51–60 of 63 posts
It made me realise that in all my many online identities, 51 at last count, I use my real name in exactly one online service provider (excluding banks) - a non-Google email service for "In Real Life" communication.
Just now, I changed this service profile to safeguard against the consequences of future copycat Google+ -like forced changes.
Thanks for the heads-up, HN'ers!
It's often argued in these cases that identification and real names will increase the quality of comments by eliminating trolls, stalkers and troublemakers somehow. When measured empirically, one study found that anonymous commenting from people without user accounts increases the ratio of good comments to poor quality ones. The reason is that so many more people comment. There's a certain fixed number of trolls and…
I have no problem using my real name, In fact, I'm already using it on YouTube. The only 'vloggers' who would benefit from anonymity are the ones who have something to say that could be consider 'controversial' by someone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I find it very frustrating that Google thinks that forcing people to reveal their identities is a "good" thing. Remember: Google's business is advertising, and you can sell far better/more expensive ads to "real identities". As far as business goes, real identities are most definitely a good thing. For google, that is.
Indeed their business is advertising. Though, I'm not sure users providing their real identities will make things better. For instance, with Google's music service. Once you upload a few albums Google shows albums you might like. This isn't done because I have my real name (I don't use it, personally, but have seen it in action) posted. Same kind of thing goes with ads. They can track your IP(s) and go with that. If…
I am sure many advertisers think they want real identities, certainly that would appear to make their jobs even easier as they can then pull property value reports and criminal records searches for random people who happen to visit their site. Just because someone thinks they want something doesn't mean it is more effective. For example, many companies are losing in the marketplace because they can't compete because they can't hire qualified workers because they think they want a long list of acronyms rather than someone who is intelligent and has a history of getting the job done.
Which is more valuable for serving ads that are valuable to advertisers? An anonymous user who you track with cookies and ip address (which gives general location) and have a profile of based on their interests and things they search for? Or someone who you have forced to give their real name, so they have switched to Tor and now every access they make comes from a different ip address, none of which appear connected and none which are related to their real geographical point of origin? Or how about the user that simply unplugs.
This is not just theoretical supposition. In the 1980s supermarkets started using shopper loyalty programs. The stores would raise prices of many products, then offer to sell it at the normal price charged by competitors if the customer agreed to use a card linked to their real name and address, confirmed by state ID cards. This card then was used to track all of their purchasing habits and behaviors and form models of the customers in an attempt to influence them with more targeted coupon offers and direct mail advertising. At the same time, WalMart chose NOT to do that at all, and instead charged lower prices with no tracking, but did instead do much more difficult data analysis of purchases by store and region and date in order to find larger trends of what to keep in stock. For example, before a hurricane in Florida people buy a lot of beer WalMart's algorithms figured out and so they analyze weather data and send trucks full of beer when Florida is about to get hit with a big storm. Which approach worked? The manipulative one where customers were identified, monitored and targeted personally, and punished with higher prices if they refused this? Or the alternative where a more intelligent analysis was done of data without lazily requiring actual real id?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that they don't -want- you to use pseudonyms. I don't know about the rest of you but I segregate the various presences in the aether. What I found most offensive is that they omitted the option of saying that you did not want to use your real name solely because you didn't -want- to use your real name. I posted a short reaction at http://youtu.be/Imhqt1vr3T8 Hopefully their search engine will pick it up.
doesn't the "personal use, cannot use my real name" box cover your concerns?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that they don't -want- you to use pseudonyms. I don't know about the rest of you but I segregate the various presences in the aether. What I found most offensive is that they omitted the option of saying that you did not want to use your real name solely because you didn't -want- to use your real name. I posted a short reaction at http://youtu.be/Imhqt1vr3T8 Hopefully their search engine will pick it up.
doesn't the "personal use, cannot use my real name" box cover your concerns?
I dislike giving incorrect answers to questions. I did use that box when testing the new requirements for lack of a better fit. By so doing, I am allowing Youtube (Google) to misrepresent my reasons for declining to use my real name. I don't care for that.
As I said in my video response, Youtube (Google) can either acknowledge my desire for a certain level of anonymity when I interact with youtube, or I simply will move to Vimeo or another provider.
Like a lot of people, I'm kind of stuck on the gmail tar baby. It will be hard for me to step away from gmail. Youtube, on the other hand, is not something where I have built up a lot of utility. It could be that they simply have decided that Youtube will now focus on the 'professional' posters, and not worry so much about casual posters and users like myself. I believe that is a mistake because the people that make a buck (or think they might) on youtube start as casual users.
I have noticed that youtube seems to be paying a lot more attention to the commercial users than to the casual users. That is their choice, but I'd bet that there will be other folks that would be only too happy to focus on the hoi pilloy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoi_polloi)
It's often argued in these cases that identification and real names will increase the quality of comments by eliminating trolls, stalkers and troublemakers somehow. When measured empirically, one study found that anonymous commenting from people without user accounts increases the ratio of good comments to poor quality ones. The reason is that so many more people comment. There's a certain fixed number of trolls and…
I have no problem using my real name, In fact, I'm already using it on YouTube. The only 'vloggers' who would benefit from anonymity are the ones who have something to say that could be consider 'controversial' by someone else.
You don't think there's a large group to which that applies?
Given how easy it is to turn online harassment into real-life harassment with a little internet research, I will not begrudge anyone their separate identities. Your "controversial" opinion could be as benign as "I don't owe my youtube stalkers any attention" before someone is subjected to threats have the potential to seriously affect their life.
I don't have a problem using my real name either (this handle is easily traceable to my full address, I believe), but I'm a white guy, moderately well off and my political opinions are the mainstream, etc. I enjoy a degree of safety and social support that I take for granted, but that's not a luxury available to many who also deserve to participate in internet communities and cultural life.
That Google (and others) are not only not accomodating them but going out of their way to make it harder for them to have an online presence is really surprising to me. I'd have thought Google "gets" it, and I don't see what they're gaining from moves like this.
It's often argued in these cases that identification and real names will increase the quality of comments by eliminating trolls, stalkers and troublemakers somehow. When measured empirically, one study found that anonymous commenting from people without user accounts increases the ratio of good comments to poor quality ones. The reason is that so many more people comment. There's a certain fixed number of trolls and…
I have no problem using my real name, In fact, I'm already using it on YouTube. The only 'vloggers' who would benefit from anonymity are the ones who have something to say that could be consider 'controversial' by someone else.
There are plenty of people that I know on YouTube by their fake names. I have no idea what benefits I get from them using a real name.
One problem that YouTube needs to sort out is "replygirls"; another is the appalling quality of comments.
(A last one is the unfortunate placing of ads. I keep seeing an ad about being a father (and backing up photos?) - there's no way to tell youtube that you never want to see that ad again. I imagine that there are many people who find that ad unbearable because they have recently lost a child. I would be happy to rate ads, and for YouTube to give that data back to advertisers. I tend to watch the ads to pay for the content I'm using. I only skip if it's infuriating.)
Hopefully this will increase the quality of comments on Youtube, which are currently unreadable.
It will stop perhaps the very worst 5%
But the comments are so awful that skimming 5% is nothing.
Adam Buxton (who used to work with Joe Cornish) has a show about music videos in which he mocks youtube comments. It's pretty good.
This is almost certainly not the case. If nasty comments were problematic Google could ban badly behaving users or take other measures. Accountability and identity are not the same thing, Google is pushing for identifying you not making you more accountable. Google has other motives likely related to building more accurate profiles for advertising and building out Google+.
Although there probably will be a backlash, I think this is a smart move from the social networking standpoint. Google is finally leveraging one of its most powerful assets that has to this point not played an integral role of building their G+ user base in any way. This is a weapon that facebook lacks. Plus it helps get rid of the "internet fuckwads" but as the author said, it's certainly an uphill battle. I don't t…
Hahaha. No.
Take a single look at Facebook, and you'll be proven wrong. The amount of utter retardation people post under their real names is both astonishing and depressing.
I've seen the reaction of another community where the "overlords" had the brilliant idea to force real names for exactly this reason. It was, by at least two orders of magnitude, the biggest shitstorm in the history of World of Warcraft, and that's saying something.
(In all fairness, Blizzard realized what a gigantically fucking stupid idea that was and retracted the announcement pretty quickly.)
I hope that this will deal a decisive blow to Youtube as a platform. The monopoly it enjoys in its segment is unhealthy and needs to go away.