Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 119 posts

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#51

Post by potatolicious »

gaius wrote: post #9
patio11 wrote: post #2

This title is 5 words longer than it could be, because people don't have real names. Apologies in advance for the self-citation: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b... My name+ is confusing gibberish where I live. It is highly likely likely that when I have children, they will go through life having multiple sets of gibberish so that they can pick the non-gibberish option when asked "What is…

Well, I know people who IRL insist on being called by made-up names, mostly goths, you know, something like Darkraven Bloodmisery. Whatever they called themselves in Livejournal. Very few of them follow through tho' and fill in a deed poll form! For me that's the acid test: whatever it says on your passport is your real name. And government IT - the least efficient kind! - has managed to solve this. Why can't the mig…

> "And government IT - the least efficient kind! - has managed to solve this. Why can't the mighty Google?"

Because government has really one use for your name: the proper identification of a person for the purposes of the provision and execution of government responsibilities and services.

Google has a larger mandate, one where enforcing "official passport names" is not only inconvenient, but would also drive away adoption.

Not to mention, I have an English name, and a Chinese name. Only one of these appears on my passport, but depending on who I am interacting with I would very much like to (justifiably so) use my "unofficial" name. What is wrong with this? This is actually somewhat annoying for Facebook - I have relatively in Asia who don't speak English at all, and I'd like for them to be able to find me on FB... but there is only one canonical name on an account.

Google is developing a social system - a social system by the very nature of human identity cannot just have "passport names".

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#52

Post by dredmorbius »

ilkandi wrote: post #44

As other posters have noted, many Chinese have the Chinese-lettered name eg "strong army", the pinyin version and if they move to a Western country they pick their own English name like "John" or something. In writing, Choi/Choy (and I think Chua and Chow) are the same. I will skip the philosophical discussion of what reality is to the viewer. I don't understand the linking to a real name. Give everyone a private num…

Why make it a unique number?

As Google+ has realized with circles, we have different associations we make in life.

Some of those are widely separate identities.

I see no reason why any identity I have on one site should be associated with one I have on another, if I deem that it not be.

For some purposes (voting, financial transactions, long-lived financial accounts such as SSI or a life insurance policy), you'd want to tie one identity to another. Beyond that, it's simply a control and surveillance front.

Even in the cases I've mentioned, weak authentication has long been the rule. Strong authentication in voting is often tied to poll taxes and other means of restricting the electorate. Public corporations (literally "anonymous societies" in French) are highly psuedonymous. Cash (and digital equivalents) are untraceable. And numbered bank accounts are the stuff of legend in both finance and noir literature.

Identity is a very, very deep, and frought, question. Curiously, G+ is turning into quite the discussion of it, from circles to gender to names to multiple identities.

One of the most classic instances of pseudonymity is among revolutionaries. It played a large role in the American Revolution, particularly among pamphleteers (the 18th century analog of bloggers): http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/A_Climate_of...

What of Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, George Eliot, George Sand, Ellery Queen, Frank Dixon, and Carolyn Keene?

A particular usage is among revolutionaries: Lenin, Stalin, Golda Neir, Moshe Dayan, Subcomandante Marcos, Carlos the Jackal.

Or stage names: Madonna, Lady Gaga, Huey Louis, John Wayne, Marilyn Monroe, Bono, Cat Stevens, Yusuf Islam.

You're making an extraordinary proposal. Support your position.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#53

Post by FaceKicker »

MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #24
FaceKicker wrote: post #11

As much as I understand the privacy concerns etc., am I the only one who REALLY hates being on Facebook and seeing a fake name with all sorts of odd punctuation and random capitalization in a list that consists otherwise of clean "Firstname Lastname"s? Even seeing "Equality" as someone's middle name bothers me to an extent. Maybe I have OCD, but I'm personally glad I don't have to see this on Google+ for now (but I w…

Currently on my Facebook friends list: * A MTF transsexual who prefers going by a feminine spelling of her name * A Vietnamese girl who prefers to go by an adopted American name * A Jewish woman who prefers to spell her name in Hebrew, and whose legal name contains six names For all the things Facebook gets wrong, the name input is really not one of them, compared to Google+. People have known me as MAD for over a de…

I'd be fine with any of the examples you gave, actually. I think as long as they "kinda seem" like they could be real names and are properly capitalized, my craving for consistency is satisfied.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#54

Post by spc476 »

FaceKicker wrote: post #11

As much as I understand the privacy concerns etc., am I the only one who REALLY hates being on Facebook and seeing a fake name with all sorts of odd punctuation and random capitalization in a list that consists otherwise of clean "Firstname Lastname"s? Even seeing "Equality" as someone's middle name bothers me to an extent. Maybe I have OCD, but I'm personally glad I don't have to see this on Google+ for now (but I w…

I knew a guy in college that went by the name of "Rebel". "Rebel One" if you were an instructor. His real name, and I am not making this up, is "The Rebellious One" and yes, he changed his name to that. I'm not expecting to see him on Google+ anytime soon.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#55

Post by whatusername »

patio11 wrote: post #14
gaius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I know people who IRL insist on being called by made-up names, mostly goths, you know, something like Darkraven Bloodmisery. Whatever they called themselves in Livejournal. Very few of them follow through tho' and fill in a deed poll form! For me that's the acid test: whatever it says on your passport is your real name. And government IT - the least efficient kind! - has managed to solve this. Why can't the mig…

And government IT - the least efficient kind! - has managed to solve this. Governments essentially avoid this problem, and they have for generations, because they realized that names are intractably hard. This is why they give people numbers instead. Here's my name written in my passport (US): "MC KENZIE PATRICK JOHNATHAN" The Passport Control Center is the only organization which thinks I have a space in my name. If…

For a quick hint -- to attempt to establish the gender of a name from another culture -- Image Search is fantastic. I'm one of these white folk with no idea whether Hideyuki is generally a male or a female name -- but a Image Search results page full of male faces is pretty conclusive.

General caveats apply about edge cases (and Gender is specifically complex issue that maybe this advice is useless)

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#56

Post by spc476 »

SeoxyS wrote: post #15

For the most part, I think that Google's crackdown on pseudonyms and anonymity is actually a good thing. In most cases, anonymity online brings out the worst of us—just look at 4chan, littered with mobs of minions proliferating senseless hacking and child pornography[1]. You need but look at the news lately to see the damages of unchecked anonymity: "LulzSec this," "Anonymous that" and so on. Enforcing real names is…

There is a difference between anonymous and not claiming responsibility for what one says, and being anonymous and claiming responsibility for what one says. 4chan is an example of the former, while the Federalist Papers are an example of the later.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#57

Post by MostAwesomeDude »

FaceKicker wrote: post #53
MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently on my Facebook friends list: * A MTF transsexual who prefers going by a feminine spelling of her name * A Vietnamese girl who prefers to go by an adopted American name * A Jewish woman who prefers to spell her name in Hebrew, and whose legal name contains six names For all the things Facebook gets wrong, the name input is really not one of them, compared to Google+. People have known me as MAD for over a de…

I'd be fine with any of the examples you gave, actually. I think as long as they "kinda seem" like they could be real names and are properly capitalized, my craving for consistency is satisfied.

They are real names. Your idea of what constitutes genuine nomenclature is distorted and narrowed.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#58

Post by teyc »

patio11 wrote: post #2

This title is 5 words longer than it could be, because people don't have real names. Apologies in advance for the self-citation: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b... My name+ is confusing gibberish where I live. It is highly likely likely that when I have children, they will go through life having multiple sets of gibberish so that they can pick the non-gibberish option when asked "What is…

FB bans my real name because one of it is deemed offensive.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#59

Post by FaceKicker »

MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #57
FaceKicker wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be fine with any of the examples you gave, actually. I think as long as they "kinda seem" like they could be real names and are properly capitalized, my craving for consistency is satisfied.

They are real names. Your idea of what constitutes genuine nomenclature is distorted and narrowed.

I wasn't saying they weren't real names (though we'd need to define what "real name" means to actually decide that). I was just saying that in order to fit into my personal model of "consistency" they only need to seem like they are real names.

Secondly, as I sort of hinted at in my first post, I acknowledge that it wouldn't really make much sense to design a policy around my personal visual preferences, which I realize are a bit culturally exclusive. Nonetheless, I can't help but be annoyed by some of the names I see on Facebook.

Post reply on HN