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

Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit"

jwz.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

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

#111

Post by Leynos »

esrauch wrote: post #43
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.…

> They want to correlate my online activities with my offline identity. It seems to me that the only legitimate use of circles is with respect to people you are sharing with that you know in real life. If you want to talk to total strangers, then you want to be pseudonymous but you also have almost no reason to not post publicly. That's fine; there is twitter, tumblr, even HN fit that model. All pseudonymous posts, a…

>It seems to me that the only legitimate use of circles is with respect to people you are sharing with that you know in real life. If you want to talk to total strangers, then you want to be pseudonymous but you also have almost no reason to not post publicly.

The typical usecase for circles I've seen (aside from the obvious of protecting privacy) is when someone has multiple interests, not all of which any given contact will find interesting. For example, a person might have a foodies circle, a roleplaying circle, an anime circle, etc.

And many of the people who have circled me in this way I do not know IRL.

(Although my own take on this is that this is probably not an optimal use of circles, it has none the less sprung up as a fairly common application.)

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

#112

Post by idspispopd »

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.…

For a long time I thought that google's services were "free", a nice exchange for being advertised to in response to searches.

However now they're scrambling to win the emerging market of following consumers around the web and they're pulling all the strings they have to get a competitive advantage.

It's now so ridiculous that we recommend web clients not to use Google Analytics - as it's providing google the ability to assess visitors to our client's site, only for the 'highest bidder'(namely a bigger competitor) to be able to advertise to them in response, squashing the smaller businesses who can't afford to drop 200k on advertising.

It lets whoever has the most money to pour into google's coffers effectively trample their competitors. Often we're using Google Analytics because our client isn't able to afford much to begin with.

To me, it's unsurprisingly that google dropped their "don't be evil" motto a few years back. This product lets people mark themselves as the little guy so the cashed up big-guns can stomp them out before they become a threat.

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

#113

Post by alextingle »

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…

Their absolute requirement for me to give them my phone number is why I don't Google+.

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

#114

Post by JoshTriplett »

thwest wrote: post #24
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.…

What are the best alternatives for email?

Personally, I use and recommend Gandi (https://www.gandi.net/). If you purchase a domain name from them ($15/year or less), you can use their email with your domain. You can either use a standard mail client with their SMTP and IMAP servers, or you can use their webmail interface (roundcube). Plus, you get an email at your own domain, and you can thus easily switch email providers without changing your email address.

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

#115

Post by j_col »

idspispopd wrote: post #112
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.…

For a long time I thought that google's services were "free", a nice exchange for being advertised to in response to searches. However now they're scrambling to win the emerging market of following consumers around the web and they're pulling all the strings they have to get a competitive advantage. It's now so ridiculous that we recommend web clients not to use Google Analytics - as it's providing google the ability…

It's interesting what you say about Google Analytics, I've always suspected that but then dismissed it as my personal paranoia. Is there any way to prove such a theory, or are there any studies into this available online?

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

#116

Post by DanBC »

jdietrich wrote: post #92

Hypothesis: Google data indicates that pseudonymous users make a net-negative contribution to the quality of an online community (c.f. The WELL). They want a real name not for any commercial reason, but to hold users accountable for their behaviour. Google's real names policy for G+ isn't part of some complex conspiracy, but in fact standard Google practice - following the data, even when the data contradicts what us…

> Is it evil to put the interests of the entire network above the interests of a small minority?

How many people have a $GIVEN_NAME $FAMILY_NAME (in that order, with a neat space)?

How many people have a real name that doesn't fit those neat boxes? Your "small minority" is pretty insulting.

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

#117

Post by DanBC »

kbanman wrote: post #110

How did this post get so popular? Google isn't doing any of this behind your back. If you don't want to share your identity with Google, don't use their services. Simple as that. It is no secret that Google is a corporation. The only thing that matters to a corporation is to make money. Google doesn't spend millions on improving their search engine and developing a fantastic social networking service because of some…

but what about people who do want to share their real identity with Google but who are banned from google?

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

#118

Post by [deleted] »

csmt wrote: post #100
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 agree with you nirvana. I have been using Google search for 12 years and Gmail for 7 years. But recently Google has been trying to do each and everything. Google+ tied with enormous Google adsense+display ads reach is scary. Google has recently started putting +1 button on their display ads. And may be soon they will put +1 button on text ads. And then any site you visit with Google ads, Google will know who you ar…

[deleted]

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

#119

Post by jxi »

natrius wrote: post #5

Solution: Don't use Google+ to speak out against your authoritarian government. "Fuck those guys" is a pretty strong response to people who've decided their product isn't for you.

I agree. Also, why is this kind of post even on the front page? There was just a short speculative paragraph ended by an expletive.

Google releases one product you don't like and people are "deserting" all their products. How childish can you get?

Post reply on HN