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

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

#141

Post by luckydude » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:49 PM UTC

chubot wrote: post #107

luckydude wrote: post #97

I was the 4th guy at Google and back then they were not evil (duh). I left to do my own thing but I email Larry and Sergey from time to time and so far they have been pretty cool about listening to me (they have a 747 or whatever it is, I have a Dodge Sprinter, sort of establishes the pecking order, I'm way way down on the list, so the fact that they sometimes listen is cool) I think that Google wants to not be evil…

Are you one of the guys who worked with them at Stanford, or after the company started? What did you work on and how did you find them? (just curious)

I was with them in the garage.

They found me, I was fairly well known as a Linux perf guy at the time.

I worked on the beginnings of what became GFS.

I left pretty quickly, I really wanted to be doing my own thing.

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

#142

Post by rohern » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:54 PM UTC

magicalist wrote: post #109

rednaught wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust is ever-changing. For instance, if you trust sane thoughts or actions from an entity only to one day perceive that the same source creates not so-sane thoughts or actions, do you lose trust in that entity? Perspective is an interesting thing just as is your pseudonym here.

My point is perhaps narrower than you are seeing. It was not that trust levels don't change, or advocating for some level of trust. Just that his conclusions do not follow from the evidence presented, to the point where the connection borders on the irrational (to me). I don't think my username here is particularly interesting, just a variation on a typical one that was already taken.

I agree entirely with magicalist. I've tried to get my head around the stink about real names on Google+ since it first went crashing through the internet, but it seems like people shouting about teacups being too small.

The point of Google+ seems to be to do networking with your friends and co-workers. Why would one want to be anonymous in this environment? You're going to anonymously share pictures of yourself? I do not get it. If it's a pseudonym that you just happen to really like, then okay -- maybe you've kept it since your days on AIM and are really fond of it, after all things like JHR1987ILOVETHEBEATLES are pretty cool -- but other than that what is the point of this?

It seems like wanting the right to carry a gun in space. It's not going to do you any good, so why are you fighting about it?

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

#143

Post by rohern » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:58 PM UTC

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…

At first blush, targeted advertising seems scary. Upon a second look, who cares? This isn't the Gestapo, they're trying to sell you hamburgers. So what if they know that you like Orson Scott Card? I like that Amazon occasionally introduces me to a book I will enjoy, that's a benefit to me. I only look at ads for ~.3% of the time I'm on a website anyway, so what difference does it make to me if they're more to my taste?

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

#144

Post by nooneelse » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 2:59 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #134

ethank wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Totally off topic, maybe. Examples like yours are used, I've noticed, a great deal in the history lessons of James Burke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burke_%28science_historia...). He regularly describes what someone did, using an uncommonly-known name. Then uses the name everyone knows as a fun little reveal at the end of section.

Why not totally off-topic... Well, he also seems to use it so that he can focus on the person's actions in the descriptive context of the person's time/inventions which he has been using up to that point. See, if he brought in the well-known name early, then he well effectively be changing the subject from what he was talking about to what people know about the famous person. And that harms his attempt to show a new angle on the well-known person. This is Somewhat similar to a pseudonym allowing an position/argument to float free from the particular individual stating it, and thus be judged on its own merits.

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

#145

Post by rednaught » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 3:44 PM UTC

rohern wrote: post #142

magicalist wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is perhaps narrower than you are seeing. It was not that trust levels don't change, or advocating for some level of trust. Just that his conclusions do not follow from the evidence presented, to the point where the connection borders on the irrational (to me). I don't think my username here is particularly interesting, just a variation on a typical one that was already taken.

I agree entirely with magicalist. I've tried to get my head around the stink about real names on Google+ since it first went crashing through the internet, but it seems like people shouting about teacups being too small. The point of Google+ seems to be to do networking with your friends and co-workers. Why would one want to be anonymous in this environment? You're going to anonymously share pictures of yourself? I d…

Substitute space with "Google space", add in Google becoming an online/offline identity provider without the same access(or oversight) as your local County Clerk of records, add in shareholder value and the the innocent concerns of networking with friends and co-workers(oh, Google is considerate enough to add companies and other entities to the mix to increase the fun party factor because nothing is free right?) becomes apparent.

Yah, nothing could go wrong. Joe user's medical practice's patients, his frat buddies, the parents of his children's soccer league, his NRA buddies and the local chapter of Curious Men all are interested in the exact same photo of Joe? As I said, perspective is interesting. Lack of understanding is less interesting.

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

#146

Post by ajross » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 3:59 PM UTC

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…

Just host your own mail. You're never going to get those requirements met by a service. The incentives don't match. Spamassassin can't match gmail, but even for my address (in use for 15 years!) it's reasonable: maybe 6-10 false negatives per day.

Whether moving off google specifically is really that useful, I'm mixed. No other cloud providers have a better record certainly. I guess I don't see the logic, except as a knee-jerk "enemy of the week" thing (mild troll: you're an iPhone user, right?). Getting your data out of the cloud in general makes more sense to me, but is a lot more difficult.

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

#147

Post by waqf » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 4:09 PM UTC

Leynos wrote: post #111

esrauch wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 con…

Unfortunately G+ circles are not a good fit for the use case you describe, because whether you are permitted to see a post (which certainly should be at the author's discretion) is different from whether you are interested enough to see it in your stream (which should be at yours, but G+ can't handle that).

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

#148

Post by Symmetry » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 4:15 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #146

tsycho wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just host your own mail. You're never going to get those requirements met by a service. The incentives don't match. Spamassassin can't match gmail, but even for my address (in use for 15 years!) it's reasonable: maybe 6-10 false negatives per day. Whether moving off google specifically is really that useful, I'm mixed. No other cloud providers have a better record certainly. I guess I don't see the logic, except as a…

Spam filtering is just one from a long list of features that Gmail has that I don't know of any other email service providing, though.

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

#149

Post by gurkendoktor » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 4:27 PM UTC

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…

I have many, many friends with obviously fake names on FB and nobody ever got into trouble. With terms & conditions usually being dozens of pages that nobody ever reads, I don't think you can blame people for not caring about FB's official position as long as it practically allows anonymity.

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

#150

Post by ajross » Thu, Oct 20, 2011, 4:42 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #148

ajross wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just host your own mail. You're never going to get those requirements met by a service. The incentives don't match. Spamassassin can't match gmail, but even for my address (in use for 15 years!) it's reasonable: maybe 6-10 false negatives per day. Whether moving off google specifically is really that useful, I'm mixed. No other cloud providers have a better record certainly. I guess I don't see the logic, except as a…

Spam filtering is just one from a long list of features that Gmail has that I don't know of any other email service providing, though.

Sure. But playing the "checklist feature" game can lock you into any platform you want to argue about. I have stuff in my private hosting that I can't get from gmail too (procmail triggers and filtering, I can deliver mail from my business address through the corporate SMTP servers over a VPN, ...).

The question is whether productive use of email can be done without gmail (or more broadly cloud providers). It can, and it's not difficult. And if one really cares about privacy and archival concerns (and not just sticking it to Google) it's something one should investigate.