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…
For example, consider the study "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?" [1] They found that resumes with black-sounding names were less employable than the same resumes with white-sounding names. Is that because a large number of hiring managers are also KKK members who put on their hoods before sorting applications? Probably not.
A more likely explanation is that, as Harvard's Project Implicit [2] demonstrates, a lot of people are consciously anti-racist but still have racist attitudes and reactions. If you live in a segregated society, it need not even be a bias against blacks, so much as a bias for people who are more familiar to you. Is that effectively racism? If I were somebody not getting hired because of the color of my skin, I'd sure think so.
So in the case of Google Plus, I doubt the mainly white, mainly male, mainly millionaires sitting in a suburban office park were consciously saying, "At last, our revenge for Custer!" But them saying, "Looks good to us!" and then enforcing it is effectively saying, "We believe our personal biases and local cultural norms are good enough for the entire world." That might not be explicitly racist in intention. But I don't think that's required to create a racist system.
[1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873 [2] https://www.projectimplicit.net/index.html