Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit" • Hacker News Board

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#51

Post by 0x12 » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:20 AM UTC

mindstab wrote: post #7

Everyone is also missing the bigger point that Google's idea of a valid real name is incredibly north american and anglo centric. There are plenty of cases of people using their real names, be in European, or African or what ever and google still kicking them off. Google's policies do not work, and are verging on racist. I know some people who would be better off using a fake anglo name than their real name to keep u…

A golden oldie from Patrick:

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b...

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#52

Post by 0x12 » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:21 AM UTC

kb101 wrote: post #25

Wow, what a blast of fresh air, reading this. I miss the old Internet, when Aunt Sally still couldn't figure it out and certainly would be horrified to find her birthday party photos posted on it, much less would she even conceive of going and posting them herself under her real name . Why does online marketing have to be built around maintenance of a database of people's Real Identities® ? If it's a page full of com…

> broadcasting the mundane minutiae of everyday existence to all your "friends".

Broadcasting it is one thing, recording it all is quite another.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#53

Post by blantonl » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:22 AM UTC

mcantelon wrote: post #47

blantonl wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why on earth would you want to remain anonymous on social platforms as an entrepreneur? Frankly, most of your businesses' success rides on who is running the show, and investors and customers want to know about who is running the show. Even if you don't want a social media profile, that is OK. But to insist on an anonymous one? Why? Seriously, for an entrepreneur, what is the motivation for having an anonymous social…

Wanting support for pseudonymity doesn't mean you're always using it. I can see someone using a non-anon account by day, anon during off-time.

I still pose the question "why?" In social media, the reason you created your account is to socialize. I don't understand why in the context of developing and managing a business, one needs an anonymous profile.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#54

Post by brc » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:23 AM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #8

I've been using Google pretty regularly for the past 11 years, and have had a gmail account since soon after it was announced. However with the release of Plus and the revelation of their policies on "real names", I've come to realize that I no longer trust google. Gmail accounts can be effectively anonymous. Yet plus accounts cannot be? Google does not need anyone's real name in order to track and advertise to them.…

I'm right with you on this one. I personally think the old 'don't be evil' motto is looking very tatty these days. That was always going to happen, I guess, but sometimes I find it very hard to find a difference between activities of companies Google used to speak out against, and modern Google.

Google used to be the thing when it was a bare bones, super fast and accurate search engine. Nowadays trying to find an organic search result is getting very early-yahoo like. Just take an objective look at the search results for an even mildly-popular term and you'll find it buried under layers of ads and Google verticals like YouTube and others.

I'm envious of some of my friends who just skipped the entire social networking thing. They are gloriously offline if you try and find them. I got into social networking while working at a social networking startup, and now I don't really get much value from it anymore. But all my 'stuff' is out there, so closing the accounts now is somewhat superfluous and pointless. I think Twitter is about the only thing to use - you get to communicate but you really do get to control how much people get to know about you.

As for the comments about needing to be 'out there' as an entrepreneur - I've spent a token amount of SEO effort to get myself on front page search engine results - if people want to find me, they will. But the endless linked-in requests from people you've spoken too once via email - it's all getting very tedious.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#55

Post by mcantelon » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:27 AM UTC

blantonl wrote: post #53

mcantelon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanting support for pseudonymity doesn't mean you're always using it. I can see someone using a non-anon account by day, anon during off-time.

I still pose the question "why?" In social media, the reason you created your account is to socialize. I don't understand why in the context of developing and managing a business, one needs an anonymous profile.

Because you don't want your opinions and tastes unrelated to your business to be associate with your business.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#56

Post by kb101 » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:31 AM UTC

Tobu wrote: post #37

kb101 wrote: post #25

Wow, what a blast of fresh air, reading this. I miss the old Internet, when Aunt Sally still couldn't figure it out and certainly would be horrified to find her birthday party photos posted on it, much less would she even conceive of going and posting them herself under her real name . Why does online marketing have to be built around maintenance of a database of people's Real Identities® ? If it's a page full of com…

Unfortunately they are going against the famously unethical and privacy-eroding facebook, which has a real-names policy and the bans to show for it (also, NSA alumni on the board). And besides “the competitor already does it”, here is what Google's reasoning may be: Requiring your real name makes it easier for people you know in real life to find you. Interactions with people who know you in real life will keep pulli…

For what the future holds, we need look no further than the über-Netizens of the world, the South Koreans. If you want to get on Cyworld (30% of the population, 90% of the 20somethings according to Crunchbase), you send in a copy of your national ID card, your home address, phone, etc. and wait to be approved for an account, after which you may post on the site.

I still think there is a hugely underserved market in the social space, comprised of people like me, who don't want an extension of their real life identity to follow them around online. Hacker News is full of people I don't know, but interactions with all these people I don't know are plenty effective at pulling me back into the site.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#57

Post by mladenkovacevic » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:34 AM UTC

blantonl wrote: post #53

mcantelon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanting support for pseudonymity doesn't mean you're always using it. I can see someone using a non-anon account by day, anon during off-time.

I still pose the question "why?" In social media, the reason you created your account is to socialize. I don't understand why in the context of developing and managing a business, one needs an anonymous profile.

Because an entrepreneur should also have the ability to be an activist.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#58

Post by rryan » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:34 AM UTC

msbarnett wrote: post #42

methodin wrote: post #28

Great. Another opinionated post with no substance that reaches number one. What is this garbage? It's not like this person even has any first-hand knowledge of anything with regards to the cited excerpt. Why would anyone upvote such a short, speculative rant?

Because: 1) The short, speculative rant is well-reasoned. If you disagree with his reasoning that Google saying it will take "months" to implement pseudonyms implies that their solution is significantly more complicated than simply "stop deleting accounts with names we don't like", it would be conducive to discussion if you explained your reasoning. 2) This short, speculative, well-reasoned rant is written by JWZ, wh…

I'm afraid I'm spitting into the wind here, but..

Let's say there is a right way and a wrong way to do pseudonyms (empirical evidence: YouTube, HN).

You think Google would haphazardly enable them as JWZ proposes without making damn sure they had the best chances of it turning out the right way rather than the wrong way?

Larry Page thinks without Google+, Google is doomed in 10 years (I believe he said that in an interview recently). I think JWZ is vastly oversimplifying the careful testing that Vic and co. are putting into this. If you believed the company's livelihood depended on it, wouldn't you?

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#59

Post by methodin » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:37 AM UTC

Uhhrrr wrote: post #41

methodin wrote: post #28

Great. Another opinionated post with no substance that reaches number one. What is this garbage? It's not like this person even has any first-hand knowledge of anything with regards to the cited excerpt. Why would anyone upvote such a short, speculative rant?

Allowing pseudonyms is not just technically easy, it's the default. Also, it's no secret that Google uses your data to advertise to you (it is so far from secret as to be their business model), and that various governments at the least would like very much to have access to user data. The piece is almost completely speculation-free. If you think the post's brevity was a shortcoming, though, read this, which was linke…

This piece is the opposite of speculation free. Every single sentence is an opinion and speculation.

Re: Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

#60

Post by methodin » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:39 AM UTC

msbarnett wrote: post #42

methodin wrote: post #28

Great. Another opinionated post with no substance that reaches number one. What is this garbage? It's not like this person even has any first-hand knowledge of anything with regards to the cited excerpt. Why would anyone upvote such a short, speculative rant?

Because: 1) The short, speculative rant is well-reasoned. If you disagree with his reasoning that Google saying it will take "months" to implement pseudonyms implies that their solution is significantly more complicated than simply "stop deleting accounts with names we don't like", it would be conducive to discussion if you explained your reasoning. 2) This short, speculative, well-reasoned rant is written by JWZ, wh…

How do you possibly get well-reasoned from this? He makes a bunch of assumptions followed by a deduction based on those assumptions. I can make any assumption I want then deduce a final statement from it - that does not make it well-reasoned.

Oh yeah, I forgot this was HN where infamy weighs higher than substantive posts. Just because someone is usually reliable doesn't mean you take their word without question.