Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians • Hacker News Board

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#21

Post by aspidistra » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:22 PM UTC

reluk wrote: post #17

I hope that OP isn't seriously suggesting that “discrimination” was a factor, it’s too serious an accusation to be thrown around so carelessly. There are enough past incidents of “unusual” names being erroneously flagged to suggest it's no about irrational human discrimination but about imperfect mostly automated processes. The policy is about using “real names”, the automated system was obviously tripped and the app…

> imperfect systems don’t imply malice.

... but they can still discriminate. In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, intention or malice is not required. If Google has a policy or system that disadvantages a group of people who share a protected characteristic, it is discriminating. This is defined in law.

http://www.equality-law.co.uk/news/106/66/Types-of-discrimin...

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#22

Post by tarblog » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:22 PM UTC

harshreality wrote: post #5

Obligatory: patio11's Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b... (was dead, now live, if dead again it's in google's cache) However, until Google's (and Facebook's) absurd name restrictions (or even the idea that "proper" "official" names exist at all for humans) start seriously affecting their real customers (advertisers), they will not give a shit . An…

I dislike when lists are written in such a way that the reader must mentally negate all of the statements the author is making. It's more difficult for me to quote or remember out of context correctly. I also feel like I learned a lot less than if the author had told me the things that are common problems and how to fix them or offered a model of names that is less-bad than the one most websites use.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#23

Post by saalweachter » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:22 PM UTC

crypt1d wrote: post #14

nysv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their policy on this has been pointed out to be bad and absurd so many times by now that I'm leaning towards Hanlon's razor now: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Exactly. I for one find it slightly annoying that people use the term _discrimination_ so lightly, even though its quite possible that the reason behind this issue is incompetence.

How about "obstinacy"?

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#24

Post by chris_wot » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:26 PM UTC

reluk wrote: post #17

I hope that OP isn't seriously suggesting that “discrimination” was a factor, it’s too serious an accusation to be thrown around so carelessly. There are enough past incidents of “unusual” names being erroneously flagged to suggest it's no about irrational human discrimination but about imperfect mostly automated processes. The policy is about using “real names”, the automated system was obviously tripped and the app…

They need to be called out on it. There was one BuzzFeed article, which I couldn't submit because it automatically gets killed by HN (fair enough). So I wrote a blog, expressing my opinion then submitted it to HN.

I hope that someone from Google is reading and takes note of this. The Real Names policy has actively discriminated against many people in the past. They were meant to sort this out, but they have not. It behooves Google, who want real names, to accept real names. And to understand that even if the names are a little strange, they are all too often actually real names.

I once heard of a couple in Kent who called their child "Depressed Cupboard Cheesecake". The point being is that there are a number of oddball names out there. How is Google going to tell what is fake and what is not fake?

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#25

Post by chaz » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:29 PM UTC

tarblog wrote: post #22

harshreality wrote: post #5

Obligatory: patio11's Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b... (was dead, now live, if dead again it's in google's cache) However, until Google's (and Facebook's) absurd name restrictions (or even the idea that "proper" "official" names exist at all for humans) start seriously affecting their real customers (advertisers), they will not give a shit . An…

I dislike when lists are written in such a way that the reader must mentally negate all of the statements the author is making. It's more difficult for me to quote or remember out of context correctly. I also feel like I learned a lot less than if the author had told me the things that are common problems and how to fix them or offered a model of names that is less-bad than the one most websites use.

It's satire.

  12. People’s names are case sensitive.
  13. People’s names are case insensitive.

Edit: Let me explain ... I was responding to the parent post, and that it wasn't meant to be a logic list of rules. Individual points may be true, but the overall tone of the list and post uses humor to explain the complexity of names.

  32. People’s names are assigned at birth.
  33. OK, maybe not at birth, but at least pretty close to birth.
  34. Alright, alright, within a year or so of birth.
  35. Five years?
  36. You’re kidding me, right?

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#26

Post by hrktb » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:31 PM UTC

nysv wrote: post #10

chris_wot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you explain it then? It's good enough for a BuzzFeed writer to get it reinstated, but not good enough to at least verify that it's a real name?

Their policy on this has been pointed out to be bad and absurd so many times by now that I'm leaning towards Hanlon's razor now: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Shouldn't it be the other way round ? Google's policy was pointed out to be bad and absurd countless times and they knowingly stuck with it anyway, understanding users were prejudiced from it. Isn't it malice ?

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#27

Post by anon4 » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:32 PM UTC

Interestingly, google didn't bat an eye when I put my nickname as my first name and the full stop symbol (.) as my last name. Yellow Horse? Totally made up. .? Obviously a legit name, why my best friend is named $. (I write too much perl).

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#28

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:33 PM UTC

aspidistra wrote: post #21

reluk wrote: post #17

I hope that OP isn't seriously suggesting that “discrimination” was a factor, it’s too serious an accusation to be thrown around so carelessly. There are enough past incidents of “unusual” names being erroneously flagged to suggest it's no about irrational human discrimination but about imperfect mostly automated processes. The policy is about using “real names”, the automated system was obviously tripped and the app…

> imperfect systems don’t imply malice. ... but they can still discriminate. In some jurisdictions, such as the UK, intention or malice is not required. If Google has a policy or system that disadvantages a group of people who share a protected characteristic, it is discriminating. This is defined in law. http://www.equality-law.co.uk/news/106/66/Types-of-discrimin...

[deleted]

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#29

Post by potato » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:34 PM UTC

This happened to my coworker, last name Tower. It sucks, but it wasn't too difficult to clear up the issue.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#30

Post by calibraxis » Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 2:35 PM UTC

Tohhou wrote: post #11

chris_wot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you explain it then? It's good enough for a BuzzFeed writer to get it reinstated, but not good enough to at least verify that it's a real name?

I will explain it. Google wants personal identity attached to posts on Google+ people Google thinks that people will value what they say when they are not posting anonymously. Some engineer wrote a thing to try to catch obviously fake names, and some kinds of real names, which actually are attached to real identity, get caught in the filter. They didn't target specific groups of people because they hate them ffs. I a…

> calling things which are not really racism racism only dilutes actual racism and victims of racism.

I don't know your racial category, but people of color frequently mention how white people aggressively like to redefine racism so it doesn't include their own racism. This particular argument is common among them. Because after all, racism is one of those -isms which are a fundamental part of many cultures (like the US).