"He also says they are working on ways to handle pseudonyms, but that will be a while before the team can turn on those features"
I don't understand. Wouldn't the implementation of this "feature" just boil down to not deleting or disabling people's accounts when they sign up with a pseudonym?
I just don't see why this would take so much effort to do. I really don't see why implementing this particular feature would take all of the effort and energy that they seem to be indicating.
Google wants data. That's the main benefit that they get out of having a social network, is getting access to a new data source with a different type of data than what they currently have. They want your real name so they can aggregate this data with other data sources, including external ones (think CRM).
When they say they want to handle pseudonyms, they don't mean letting you put a pseudonym into your name field. They still want your real name. What they mean is, the system will require your real name but let you display one (or more!) pseudonyms. In fact, advanced pseudonym management is probably on their roadmap. By letting you display different aliases to different users or circles, Google will be able to associate your various online identities.
Google is more sophisticated than that. They've been tracking your identity in searches for years. They know what you search for, what you read and what you buy. That's all the identity they need for their ad business. Name? Meh.
You nailed it. While promises are made, accounts get suspended (we read about the Firefox founder here, I don't quite dare to mention myself in that company..).
IF there'll be changes to the policy (and i hope that's the case), why would you alienate people today by suspending them for offenses (..) that might be okay tomorrow?
The anonymity goes both ways: people might avoid bullying, but they can also avoid accountability for bullying. Also, spam is probably a big deal already. And, since there are already hundreds of "Darth Vader" accounts, it doesn't seem like their automatic defenses are very effective.
people might avoid bullying, but they can also avoid accountability for bullying
This argument is nonsensical unless there is an actual, consequential penalty for violating the "real names" policy. (Which would, of course, be even more of a monumental disaster.)
Suppose you are a troll or a sockpuppet or a spammer and you want to screw around on a Google website. Well, the fact that you're not allowed to call yourself "LadyAda" or "Lady Gaga" or, for that matter, "mechanical_fish" is no problem. You can just call yourself "John Smith". Or "Steven P. Jobs" or "George W. Bush", for that matter. It's not hard to fake a real name. And there's no meaningful penalty for doing so, even if you get caught. Most likely Google will just delete your account. No big loss for a troll. New accounts are just a click away.
Now, if you are LadyAda or Lady Gaga or mechanical_fish, Google's policy is a problem, because you've spent a certain amount of time building up your pseudonym. It has a history and you're identified with it and you've bought the domain names and given the press interviews and written years worth of blogs and opened some businesses and built up a ten-million-strong international fan club who comes to all your concerts. Gaga doesn't want to sign up as "John Smith" or anything else, because it will literally cost her money not to sign up with her chosen name, "Lady Gaga".
This argument is nonsensical unless there is an actual, consequential penalty for violating the "real names" policy.
It need not be administered by Google. If Ivan Identity is being publicly belligerent, then social opprobrium is the likely result. Use of his real identity gives him an incentive to uphold his own reputation. This does not guarantee that he will respond to such an incentive, but does make it easier for people to respond to his misbehavior when he acts badly.
I'm entirely familiar with the value of a pseudonym, having used this one for well over a decade now. But if you want to leverage it as a brand, then do so on commercial terms, is my feeling.
"He also says they are working on ways to handle pseudonyms, but that will be a while before the team can turn on those features"
I don't understand. Wouldn't the implementation of this "feature" just boil down to not deleting or disabling people's accounts when they sign up with a pseudonym?
I just don't see why this would take so much effort to do. I really don't see why implementing this particular feature would take all of the effort and energy that they seem to be indicating.