back
43 comments
I think it's sad that we need a site like this. I thought Google understood Privacy when they built Google Plus, but it's quickly becoming apparent that they don't. That the whole 'real name' debacle has lasted this long is honestly a surprise to me. I thought for sure they'd understand as soon as the first person complained. Now that there are thousands, it's becoming ridiculous.
I've found this whole argument strange from both sides, but I couldn't quite put a finger on why until now. You reminded me:

> I thought Google understood Privacy when they built Google Plus

G+ has this thing called "circles." It was all very hyped-up when it came out. It allows different groups of people to see different facets of you, and basically treat you as the subset of "you" that you want each group to see.

Now, the argument we've all been having, is that different groups of people call you by different names. Your family likely call you by your "real" (birth certificate) name. Your friends might call you something else. Strangers—and if you're an online celebrity, you know a lot of them—know you by yet a third name. See what this is suggesting?

Your name should be a property of a circle, not of your identity. In fact, almost all your attributes should be circle-attached, rather than profile-attached. Remember the spat about people who wanted to not share their gender online? What if you could be genderless to most folks, male to business contacts, and a female-to-male transsexual to friends?

(Of course, it gets a bit more complicated for the people you've put in multiple circles when you share something with both of those groups—I imagine there should then be a "circle precedence order" where metadata from circle X overrides metadata from circle Y when both are available. But sheesh, these are problems Google engineers should be eating for breakfast.)

Your "public" persona, then, is just metadata attached to the lowest-precedence, virtual "universe of discourse" circle that encircles everyone you don't actually have any relationship with. Your personal settings for what G+ should refer to you as are just the metadata of a highest-precedence circle that just contains you. And so on.

I love this idea, I can even see an interface where the circles can be overlapping, making it obvious that only people in the "innermost" circle can call me "Marty" or see pictures of my Hello Kitty coffee mug.
I designed a social network in my head some months ago (who didn't, to be honest) and the way I handled the issue was having per-circle (yeah, I even called them circles..) profiles. I still want that, in particular I want a different profile photo for public viewing.
another post where i wish I could see the number of up votes
Of course, Google will probably have an easier time keeping the trolls out - and selling personalised ads - if people do mostly use their real names.
Focusing on turning a profit before they make sure they consolidate their control over the social network sphere would be a grave mistake.
But they already have my (and most other peoples) real name. My Gmail account is registered under my real name. Everything they'd have to offer a checkbox tied to the "Nickname" field under "About". Ticking the box only shows your nickname on Google+.
And the freedom they have is choosing the services they use as well. If a service wants you to use your real name and you don't want to, you don't use the service. That's the beauty of freedom, you are not required to use a service like Google Plus. Freedom is not that Google Plus is suddenly a governed body that has to adhere to some unwritten law that they cannot require real names.
You aren't required to use Facebook, you're free to use alternatives, but it's become so ubiquitous that having a Facebook profile has become necessary to participate fully in online life. (Think of the Facebook like buttons and "login with Facebook" options you see scattered all over the web, or TechCrunch comments, for that matter.)

To put it another way, why should people with legitimate reasons for using pseudonyms be forced into a ghetto? What kind of freedom is that?

but it's become so ubiquitous that having a Facebook profile has become necessary to participate fully in online life.

I must not be participating fully in an 'online life' then. When I look at my non-tech friends I do much more participating online than any of them do and they all have FB accounts and I do not.

You can't even sign in to some websites without a FB or Twitter login.
Blame those sites for that, there is no excuse for not offering alternative login options.
Funny... if one spends enough time reading Hacker News threads about Facebook, you'd get the impression that it's the ghetto.
I don't use Facebook. And whenever I go to a site that requires Facebook credentials to comment, I just don't comment. It does not bother me because that is a choice I made in not using Facebook as my online persona. But that is the truth to all this. I do not blame Facebook for their design of the service, I am the one to blame for not wanting to adhere to them. And I get to live with the consequences.
So you're saying that a Facebook account should probably be added to the list of Fundamental Human Needs? Because anything not on that list is a want, and you do not (yet) have a right to have your wants the way you want them.
Don't be ridiculous. I'm not saying having a Facebook account should be a right. I am saying that Facebook is being unreasonable in not allowing people with good reasons for using peudonyms: abuse survivors, academics, activists, artists, authors, bloggers.. see http://my.nameis.me/
That's why I say "fsck you" to these buttons and choose the Twitter one or put my data manually.
It's obviously Google's right to set the rules. But it's also my right, and in my view, moral obligation to boycott a network which has such rule, even if I don't personally need or want it.
I've never understood this argument. Google Plus is free to do what they want, and we are free to say what we like about it. I have yet to hear a legal argument against Google Plus. What you call "unwritten law" is what other people call social norms. No one has said they cannot legally require real names, but that they should not require real names.

Leaving is not the only option when you don't like something.

Why would anyone start with siding with Google as their default position? Google Plus is not a finished product. When people complain about bugs or missing features for a new product they help to make a better product.

Or you could provide Google with some constructive feedback and some arguments and perhaps they change. After all they say they want feedback and that the service isn't gold master yet.
How about we stop supporting Google and Facebook? That's the best way to make your point.

You can also MAKE UP A NAME. It's like nobody has the basic critical thinking skills to just use a fake name.

> How about we stop supporting Google and Facebook? That's the best way to make your point.

I think it's a very good thing to articulate what is wrong with things. That way they evolve, at least sometimes.

Especially here, where the only reason we discuss google and facebook is because we might try to work on it, work with it, or compete against it.
This is a good lesson for everyone who builds online communities: Some design decisions that are acceptable to the majority, like the real-name policy, harm groups of people who are already marginalized.
No one is required to give their real name to Google Plus because no one is required to use Google Plus. If you do not agree with Google's policy, don't use Google's services. They are Google's services and Google is allowed to set policy as they see fit. No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.
So you're saying that the community has no place in attempting to guide and shape the social networking sites that they use?

Social networks are becoming a must and you can't just choose to use whichever fits your needs. You have to use the one that everyone else uses. Many people are forced to use these sites for business reasons. Often it's even required by a job, so suggesting that people have a choice is true to a point because they could find a new job. For many people it's probably about as true as saying that you don't have to have a bank account.

The community should probably spend less time complaining about how existing centralized social networks are abusive, and spend more time developing, using and promoting federated alternatives. The fact that you have to use the one that everyone else uses is not a universal truth but a regrettable state of affairs which should be fixed.
I agree. Unfortunately, I don't have any faith in the diaspora project. I'd be curious to hear what other solutions are out there that people are working on.
Here's my project, it was one of the first:

http://opensource.appleseedproject.org

For a free service? What kind of shaping are you going to demand?
Aren't you paying attention? That should be obvious from the title of the discussion.

They want to be able to use 'fake' names.

I don't think you should put words in his mouth, but since he's a new account made just for that comment, perhaps you're right and he's just trolling. I still don't have a Facebook account. I'd also wonder how often it is that one doesn't use one's real name when trying to network for business reasons. The fact is as long as we're not involving the government, Google/Facebook/et al. can do what they please, and I'd rather keep it that way. If this real names issue remains a big issue people just won't use Google's offering and Facebook/other will win. Let them decide it. If your boss is forcing you to get a G+ account with your real name, I think you've got bigger problems. (Not to mention you can hardly be said to be part of the 'community' if you just joined a minute ago at your boss' orders, but that's beside the point.)

Edit: curious about the downvotes. Did Google Buzz prevail despite making lots of people angry?

"I'd also wonder how often it is that one doesn't use one's real name when trying to network for business reasons."

Example at my company would be people who moderate and respond to customers using the various social networking sites on behalf of the company. On facebook they currently do this by setting up a secondary "company" facebook account separate from their personal account, and they use their first name only prefixed by the company name. This allows them an online identity, but not enough information for the customers to stalk them personally. Probably about 5% of my company's staff is forced to have a facebook profile along with various other online profiles for use within the company.

"If your boss is forcing you to get a G+ account with your real name, I think you've got bigger problems."

There's a lot of people in a company that are required to use their real identity and reputation for the company. I don't understand why this is a problem. It just depends on your job. Take for example, the PR people. They must give their real first and last name when they are interviewed.

"If this real names issue remains a big issue people just won't use Google's offering and Facebook/other will win. Let them decide it."

I guess it depends on what you mean by "big issue". I think the point of this whole campaign is that they are trying to raise awareness because for most people, your real name is fine, but for a small minority, it's very unfavorable.

Many PR people, and other very public people, like movie actors, use pseudonyms. For privacy, marketing, or sometimes even to get a unique key, as in Screen Actors Guild.

Natalie Portman is not really Natalie Portman.

I think we have two different conceptions of "business reasons". I was thinking more along the lines of "I'm pimping myself out to get hired/sell a product/find investors, why wouldn't I want to use my real name?"

I still see a problem even in your PR example. Taking one of the concerns of some privacy people around, suppose you get a job in PR but you're also part of the small minority where your real name can cause problems for whatever reason(s). Maybe "you shouldn't be in PR", but I don't see why a company can't allow you to use a pseudonym instead. Of course they may want to hire someone who already has established a reputation with either their real name or their pseudonym, but if they wouldn't even give me that option I'd be concerned. I like your company's approach of "half a name", and I'd imagine if you asked "Can I make my account Company Bob instead of Company Frank [because of such and such]?" they'd let you. I don't see why a PR person being interviewed for a magazine or whatever couldn't use a pseudonym. Unless there's some law somewhere requiring a government-certified-name ("real name") be given in a journal interview for employees of big corps? I'd be surprised to see one.

I mean "big issue" in the sense of it continuously popping up on HN, Slashdot, etc. and people being outraged over it. If it's just to "raise awareness", fine, then the G+/Facebook/whatever membership that requires real names won't drop, and since doing nothing is easier than doing something nothing changes even if a PR person from Google says "we recognize the importance of hidden names." If it starts affecting their membership, they'll change or something better will come along.

How come so many people, especially in this business, seem to forget that most of us live in a democracy, and not a corporate free-for-all?

We, the people, eventually decide which policies, including policies created by private companies, are socially acceptable. If the policies of powerful companies like Google or Facebook have a negative impact on society as a whole, we can decide to stop them.

We are not just consumers.

Corporations are not allowed to set policy as they see fit. Never have been, and hopefully never will be.

No one is required to live in <country of residence>. If you don't agree with their policies, then vote with your feet. </sarcasm>
Shirt Shoes Service is health code law, not private choice.
I support this site as I also use a "pseudonym" (I call it a real name, but I will use pseudonym in this post to avoid confusion) almost everywhere. The only place my legal name is found these days is passport, birth certificate, forms related to visas, and the bank. Even my payslips, and the insurance company use my pseudonym. One degree has my legal name on it, but my current degree will have my pseudonym on it. Drivers license has legal on it. Medical insurance has pseudonym.

But I gotta say, facebook and google never asked for any proof of name, so I use my pseudonym there. They are probably the two places I have had the least trouble using my chosen name with.

Shrug. Maybe people should pick believable ones.

I would much rather see people fighting for the right to use their chosen names when interacting with the government and banks etc, than bloody facebook.

I must admit that I'm confused here. Why (and how) use a pseudonym for medical insurance, payslips and degrees but not for passports. I'm not even sure how that would work. If your legal ID has your name on it, how could you use a psuedonym effectively?

Why not just change your name?

Well I use my pseudonym wherever I can. I would like to have it on my passport etc, but I cannot without legally changing it. I guess legal ID is less important than most people think, as I am able to use my pseudonym reasonably well.

And as far as I am concerned, I have changed my name, that is why I use the term "real" name rather than pseudonym. To me the legal name is actually more "pseudo" than the name I chose.

I have contacted those in charge of passports and birth certificates etc, and let them know that I have changed my name, and offered them the chance to correct the mistake in their files, but they have decided not to do so, which is up to them I guess.

I may undergo the legal process of "changing my name", making it official, at some stage, but to me that is like me paying to help someone else correct a mistake in their files. Also there isn't really any pressing need to. It may even be advantageous to have my real name, which gets used everywhere, and which I am known by, but the government knows me by a different one.

Heh you know I shouldn't even be talking about the government as if it were a single entity. I just checked my tax stuff, and it is all my chosen name there. Not sure how that happened.

This seems like making a site like whohatesshoes.me, advocating for banning restaurants requiring shoes. If you disagree with the requirements of a service, you shouldn't use it (assuming the requirements are legal).

That said, the design of this site is pretty slick