

YouTube Pushing Users Switch To Real Names - MRonney
http://www.jimyounkin.com/2012/07/youtube-pushing-users-switch-to-real.html

======
droithomme
It's often argued in these cases that identification and real names will
increase the quality of comments by eliminating trolls, stalkers and
troublemakers somehow.

When measured empirically, one study found that anonymous commenting from
people without user accounts increases the ratio of good comments to poor
quality ones. The reason is that so many more people comment. There's a
certain fixed number of trolls and troublemakers who have a lot of free time
and will go through whatever hoops are needed to set up an account with a
registered name, which may or may not be their real one. Legitimate commenters
though are not as motivated to jump through hoops and comply with demands they
use a consistent, or real sounding name.

[http://blog.topix.com/2008/01/anonymous-comments-by-the-
numb...](http://blog.topix.com/2008/01/anonymous-comments-by-the-numbers.html)

As far as people with video accounts on youtube who are contributing content
and allowing for the business model, youtube has many cases of attractive
women vloggers who are routinely stalked by unhinged fan/viewers. Do these
vloggers benefit from a degree of anonymity, or the ability to use pen names?
Yes. In addition to attractive women, there are also many aliased vloggers
posting political opinions about police and military brutality, citizen
journalists anonymously uploading video from protests, etc. Maintaining
penname aliases on vlogger content accounts clearly allows these contributors
to increase their own safety by making it more difficult to stalk and harass
them in real life by not just trolls and dysfunctional people, but also from
government agents intending to both silence them and do them harm.

~~~
bhartzer
I have no problem using my real name, In fact, I'm already using it on
YouTube. The only 'vloggers' who would benefit from anonymity are the ones who
have something to say that could be consider 'controversial' by someone else.

~~~
ben0x539
> The only 'vloggers' who would benefit from anonymity are the ones who have
> something to say that could be consider 'controversial' by someone else.

You don't think there's a large group to which that applies?

Given how easy it is to turn online harassment into real-life harassment with
a little internet research, I will not begrudge anyone their separate
identities. Your "controversial" opinion could be as benign as "I don't owe my
youtube stalkers any attention" before someone is subjected to threats have
the potential to seriously affect their life.

I don't have a problem using my real name either (this handle is easily
traceable to my full address, I believe), but I'm a white guy, moderately well
off and my political opinions are the mainstream, etc. I enjoy a degree of
safety and social support that I take for granted, but that's not a luxury
available to many who also deserve to participate in internet communities and
cultural life.

That Google (and others) are not only not accomodating them but going out of
their way to make it harder for them to have an online presence is really
surprising to me. I'd have thought Google "gets" it, and I don't see what
they're gaining from moves like this.

------
user49598
If i had to use my real name, I'd probably never comment on this site (good or
bad thing, you can decide). A lot of people aren't interested in attribution
and just want to take part in discussions on the internet. Also, anon-posting
gives you the opportunity to get better at having online discussions.
Everybody sounds like a troll now and then, you need to feel like it's not
attached to your identity to really express yourself. The quality of youtube
comments is not going to go up, and people are just going to start using fake
"real names".

Which apparently amazon has a trademark on anyway:
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=14279641)

------
Wilya
That's not very surprising. They are forcing everything towards integrating
everything into Google+, one way or another.

And I must say, when I read in one of the screenshots "And if you change your
mind, you can switch back to your username", I chuckled inside. Call me
cynical, but I'd bet a lot that going back will stop being possible pretty
soon.

------
citricsquid
I assume this is the gradual phasing in of google+ for every google product.
They can't switch to real identities straight away without backlash, so if
they do it slowly (first names, wait a few months, then photos, wait a few
months, then profiles) nobody will be outraged.

------
RobAtticus
At first I was kinda excited for this since I don't really go by my Youtube
handle anymore, so I'd rather it be my new handle or my name. However, once I
started the process, I realized I had uploaded some videos of my friend and I
playing NBA Hangtime. Our team name is "WANKIT SLOWLY". Not sure I want that
to be associated with my real name when people Google me.

~~~
hackinthebochs
Too late... I myself have been somewhat disturbed at the many hoards of
"hacker news" indexers and mirror sites that come up when I google my
screenname. Deleting/editing the comment may not even be enough anymore.

~~~
RobAtticus
Well, not exactly. My real name isn't the same as my HN handle, but point well
taken. I don't think it would be terribly hard to get from one to the other.

------
thornofmight
It's worse than you think.

I registered a new account on Youtube a couple days ago and was not even given
the option to choose a username. They asked me for my first and last name and
that was it.

------
jiggy2011
Perhaps the whole idea of "Real names" is outdated in the days of the
internet. Since they have problems.

They collide, especially with a common name. Somebody googles your name and it
may be difficult to find the "real" you.

Also people are pretty bad at spelling, many peoples names are very hard to
spell. Not to mention that many of them are going to use different character
sets.

Besides, if your life revolves around your internet identity. Is that a less
legitimate identity than your real name?

It may be more practical for parents to assign some sort of "default handle"
to their children which is expected to be changed as the child gets older.

For government purposes, perhaps a unique ID that cannot be changed would work
better?

------
kevinflo
The list of reasons I was prompted with when I opted out of making the switch
really irked me. For the list to not include "I want my name to remain
private" when that is obviously the most common reason felt condescending. To
make me say that "I'll decide later" seemed like a bully tactic. I've already
made up my mind.

------
ericson578
now I regret linking my gmail+youtube accounts. Oh well, time to delete that
youtube account. What was the name of that anonymous email service again,
ironic that I'll find it with google.

I don't need every future employer forever more knowing that I commented on a
controversial video that one time back in '12.

~~~
biomechanica
I find it very frustrating that Google thinks that forcing people to reveal
their identities is a "good" thing.

"People will be held accountable now!" is the slogan I keep hearing ringing in
my head listening to the excuses put out by companies.

In the end, it _is_ their service people are using and they can dictate the
terms all they want. However, it also sets up a system where people will now
expect websites across the web to want their true names.

In a sense, it will become common place and make people look weird for using
nick names. At least, that's my opinion.

Fuck them for doing that.

~~~
masklinn
> I find it very frustrating that Google thinks that forcing people to reveal
> their identities is a "good" thing.

Remember: Google's business is advertising, and you can sell far better/more
expensive ads to "real identities". As far as business goes, real identities
are most definitely a good thing. For google, that is.

~~~
biomechanica
Indeed their business is advertising. Though, I'm not sure users providing
their real identities will make things better.

For instance, with Google's music service. Once you upload a few albums Google
shows albums you might like. This isn't done because I have my real name (I
don't use it, personally, but have seen it in action) posted.

Same kind of thing goes with ads. They can track your IP(s) and go with that.
If anything, it's a better system than using so called "real names" because
people, I will bet, will use fake names.

The same type of system can be used with nick names. It's just tied to the
user's profile.

Maybe I'm just getting it all wrong and not thinking right, but it really
doesn't sit well with me.

~~~
droithomme
I agree with you there is reason to be skeptical that real identities make
advertising more effective. This presumes many things such as there are
accurate models of human behavior, and that harsh policies won't drive people
away or move them to go to more extremes to hide their identity.

I am sure many advertisers think they want real identities, certainly that
would appear to make their jobs even easier as they can then pull property
value reports and criminal records searches for random people who happen to
visit their site. Just because someone thinks they want something doesn't mean
it is more effective. For example, many companies are losing in the
marketplace because they can't compete because they can't hire qualified
workers because they think they want a long list of acronyms rather than
someone who is intelligent and has a history of getting the job done.

Which is more valuable for serving ads that are valuable to advertisers? An
anonymous user who you track with cookies and ip address (which gives general
location) and have a profile of based on their interests and things they
search for? Or someone who you have forced to give their real name, so they
have switched to Tor and now every access they make comes from a different ip
address, none of which appear connected and none which are related to their
real geographical point of origin? Or how about the user that simply unplugs.

This is not just theoretical supposition. In the 1980s supermarkets started
using shopper loyalty programs. The stores would raise prices of many
products, then offer to sell it at the normal price charged by competitors if
the customer agreed to use a card linked to their real name and address,
confirmed by state ID cards. This card then was used to track all of their
purchasing habits and behaviors and form models of the customers in an attempt
to influence them with more targeted coupon offers and direct mail
advertising. At the same time, WalMart chose NOT to do that at all, and
instead charged lower prices with no tracking, but did instead do much more
difficult data analysis of purchases by store and region and date in order to
find larger trends of what to keep in stock. For example, before a hurricane
in Florida people buy a lot of beer WalMart's algorithms figured out and so
they analyze weather data and send trucks full of beer when Florida is about
to get hit with a big storm. Which approach worked? The manipulative one where
customers were identified, monitored and targeted personally, and punished
with higher prices if they refused this? Or the alternative where a more
intelligent analysis was done of data without lazily requiring actual real id?

------
pilif
In the last step of the assistant (by looking at the screenshots - not really
using my youtube account, so I can't say), they ask for possible reasons why
not to use the real name and the reasons they list are pretty valid and cover
about the extent of reasons why I would not want to use my real name.

As such this leaves me with hope that they at least understand that real-name-
for-everything is not a good idea.

Speaking of nicknames though:

Being able to use a nickname as the main identification handle on twitter is
one of the main reasons why I'm not using Google+. Finishing a talk or a
discussion with a quick "hey - follow me on twitter: @pilif" is so much easier
than "Please search me on Google+ under the name Philip Hofstetter".

The last name is very difficult to type and in addition there are still a ton
of Philip Hofstetter's around for people to confuse me with.

By enforcing the unique nickname and allowing users to use them as handles
(and in URLs), twitter makes it much easier for people to bridge the gap
between the real and the virtual world to the point where I know many people
by their twitter handle instead of their real names.

With Google+ I'd have to make people spell my long name ("how many t's
again?") or to give them an absurdly long number as my ID - neither of which
is at all appealing (or producing "conversions" - if you want to call
acquiring followers that)

~~~
darklajid
As some one further down in this thread already noticed: The one reason that
they didn't list is "I don't _want_ that, period".

The closest thing is "I _cannot_ use my real name". Which I'd probably click
if I'd ever be in that situation. But that's not the same thing.

------
wallawe
Although there probably will be a backlash, I think this is a smart move from
the social networking standpoint. Google is finally leveraging one of its most
powerful assets that has to this point not played an integral role of building
their G+ user base in any way.

This is a weapon that facebook lacks. Plus it helps get rid of the "internet
fuckwads" but as the author said, it's certainly an uphill battle. I don't
think we should view it a negative light though.

~~~
slowpoke
> _Plus it helps get rid of the "internet fuckwads"_

Hahaha. No.

Take a single look at Facebook, and you'll be proven wrong. The amount of
utter retardation people post under their real names is both astonishing and
depressing.

I've seen the reaction of another community where the "overlords" had the
brilliant idea to force real names for exactly this reason. It was, by at
least two orders of magnitude, the biggest shitstorm in the history of World
of Warcraft, and that's saying something.

(In all fairness, Blizzard realized what a gigantically fucking stupid idea
that was and retracted the announcement pretty quickly.)

I hope that this will deal a decisive blow to Youtube as a platform. The
monopoly it enjoys in its segment is unhealthy and needs to go away.

------
lectrick
My real name is INSANELY googleable (as in, from what I can tell, a google of
my first and last name acts like a "primary key" to my entire internet
presence)... so I fucking hate these efforts. I hated it when Blizzard pushed
it, I'll tolerate it on Google+ but frankly, I NEED a place where I can speak
anonymously and freely.

~~~
olalonde
Use a realistic fake name?

~~~
cowkingdeluxe
In Aug 2011, Google banned quite a bit of Google+ accounts for using fake
names and nicknames. Does Google still do this?

~~~
ceejayoz
That's where realistic comes in. They banned people using company names or
clearly fake ones.

~~~
AkThhhpppt
Or real names that looked like they might be fake (Violet Blue). Or that were
foreign in a weird way (Hong Kong users). Or famous people they though might
have been faking (William Shatner). Or...

Basically, the nym wars debacle demonstrated (if nothing else) that if you
demand people's real names, know what you're asking for, and be prepared to
support the multitude of naming conventions that exist worldwide.

------
darklajid
I'm never logged in to YouTube.

I deleted my Google+ account when they started playing the Facebook game,
turning an interesting service into a ~personal~ thing.

From what I can tell from my usage and discussions among friends, YouTube
really is declining in use, thanks to the overzealous media industry, blocking
videos left and right. If you want to listen to a bit of German music you're
advised to use a proxy outside of Germany itself for a while, to avoid getting
the dreaded 'This video is not available in your country' message.

In short: G+ fell short for me personally and in my 'circles'. YouTube could
never interest me much in terms of keeping an account, as a consumer (for
what? Comments?).

I'm glad that I don't rely on these services (anymore). I'll rather stay with
a pseudonym, vimeo and duckduckgo.

------
marknutter
Hopefully this will increase the quality of comments on Youtube, which are
currently unreadable.

~~~
DanBC
I really doubt it'll do much.

It will stop perhaps the very worst 5%

But the comments are so awful that skimming 5% is nothing.

Adam Buxton (who used to work with Joe Cornish) has a show about music videos
in which he mocks youtube comments. It's pretty good.

------
radarsat1
I find Google's new policies surprising. Maybe "surprising" isn't the right
word, but it's certainly a change in attitude that seems to ignore their own
history. They started off by giving the web what it wanted and needed, a no-
bullshit search service, adapting themselves to the web and profiting from it.
Now they are trying to adapt the web to them, and I just don't see it going
that way. Pseudonymity and the web go together, I really have my doubts in
their their ability to remove it, influential as they are. Granted, Facebook
may have changed people's attitudes towards pseudonymity, but I tend to think
it's still something people fundamentally want.

------
jamesu
It's a good thing all real names are unique and easy to remember...

------
JoelMcCracken
I wonder if this would alter the horror that is youtube comments?

------
jiggy2011
Judging by 99% of the comments I read on youtube I'd be surprised if many of
those people would be happy having those associated with their real names.

Perhaps some would happily do that now, but what about in 10 years when
they've grown up?

~~~
CodeCube
Darwin's Law for the modern age ... don't write the comment if you can't take
the credit ;)

------
kmfrk
I don't really mind this, as long as it isn't retroactive. YouTube comments
are a parody of themselves as it is. The newish development of trying to
pander in order to reach the top comment position has made them even worse.

~~~
beefsack
On the contrary, if it were applied retroactively, it would be a spectacle!

~~~
pavel_lishin
"I cannot believe my mother typed those words. Or that she typed them so
badly."

------
naner
_Of course that may be YouTube (and Google's) whole point for making this
change. "skipro865" calling you an "ugly douchebag" doesn't quite have the
same feeling as having "George Jones" call you an "ugly douchebag"._

This is almost certainly not the case. If nasty comments were problematic
Google could ban badly behaving users or take other measures. Accountability
and identity are not the same thing, Google is pushing for identifying you not
making you more accountable. Google has other motives likely related to
building more accurate profiles for advertising and building out Google+.

------
mladenkovacevic
I'm actually interested in using my real name but I would like to be able to
employ pseudonyms as well (mostly to be able to interact as a brand).

When you opt out of using your real name they ask you what the reason is and I
think based on the feedback they get from that little survey they might extend
the functionality to include multiple names in some way shape or form. (at
least I hope). Google+ already has some of this ability with the brand pages
so hopefully they carry that over into into YouTube.

~~~
alkimie
The point is that they don't -want- you to use pseudonyms. I don't know about
the rest of you but I segregate the various presences in the aether. What I
found most offensive is that they omitted the option of saying that you did
not want to use your real name solely because you didn't -want- to use your
real name.

I posted a short reaction at <http://youtu.be/Imhqt1vr3T8> Hopefully their
search engine will pick it up.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
doesn't the "personal use, cannot use my real name" box cover your concerns?

~~~
alkimie
No, I don't believe so. I could (or can and do) use my real name. I simply
don't -want- to use my real name.

I dislike giving incorrect answers to questions. I did use that box when
testing the new requirements for lack of a better fit. By so doing, I am
allowing Youtube (Google) to misrepresent my reasons for declining to use my
real name. I don't care for that.

As I said in my video response, Youtube (Google) can either acknowledge my
desire for a certain level of anonymity when I interact with youtube, or I
simply will move to Vimeo or another provider.

Like a lot of people, I'm kind of stuck on the gmail tar baby. It will be hard
for me to step away from gmail. Youtube, on the other hand, is not something
where I have built up a lot of utility. It could be that they simply have
decided that Youtube will now focus on the 'professional' posters, and not
worry so much about casual posters and users like myself. I believe that is a
mistake because the people that make a buck (or think they might) on youtube
start as casual users.

I have noticed that youtube seems to be paying a lot more attention to the
commercial users than to the casual users. That is their choice, but I'd bet
that there will be other folks that would be only too happy to focus on the
hoi pilloy. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoi_polloi>)

~~~
mladenkovacevic
Understood. Makes sense.

It almost seems like they are preparing YouTube for some TV displacement role
they hope it will play in the future. It's not just funny cat videos anymore..
you can watch live concerts, rent movies, watch lectures or even broadcast
your own content live via hangouts. I'm not sure where the real name
initiative fits into here, though.

------
drucken
This change has been a positive development for me.

It made me realise that in all my many online identities, 51 at last count, I
use my real name in exactly one online service provider (excluding banks) - a
non-Google email service for "In Real Life" communication.

Just now, I changed this service profile to safeguard against the consequences
of future copycat Google+ -like forced changes.

Thanks for the heads-up, HN'ers!

------
deepGem
And they are doing it elegantly. I don't even remember how I turned on the
real identity feature. It was that seamless.

------
fluxon
WTF, people, just turn on Comment Moderation. This should be on by default,
instead of requiring "real" (har) names.

------
mmuro
It'd be nice if I could change what my "display name" is anyways, whether you
use Google+ or not (which I don't).

------
Spooky23
At least we know that nothing will make Youtube comments worse than they are
right now.

------
leke
I opened a new google account recently and when I tried youtube, I didn't even
see the option to use my account name, my 'real name' from my email had
already been chosen.

------
kmfrk
If push comes to shove, is there a tool out there to export the links and
titles of my favourite videos?

------
k3n
Fuck G+.

------
gms
This is a real shame. The comedy that is YouTube comments will be greatly
diminished.

