Google's not only disallowing pseudonyms on Google+ but deleting people's Google accounts for making account names they don't like. Google's seriously getting creepy in its bid for joining in the social networking crazy (not to mention, I am sure there are people who are going to have problems who have odd-looking real names, as has happened on other networks. Wasn't there some issue on X-Box Live not long ago, where several folks got banned because their actual names unfortunately resembled euphemisms for male genitalia?).
I've been DeathQuaker on the 'Net since 1996 and want to be found on the Net by that name. I don't understand why that would be such a burden to any site, let alone a violation of a rule (and now I have to worry if they will extend the rule to Google accounts in general, and I will lose my email and my googledocs, etc. Not to mention the info on my Android phone). And people should have a right not to go by their real names on the Internet if they don't want to--I realize privacy on the Internet is largely an illusion, but let people try to preserve it as they'd like, at least.
The irony is I was just thinking about signing up for Google+ because Livejournal's been down. Glad I saw that article first.
|
I imagine they have been trying to combat the greater internet dickwad theorem:
Offensive original
Less offensive t-shirt
Summarized:
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience == Complete Jerk.
|
|
I imagine they have been trying to combat the greater internet dickwad theorem:
Offensive original
Less offensive t-shirtSummarized:
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience == Complete Jerk.
Blizzard, who requires a real name for credit card processing forced people to use their real name on battlenet/forums with limited success.
I'm of mixed opinions. On the one hand, I agree with previous posters who suggest it's probably intended to diminish the tendency for anonymity to turn people into jerks. In that regard, I actually support it, particularly in a social networking system. I rather like the idea of requiring people to be more mature about it and relating to the world with their given name.
On the other hand, I also see why people might desire some anonymity for other reasons. I have my own Google account with a handle so that I can hand it out to people I don't trust yet.
In the end, I'm all for Google Plus requiring people to sign up with their names rather than a handle, so long as it doesn't have a negative impact on their existing accounts. If Google is really going to delete existing accounts with pseudonyms, I'll have to protest.
I imagine they have been trying to combat the greater internet dickwad theorem:
Offensive original
Less offensive t-shirtSummarized:
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience == Complete Jerk.
But you can ban complete jerks for other TOS violations. This potentially punishes and violates the privacy of a lot of innocent people. That some people are jerkwads doesn't defend that.
Not to mention, people who want to be complete jerks on the Internet will find a way to do so, whether their name is known or not.
WanderWeir: It looks like what they are doing right now is if Google objects to a Google+ user's name, they suspend their WHOLE Google account and anything tied to it. BUT right now, non-Google+ users are safe. My concern that they would not be is in fairness my own paranoia.
I imagine they have been trying to combat the greater internet dickwad theorem:
Offensive original
Less offensive t-shirtSummarized:
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience == Complete Jerk.
But you can ban complete jerks for other TOS violations. This potentially punishes and violates the privacy of a lot of innocent people. That some people are jerkwads doesn't defend that.
Not to mention, people who want to be complete jerks on the Internet will find a way to do so, whether their name is known or not.
WanderWeir: It looks like what they are doing right now is if Google objects to a Google+ user's name, they suspend their WHOLE Google account and anything tied to it. BUT right now, non-Google+ users are safe. My concern that they would not be is in fairness my own paranoia.
Hmm. This is making me less interested in Google+. I want to be Freehold DM on there, not [censored for privacy purposes].
I'm using a pseudonym on G+ right now. I also use one on Facebook and here. My name is something I give to friends and places I'm also giving my credit card information. (This has added benefits in places where people share my somewhat common first name. I think I've seen at least two here that do.) It's no one else's business.
It's probably best to set yourself up as company profile or something similar on facebook and/or google plus to help protect your privacy. E-mail meets my needs 99 percent of the time, and I am very selective on what links I will accept without additional confirmation. No one wants to be a victim of a phishing scam, or related activity.
|
Wow... lot's of FUD here.
I wish I could find the response from Google regarding this but I can't right now... Look for it if you care.
Google+ is such a delight to use. I dig it.
If using a fake name is that important to you it isn't a place for you. (Right now. They are working on it doing it right.)
Company profiles are coming soon too. Not right now though.
If using a fake name is that important to you it isn't a place for you. (Right now. They are working on it doing it right.)
I don't see why anyone would insist on using internet handles on sites that are meaning to be serious social networking sites.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I don't see why anyone would insist on using internet handles on sites that are meaning to be serious social networking sites.
If using a fake name is that important to you it isn't a place for you. (Right now. They are working on it doing it right.)
Hell has indeed frozen over, Cartigan and I agree on something!
I have five groups on FB, Friends, Gamers, Classmates, Coworkers, and family. (six if you count businesses) I do actually use it for social networking. I put a friend in touch with my old realtor via FB, I got my Goddaughter and my nephew in touch, and I keep up with family.
Yeah, my Facebook page is The Livewire, but once you get there, it's me. I can see private and 'work' pages. (I think most of the Paizo staff that are 'out there' have those set up.) but really, for most people just being us is fine.
Wow... lot's of FUD here.
Well, when you hear "hey your whole account with all your email and contacts and documents and blogs and pictures might go away" that does cause a little uncertainty.
I wish I could find the response from Google regarding this but I can't right now... Look for it if you care.
I just Googled google+ response and google+ pseudonym and variations therein and found nothing, except a lot more news about the debate and articles about high profile people they're booting off, like Arianna Huffington.
Google+ is such a delight to use. I dig it.
If using a fake name is that important to you it isn't a place for you.
Fair enough.
I don't see why anyone would insist on using internet handles on sites that are meaning to be serious social networking sites.
There's such a thing as serious social networking?
In seriousness, someone sent me an invite--someone I trust, who knows me well, who knows I am in fact usually wary of social networking sites (I'm, like, the last person in the universe who doesn't have a Facebook account, despite the fact that I'm online constantly). So I was thinking about taking a look just to see what it was all about. But not at a risk to my entire account.
There's also the matter that I've been known as DeathQuaker on the Internet since 1996. My Internet buddies, the people I'd want to find me the most, know me by no other name and it seems silly to change it at this point. My close friends and family in real life, I call them, I email them, I spend time with them in person; I have no need to add some additional medium to facilitate communication with them. It may well be true that as fray points out, there's no point to someone like me using a service like Google+.
I doubt you'd be interested in this, Cartigan, but for others interested in the matter, here's an interesting blog post/essay about the issue of real name vs. pseudonym users on the Internet:
An interesting read. Only thing I noticed was it missed the biggest reason a lot of people don't want to use their real names online: security. Other than that, pretty accurate.
There's such a thing as serious social networking?
In seriousness, someone sent me an invite--someone I trust, who knows me well, who knows I am in fact usually wary of social networking sites (I'm, like, the last person in the universe who doesn't have a Facebook account, despite the fact that I'm online constantly). So I was thinking about taking a look just to see what it was all about. But not at a risk to my entire account.
There's also the matter that I've been known as DeathQuaker on the Internet since 1996. My Internet buddies, the people I'd want to find me the most, know me by no other name and it seems silly to change it at this point. My close friends and family in real life, I call them, I email them, I spend time with them in person; I have no need to add some additional medium to facilitate communication with them. It may well be true that as fray points out, there's no point to someone like me using a service like Google+.
I doubt you'd be interested in this, Cartigan, but for others interested in the matter, here's an interesting blog post/essay about the issue of real name vs. pseudonym users on the Internet:
http://point7.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/google-the-pseudonym-banstick-and-th e-netizen-cultural-schism/
I'm not interested in it as part of this conversation, no. If you have no interest in networking with people you actually know for realz, then don't join Google+ and simultaneously don't complain you can't use an internet handle as your real name. It's not like there aren't innumerable ways and means that people whose entire knowledge of each other is attached to their net handles instead of their real names can get together and contact one another. Social networking is to network with people, socially. If people don't know your real name, social networking is not for your relationship.
I'm not interested in it as part of this conversation, no. If you have no interest in networking with people you actually know for realz, then don't join Google+ and simultaneously don't complain you can't use an internet handle as your real name. It's not like there aren't innumerable ways and means that people whose entire knowledge of each other is attached to their net handles instead of their real names can get together and contact one another. Social networking is to network with people, socially. If people don't know your real name, social networking is not for your relationship.There's such a thing as serious social networking?
In seriousness, someone sent me an invite--someone I trust, who knows me well, who knows I am in fact usually wary of social networking sites (I'm, like, the last person in the universe who doesn't have a Facebook account, despite the fact that I'm online constantly). So I was thinking about taking a look just to see what it was all about. But not at a risk to my entire account.
There's also the matter that I've been known as DeathQuaker on the Internet since 1996. My Internet buddies, the people I'd want to find me the most, know me by no other name and it seems silly to change it at this point. My close friends and family in real life, I call them, I email them, I spend time with them in person; I have no need to add some additional medium to facilitate communication with them. It may well be true that as fray points out, there's no point to someone like me using a service like Google+.
I doubt you'd be interested in this, Cartigan, but for others interested in the matter, here's an interesting blog post/essay about the issue of real name vs. pseudonym users on the Internet:
http://point7.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/google-the-pseudonym-banstick-and-th e-netizen-cultural-schism/
Huh. Weird. Too binary for me.
(I'm, like, the last person in the universe who doesn't have a Facebook account, despite the fact that I'm online constantly)
Not the last, DeathQuaker, not the last. I've just never felt the need to socially network, or at least, not using that medium. I prefer these old-fashioned, arcane things called phone calls and letters (and yes, e-mail counts).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am all for the zero anonymity on internet as soon as every single human being will be open-minded enough to accept all of my facets (personal, professional, religious, political, sexual, whatever) and not judge me based on his/her prejudices.
I guess I will have to wait.
There's such a thing as serious social networking?
I don't know, but I don't do it. I have seventeen Facebook friends and that's it. They're mostly my internet friends. A total of three have seen my face in person, and one of those is my mother. I have little to no desire to have eighteen Facebook friends. I have zero desire to be found by many people who know my real name and might wish to contact me from my past, for several reasons:
1) Many of them would be from extremely uncomfortable parts of my life, to put it mildly.
2) Others would be relations I have deliberately avoided almost totally for more than a decade and intend to continue avoiding.
3) Still others are people from whom I wish to keep certain information about my life that comes up frequently in the present safe space that is my small network of friends including, but not limited to: my sexuality, my politics, and my lack of religion. I do not want them (and this group includes most of the first two groups too) to know at all because it would doubtless result in considerable harassment not just for me but for my loved ones who have more contact with them.
Given that, what do I use FB and G+ for? Mostly keeping in touch with friends on a regular day to day basis.
(I'm, like, the last person in the universe who doesn't have a Facebook account, despite the fact that I'm online constantly)Not the last, DeathQuaker, not the last. I've just never felt the need to socially network, or at least, not using that medium. I prefer these old-fashioned, arcane things called phone calls and letters (and yes, e-mail counts).
You're not alone, guys. I believe everyone on Paizo knows of my irrational hatred of Facebook, which holds my #3 Hatin' spot.
Not to contribute to the FUD, but is it possible that the reason Google wants people to use their real names is because it's in their best, financial interests? Google makes all of income from advertising. If they can tie your on-line purchasing activities (which usually require some form of formal identification) to the people on their Google+ site, then they can target their ads that much more effectively, could they not?
Just a thought.
Greg
Not to contribute to the FUD, but is it possible that the reason Google wants people to use their real names is because it's in their best, financial interests? Google makes all of income from advertising. If they can tie your on-line purchasing activities (which usually require some form of formal identification) to the people on their Google+ site, then they can target their ads that much more effectively, could they not?
Just a thought.
That may well be why they want to do it. It doesn't make it appeal any more. :)
I think in part what bothers me isn't the no pseudonym rule, it's how HARD they've brought the banhammer down on people for violating it--without warning. Not just banning their access to Google+, but freezing their entire Google account (which can be an enormous prospect for some people). For a new service, where people are figuring out the rules (sure, people need to read the TOS, but if that many people have been banned due to using pseudonyms, it seems like the rule wasn't very clear in the first place, but that's assumption on my part), it seems a very harsh response.
They may well have good reasons for why they want to do this, but the way they've treated their existing customers---in many cases, longtime loyal Google account holders in good standing (there are even cases of people who DO CODING for Google who have gotten their accounts suspended) who are getting burned by this. So it's not just the policy, it's the enforcement that's troubling (and not that they shouldn't enforce their rules, but you'd think a warning and then a closing of access to Google+ only would make more sense).
They may well have good reasons for why they want to do this...
Oh, I never meant to imply it was a good reason, just an understandable one.
Greg
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I think what's being missed here is that this is early days in the Plus camp. There will be over-reactions, under-reactions and non-reactions. Mistakes will be made.
Accept it. It will happen.
Now if you're really that concerned about your privacy, then maybe Plus isn't for you. It's a service, not a right. Although, honestly, if you're really that concerned about privacy, the internet isn't for you.
I use my real name on most affairs here on the internet. I've found that it cuts down on my churlish behavior. And I've seen an anecdotal connection: people who use their real names are usually less likely to fall into the Great Internet F**kwad Trap. It helps me, at least!
Go my test sub... err... early adaptors! Be fried by the new circuitry, have your brain erased, watch as glitches kill all you know! When I finally get my cyberware all these bugs will have been cleared thanks to your heroic sacrifices!
Oh... wait we were talking about google+ not people+? Never mind carry on.
I think what's being missed here is that this is early days in the Plus camp. There will be over-reactions, under-reactions and non-reactions. Mistakes will be made.
Accept it. It will happen.
Now if you're really that concerned about your privacy, then maybe Plus isn't for you. It's a service, not a right. Although, honestly, if you're really that concerned about privacy, the internet isn't for you.
I use my real name on most affairs here on the internet. I've found that it cuts down on my churlish behavior. And I've seen an anecdotal connection: people who use their real names are usually less likely to fall into the Great Internet F**kwad Trap. It helps me, at least!
Privacy as a service and not a right? Identity theft here I come!!!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Go my test sub... err... early adaptors! Be fried by the new circuitry, have your brain erased, watch as glitches kill all you know! When I finally get my cyberware all these bugs will have been cleared thanks to your heroic sacrifices!
Oh... wait we were talking about google+ not people+? Never mind carry on.
Cybermen anyone?
(amusing thought. Are the Borg just Cybermen 2.0? Or iCybermen?)
Although, honestly, if you're really that concerned about privacy, the internet isn't for you.
I don't think it's nearly that black and white. For example, I may use a name here that is very close to my real name, but I keep my last name private on these boards. My real last name is in my profile, but I fully expect Paizo to keep that from prying eyes. And yes I do understand that one day the Paizo server could theoretically be hacked and my personal information could be released to the public. It's a risk I take. But I also have an expectation that Paizo will do everything in it's power to keep that information "just between us".
I hardly think that means that "the Internet is not for me".
Greg
James Martin: I have two concerns: 1) I want to choose how I identify myself on the Internet, and have good personal reasons for doing so (ETA: And regarding Google+, I am just disappointed that I feel I should not accept the invitation a friend sent me), and 2) More to the point, while you're absolutely right, Google+ is new and they are still ironing things out, I think people should be AWARE of the extreme response they are making to people making accounts with pseudonyms. People are also welcome to disagree with me on my opinion on the situation of course, but don't tell me how I should and should not interact with the Internet (as long as I'm not hurting anyone)---that, indeed, is the whole point. :)
I don't think that position is too extreme, even if you disagree.
Cybermen anyone?
(amusing thought. Are the Borg just Cybermen 2.0? Or iCybermen?)
Doctor Who! Now THAT'S a discussion worth having!
Dude, they TOTALLY are a Cybermen rip-off. Seen all the Cybermen alcoves in Tomb of the Cybermen--Borg totally stole that. Seen the Cyberconversion of Lytton in Attack of the Cybermen? Totally was a Borg conversion, except it predated the Borg by several years.
The core concept of the Cybermen as determined by Kit Pedler in 1966 was a race of advanced human-like beings who slowly replaced their biological parts in the quest for longevity and physical and mental perfection. Upon achieving this "perfection" they also achieved a certain emptiness which they then went out to fill by "sharing" their perfection with the universe, expanding their race by Cyberconversion (or "Updating" if you're talking about the Alternate Universe Cybusmen from the David Tennant Era).
"You Will Become Like Us."
"You Will Be Assimilated."
Pretty much the same dang thing, except the Cybermen predate the Borg by 24 years. ETA: I will add, the one thing that makes the Borg distinct and in a way used the concept better was their constant adaptation of new technology as they assimilated new races--something it made sense for the Cybermen to do, but the writers never really took into account.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Privacy as a service and not a right? Identity theft here I come!!!
** spoiler omitted **
Been there, done that. When your name is common, you hardly need the internet for identity theft. I was a little surprised when the bank made me sign an affidavit saying I wasn't the James Martin who owed the IRS $50,000. And this was in 1998.
Been there, done that. When your name is common, you hardly need the internet for identity theft. I was a little surprised when the bank made me sign an affidavit saying I wasn't the James Martin who owed the IRS $50,000. And this was in 1998.
Privacy as a service and not a right? Identity theft here I come!!!
** spoiler omitted **
Hnn. Fair enough.