mask. Yes, you'll reduce the chance that people will
know who you are—but you're also super freakin' creepy. If you don't want to
be recognized...stay home or go to another party!

And if you don't want to share your real identity online, I'd recommend not
using social networks altogether.

~~~
nextparadigms
I just don't understand why people are so against _Google_ over this, when
_Facebook_ has always been doing it.

I know it's a delicate issue and it deserves debate, but at least I'd like the
issue being discussed in a more general setting.

That being said, I think it would be another advantage of Google+ over
Facebook to allow people to use pseudonyms, because it's yet another thing
Facebook would never change.

~~~
frossie
_I just don't understand why people are so against Google over this, when
Facebook has always been doing it._

Because we wouldn't be interested in Google+ if we thought it would just be
another Facebook?

I mean, if the fresh launch of a beta product to an audience of mainly tech-
savvy users is not the time to complain loudly about what you don't you like,
what is?

~~~
joe_the_user
Yes,

I'd been rooting for Google, against Facebook on this. Till now..

But now... The thing is that Facebook so far mostly has just made noise about
not allowing pseudonyms - I've only seen them ban obvious organizations from
using individual accounts and then only when someone complains. If you're
locked out of your Facebook account, you have to show state ID. But it's a lot
easier to just another "fake" account (which is not really particular fake if
it is you representing you).

I'm in a somewhat "special" neck of the woods on Facebook but I'd say more
than half my friends use pseudonyms on there. If all of those got banned, we'd
move elsewhere. That might be a good thing. But we sure wouldn't move to G+.

------
phil
The funny thing is, none of this would have been an issue if their initial
real-name enforcement had been to temporarily suspend a profile, prompting
users to change their name in order to turn them back on.

It's the lack of recourse that gets everyone up in arms more than the name
policy

------
darklajid
My rant, commented that over at G+ as well. Not sure if that counts as cross-
posting, I'd love to hear some opinions here though:

People complaining about pseudonyms, with weird statements like 'Don't turn
this into MySpace' or 'Leave those on Twitter': Are you serious? You are
asking for a global policy, because you like to see full names? Chances are,
your circles/contacts are already on the same page. No issues here, with or
without the naming rule. IF some of your best friends would like to be
'PinkUnicorn' from today on, would you just cease reading his/her news? Do you
really want to forcefully (go by your real name or leave the service) make
them change? That's about the most egocentric thing I've ever heard or read.
This is a social network - or tries to become one. You can choose with whom
you are in contact, you can ignore people. But you cannot make people behave
according to your own preferences.

You sound like someone that complains from his front lawn that everyone should
wear ties, to look more professional. If you would rule, ties would be a
requirement to leave the house. No more unprofessional Jeans & T-Shirts on the
street, right?

Stay over at LinkedIn please and stop debating about other peoples wishes and
needs for their own frikkin' account. If you don't get the reasons: Fine,
nobody's perfect. But in that case here's a newsflash: It's not about you. You
want yourself to go by your real name: Works as intended and no one wants to
take that right away from you. You have not the slightest right to ask Google
to force your personal believe down everyone's throat, however.

------
dlss
tl;dr "we believe our naming policy was right, but the way we enforced it was
wrong"

------
britta
I found this a interesting comment, from Danny Sullivan - it's not always
straightforward to define what a "common name" is:

"What are the best ways for people to prove their 'common name' status. Unless
+50 Cent has a government ID with that name, it's pretty clear that Google
made the sensible decision to let him use his stage name, which he's commonly
known by, here rather than a legal name. But if you're not as well known as
him, asking for things like government IDs to prove your 'common name' --
which you do allow -- seems difficult."

------
koobaf
They may give on this in the end, but it still shows the problem of
consolidating too much power in one place. I have no problem with FB disabling
my account, because it's not a necessity. But if G+ decided it was OK to
disable my Gmail because of a change in policy, or a rogue automated profile
checker then that's an entirely different story.

~~~
doctoboggan
In the post he says your Gmail will not be disabled if you used a fake name.

~~~
pgroves
From the article:

 _(Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming,
illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of
these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension.)_

So don't post about your favorite torrents site that violates copyright law.
Or if you're like me and live in Illinois, video tape a police officer because
that violates wire tapping laws. Yes, I know I would be in violation of this
policy if I sent an email from gmail about these things, but I'm guessing I'm
more likely to get caught if it's on g+.

Keeping my gmail account active is worth far more to me than any potential
benefits of google+ at this point.

In any event, the down votes on the grandparent were uncalled for.

------
mtogo
Glad to know that gmail and other google products won't be lost if this
happens to you. It's still a ludicrous policy, though; something I'd expect
from microsoft of facebook. I'm not sure why google is so hell-bent on
enforcing it.

~~~
raganwald
They’re taking an _opinionated_ stance on creating a community. That’s
generally a good thing, and in order to provide what they believe is a better
experience for the kinds of people who interact with each other based on a
conventional “real” name, they are willing to forgo that portion of the market
that want to use a handle for some or all of their online interaction.

As I tweeted, I have no use for “circles” if I can’t be “raganwald" to those
people who know me through my writing and “Reg Braithwaite” to those people
who know me face to face, but I have zero problem with choosing not to use
Google+, so why should I have a problem with Google choosing not to cater to
me?

------
joshu
i think ALL bhorowitz blog posts should start with rap lyrics.

------
yanw
I think this matter highlights the absurdity of being offended by issues
discovered during beta-testing. I suppose it's beta testing for the masses so
people start assuming it's the finished product.

~~~
sixtofour
Given history, it's going to be beta for a long time.

