Live data from Hacker News

Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

randomtechnicalstuff.blogspot.com

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The writer leaves open the "incompetence" option, if you actually read the article. Discrimination needn't involve intentional malice, either - 50-60 year olds often face hiring discrimination from folks who certainly don't intentionally discount them.

Well, I would suspect that Google makes deliberate choices on how they set up these sorts of things. They've probably built models which demonstrate that only n percent of the global population will be affected by a certain naming policy and the differences in cost associated with modifying their databases or to accommodate such names or dealing with troll accounts versus maintaining the status quo. [Keep in mind I o…

This "if it's profitable it's morally ok" model can have legitimate applications, but this sure isn't one of them.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#52
post #42

Google's stupid name policy is probably their worst idea ever. Interestingly, it's somewhat undone by one of their other bad ideas: merging Youtube and Google+ accounts. Because nobody had a real name for their Youtube account, and suddenly Google creates a bunch of Google+ accounts that nobody asked for and are obviously pseudonyms.

The actual implementation may have been bad but the intent (improve the quality and civility of comments) was not a bad idea and has arguably worked.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#53
post #27

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).

Obviously they read XKCD. "Little Bobby Tables we call him".

http://xkcd.com/327/

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#55
Try having an apostrophe in your last name. O'Brien, O'Keefe, O'Dell and my fave O'Charley's. It is really simple to accommodate this in software and databases, but the problem is getting worse and worse. The pharmacy can't find my prescription, the cleaners can't find my clothes, my doctor's office can't find my appointment. My passport doesn't match my drivers license. Some of my credit cards have the apostrophe and some don't. I have to use the right credit card to pay certain bills (Straight Talk, I'm lookin' at you). One employer's system set email addresses from your name in the payroll system, and believe me, you really don't want an email address with an apostrophe in it. The sneering response to this is that I should change my name. Really? It's part of our Irish cultural heritage. Sigh.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#57
post #4

> Google, pick up your act. It's getting really old. Frankly, the fact that Elaine Yellow Horse appealed your policy three times and it was only once the media got involved that you did the right thing shows that your staff are either incompetent, or racist. ... My guess is neither. They're probably very smart people, and they may just arrogantly assume that their specification of their algorithms are correct, are co…

The "Real Names" policy is the stupid policy.

The reason it is a stupid policy is Google has no intention of making sure every person signs up with their "real name."

So they create automated rules about what a "real name" is. And that's dumb.

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#58
The weirdest thing about their naming policy is that you can make up a ton of fake names that fit their policy, but then someone with a real name comes along that doesn't.

(Some part of me thinks we should just give everyone a GUID or something and be done with it...)

Re: Google+ names policy discriminates against American Native Indians

#59
post #14
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.

you can "indirectly discriminate" if you implement polices that effect a larger proportionate of a particular group.

It's why stop and search that targets a large number of young black men is seen as racist.

It might be incompetence the first time but this has been going on for such a long time now that that is wearing a bit thin as an excuse.

Post reply on HN