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

131–140 of 175 posts

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

#131

Post by vidarh »

mayanksinghal wrote: post #125
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 am surprized that this post is still on the top!] Here are my comments: > I'm removing myself from google. I'm setting up mail services elsewhere, I'm migrating my Google Apps and App Engine accounts to other services. I've stopped using Plus, and as I move things elsewhere I'm deleting them from google. Gmail Accounts are still 'anonymous' and largely disconnected from plus accounts. If a person is really bothere…

> (A) User behaviour is better and more dignified when real identities are used

But they are not enforcing real identities, but real sounding names, which is the worst of both worlds: It makes people more likely to think they are dealing with real names, while it is trivial for those who want to use pseudonyms to continue doing so if their purpose is to be trolls.

> Which is still fine for most people.

That it's fine for "most people" still means it will effectively silence a lot of people on Google+ that a lot of other people would like to be able to communicate with.

It massively reduces the value of the service for me, and others.

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

#132

Post by vidarh »

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.

Most of us don't walk around with a big sign around our neck with our full name when we socialize. Most of us don't even do that during work even with customer facing jobs, and plenty of companies that do require name tags allow pseudonyms.

We socialize without tieing things to our full name all the time. Why should online be different?

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

#133

Post by methodin »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #84
brc wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 org…

You may (or may not) be surprised but when I was there a lot of energy was spent by the rank and file on not being evil. The challenge is of course in 'winning' and decades of research on this shows that people who really want to win will be a bit evil if they can get away with it and win at the same time. So what Google has is a competitive culture (for a long time you couldn't get a raise without getting a promotio…

What exactly do you expect them to do? They are not a charity or a non-profit. They either have to stay competitive or die. I hardly call that evil .

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

#134

Post by vidarh »

ethank wrote: post #95
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…

I think the biggest problem for me is the assumption that there needs to exist a mapping between First/Last name and identity. Its the abutment of two constructs made arbitrary by the media (names and physical self), with the assumption that what emerges is more "real" and thus more consequential to the agent driving it. It's complete bullshit and flies in the face of history, not just what is "right."

To take an example from "history". Ask a random person on the street who Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili, and most of them will be completely clueless. Ask them who Stalin was, and they'll at least have a rough idea...

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

#135

Post by mayanksinghal »

vidarh wrote: post #131
mayanksinghal wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[I am surprized that this post is still on the top!] Here are my comments: > I'm removing myself from google. I'm setting up mail services elsewhere, I'm migrating my Google Apps and App Engine accounts to other services. I've stopped using Plus, and as I move things elsewhere I'm deleting them from google. Gmail Accounts are still 'anonymous' and largely disconnected from plus accounts. If a person is really bothere…

> (A) User behaviour is better and more dignified when real identities are used But they are not enforcing real identities, but real sounding names , which is the worst of both worlds: It makes people more likely to think they are dealing with real names, while it is trivial for those who want to use pseudonyms to continue doing so if their purpose is to be trolls. > Which is still fine for most people. That it's fin…

Both the points you are making, makes Google a bad marketing/strategy firm but not evil: the sentiment I was replying to. And this is being done after they have agreed to provide support for pseudonyms! It may not be their first priority - or may require significant changes in the way data is being handled to allow for security of the real identity. But the OP assumed that this is because of a conspiracy between the firm, ISPs and Government, and that the company is not to be trusted. I fail to understand how does this results in the conclusion that the company is not trustworthy or moral. It can be derived that company is rigid, slow, lazy and even a poor investment. Failing to provide a feature(and yes it's a feature not a right - the service is no way mandatory) that might affect a significant (in terms of their reach and not numbers) consumer base makes them a bad service provider - not evil genius.

Additionally, this is not the worst of both worlds. Worst of both worlds would be to selectively allow pseudonyms to some and while others have to use real identity. That not only makes the service partial, but skewed towards anarchy (using it for the lack of a replacement).

Given a choice between pseudonyms and real identities - the choice is based majorly on the type of culture the networks supports. For example: I tend to use the same username nearly everywhere - unfortunately I can't comment on youtube; the culture is very troll-y and I would not like to be associated at all. On the other hand, Buzz was quite successful in my university - majorly because it was associated with sort-of-a-real identity (Everyone was using clean & real names) which resulted in much saner, smarter interaction that was fun to be a part of. Facebook seems to have achieved the same though real sounding names which is the reason many blogs use their comment system.

[edit: typos]

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

#136

Post by jarek »

sudonim wrote: post #69
ww520 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Google will verify the identity to prevent false claim of an identity, right? Without verification, what good is "Real Name"?

What techniques can they use to truly verify identity? When I set up my G+ account, they didn't ask for a credit card, or a copy of my drivers license. I'm pretty sure I could have put in Peter Parker if I wanted.

Just a note that you can easily get a credit card issued for Peter Parker.

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

#137

Post by rst »

haberman wrote: post #98
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.…

> But requiring a real name, tells me that google doesn't just want to track me to advertise to me. They want to correlate my online activities with my offline identity. Do you then conclude the same thing about Facebook, which has had a "real names" policy since basically forever? "Facebook has always been based on a real-name culture. We think this leads to greater accountability and a safer and more trusted enviro…

Facebook gets a pass in part because they've been a lot less aggressive in enforcing the policy. They'll shut down a pseudonymous account when someone brings it to their attention (most notoriously, the Chinese writer who was going on Facebook by his longtime pen name, Michael Anti), but they don't go searching them out.

The upshot is that pseudonyms used mainly within circles of friends can exist without getting hassled --- to the point that this commenter on an earlier jwz post, with numerous pseudonymous friends, refused to believe that Facebook even had a "real names" policy at all:

http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/08/nym-wars/#comment-93494

(The largest such circle I'm aware of involves dozens of kids with pseudonymous Facebook accounts at a local middle school; I heard about this from a parent, who in turn is aware of it because their kid sometimes forgets to log out. So much for Zuckerberg's line about pseudonymity being a marginal concern of old fogies.)

They certainly could be more aggressive in tying Facebook accounts to real people, for instance, by requiring everyone to "verify" with a credit card or mobile number after a certain period of time. But they don't.

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

#138

Post by [deleted] »

haberman wrote: post #98
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.…

> But requiring a real name, tells me that google doesn't just want to track me to advertise to me. They want to correlate my online activities with my offline identity. Do you then conclude the same thing about Facebook, which has had a "real names" policy since basically forever? "Facebook has always been based on a real-name culture. We think this leads to greater accountability and a safer and more trusted enviro…

[deleted]

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

#139

Post by tsycho »

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 have been considering this recently as well, and exploring the alternatives...

* Search - DDG is good enough most of the time

* Google+ - I can live without this, no biggie

* Reader - I love it, but it's not critical. Any suggestions for alternatives?

* Gmail - This is a big one. I don't want to use Hotmail/Yahoo either because that is just jumping from one frying pan to another. So anyone.....are you willing to build a DDG for Gmail? I am willing to pay for it as well. But I need a large inbox (5GB+), speed, reliability, great spam protection, priority inbox, don't sell my data, no personalized ads....and my money is yours :) I might even be willing to work with you on this, just don't have the time/inclination to do this alone.

* Google apps for business - at the moment, I just use the email feature of this extensively, so once again, the Gmail alternative can work here.

* Google analytics - there are pretty good competitors out there, though not necessarily free (but that's okay)

So in my opinion, apart from email, I think it's possible to move off Google's services without disrupting your life.

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

#140

Post by Kototama »

tsycho wrote: post #139
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 have been considering this recently as well, and exploring the alternatives... * Search - DDG is good enough most of the time * Google+ - I can live without this, no biggie * Reader - I love it, but it's not critical. Any suggestions for alternatives? * Gmail - This is a big one. I don't want to use Hotmail/Yahoo either because that is just jumping from one frying pan to another. So anyone.....are you willing to bu…

You could try Netvibes, they have a news reader which was good enough for me to make the switch.

You can have two different views. Check the second and third screenshots of this page: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/netvibes-wasabi-a-blow-your-soc...

Post reply on HN