Dear Googles: G+/YouTube Anschluss – you've done outed me

Alternatively, why not think of it this way: If you disagree with what this person said in their post, ignore it and move on. Nobody's forcing anyone to read an opinion or complaint they disagree with. If you read it, you'll be reading that person's opinion, not your own. What's the point in bitching about someone's post when they aren't forcing you to read their complaint and when you can leave when you want to?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm aware of the subreddit drama you are referencing, but it didn't make a big splash in the communities I frequent - apart from mentioned SRS derailing a couple of legitimate discussions that in no way deserved to be characterized as misognystic.

Thanks for pointing out that security vulnerability -- blessedly, I didn't use current legal name/address info for the website (I do my best to be cagey about that stuff online -- that's similar to, but not identical to, my actual name), but I'll have to look into obscuring the WHOIS information further. Pisses me off to have to pay for privacy, when that information shouldn't be public for private individuals who own a domain.

And, yes, I really do value my privacy -- but, since my own knowledge of trackback information is limited (and Google Image Search is much more recent than the creation of my personal site), it's less that I don't value my privacy, and more that I failed to foresee that using the same profile photo (not even name/nym) on more than one site would create a security vulnerability.

I appreciate the heads-up, but, again, this only emphasizes the issues of Google (and the issue of requiring personal information to be visible on WHOIS to anyone other than government agencies) encroaching on personal privacy and the ability to compartmentalize profiles between different services.

I'm a different person on G+, Flickr, FB, LJ, etc. -- I tailor my posts to the interest groups that I share in various locations (and my perception of my own privacy -- I realize that a subpoena would break the security of a friends-locked post on LJ, but it's at least a relatively private space to share more personal information, whereas my profile on G+ has been more deliberately forward-facing, because I was interested in engaging with people outside my existing trust circle.

Putting my real name into YouTube actually was the problem that sparked my original post -- but it's symptomatic of a larger issue, the deliberate contraction of the ability to create persistent pseudonyms and personae that are consistent within the bounds of a single social network, but aren't necessarily easily trackable/connectible by a random stranger.

(I will say -- finding this out did decrease my sense of safety, since it's obvious that my intent to compartmentalize by using different persistent nyms, and building reputation under each nym, which can vary based on platform, was insufficient to protect a casual observer from landing on what COULD have been my actual name and address, had I not deliberately decided to risk the loss of my domain by putting in information that was designed to trap spammers -- i.e., if I got something addressed to that specific name, I knew that it was coming from someone who had looked up the WHOIS info.)

OP here -- I am absolutely in favor of persistent pseudonyms associated with a user-generated reputation system, as discussed here:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/102524008019896509925/posts/ivyA...

However, there are significant safety issues associated with requiring people to use their legal names for online discussions, and I think that it will seriously muzzle political dissent, social movements which don't currently enjoy mainstream support, gender and sexual minority group discussions, the creation of "safe spaces" (which, I realize, are something of an illusion, but still have value), and vigorous intellectual discourse.

I certainly wouldn't have been comfortable being as politically and socially outspoken as I am on G+ (a deliberately public-facing persona with a unique nym for that purpose), if I had been forced to use my full legal name for the purpose.

Given some of the hate and harassment that has been directed my way (and, honestly, I've gotten off light compared to many), I absolutely would not feel safe engaging in some of those discussions if my name, phone number, and location were easily accessible.

I know that it's difficult to completely compartmentalize between nyms and platform identities, but I think that the ability to choose which face is forward, appropriate to the social group that you're engaging with, is an important part of the human experience.

If you don't want your boss and your grandmother reading your opinions on politics, social issues, sexuality, etc., then a pseudonym is the obvious answer -- and I've seen any number of sites (LiveJournal is a particular favorite) implement granular controls on privacy, in order to establish nym identity and reputation, while still allowing users to speak to their chosen audience.

Can you ever be truly private? Probably not. But it's important to be able to have some form of shield from the casual observer, to have a name and identity that you choose, rather than having one chosen for you, which may reveal far more than you intended.

Yes, I post publicly on G+, and sacrifice some level of privacy in doing so -- I do it because I enjoy the level of discourse on that site, and talking with interesting strangers is part of the fun. On the other hand, I deliberately didn't link that profile with any of my other online identities . . . and, while I may not have done a perfect job of it, I at least did my best to create walls between those personae.

As Dredmorbius said, it's important that users be able to maintain those walls if they choose, without a service provider choosing to collapse them and merge those identities without permission. By using their services, I did not consent to that action (in fact, repeatedly refused their attempts to do so), and if given a choice between leaving the Google-services hive and having my legal identity attached to everything I've ever written, I'd leave.

What is deceptive and duplicitous about this latest G+/YouTube action, is that many users who expressly refused the "offer" to merge accounts were merged without permission, and often those merges revealed personal information that the users had not chosen to share with YouTube.

I find that intensely disturbing, and I am seriously hoping that some type of action is taken against Google, as with Buzz, regarding the breach of private user information.