5 ms·

Bradley Horowitz on Google+ naming policy

43 points by phil 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mtogo 15y ago
Glad to know that gmail and other google products won't be lost if this happens to you. It's still a ludicrous policy, though; something I'd expect from microsoft of facebook. I'm not sure why google is so hell-bent on enforcing it.
- raganwald 15y ago
  They’re taking an opinionated stance on creating a community. That’s generally a good thing, and in order to provide what they believe is a better experience for the kinds of people who interact with each other based on a conventional “real” name, they are willing to forgo that portion of the market that want to use a handle for some or all of their online interaction. As I tweeted, I have no use for “circles” if I can’t be “raganwald" to those people who know me through my writing and “Reg Braithwaite” to those people who know me face to face, but I have zero problem with choosing not to use Google+, so why should I have a problem with Google choosing not to cater to me?
edash 15y ago
Several commenters on this post claim this is an issue of safety: "The ability to add nicknames/maiden names etc is of no use to people who actually need to keep their identity secret for their own or their family's safety." "There are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons for someone to need, not just want, to use pseudonym." I'm sorry, but you don't need to use Google+. And for the love of Peter please don't if you'll endanger yourself or your family. Wanting to remain anonymous on Google+ is like going to a dinner party and insisting on wearing a mask. Yes, you'll reduce the chance that people will know who you are—but you're also super freakin' creepy. If you don't want to be recognized...stay home or go to another party! And if you don't want to share your real identity online, I'd recommend not using social networks altogether.
- rmrm 15y ago
  or, for these particular people -- just use a fake name. Not starpony76, but Mike Jones or Jane Smith. Google does not need to allow starpony76 to allow you to be Mike Jones or Jane Smith. They will happily allow you to be perfectly safe as Jane Smith. Conversely, don't post anything publicly and lock down your profile. My profile on G+ has my name. That's it. If someone "found" me on G+, they find my name. If they are stalking me, they already know my name I would guess. They won't get anything else unless I choose to give it to them. Which is broadly similiar to me choosing to email something to them. Don't message your stalker! There are plenty of good positive reasons in the "pro" camp for allowing any kind of name someone wants to call themselves, including starpony76. But there are also plenty of good reasons to oppose it. Like not having a network filled with ridiculous spammy, crude, borderline offensive names just (primarily) because people like being clever.
  - saurik 15y ago
    If you don't like someone's name, you don't have to circle them, and you can always block them if they insist on commenting on your public posts (which they probably won't be doing anyway). (Oh, and if they are spam, please report them as spam: Google cares a lot about ridding spam, and that is an entirely separate issue from "starpony76".)
    - rmrm 15y ago
      Every single thread I read at G+ would be filled with their names, its not my public posts I'm worried about -- it quite possibly destroys the value of everyone elses public posts for me. There would be no escape from it, I am not going to block every SEO EXPERT XChange, Mr Piddles, Big Johnson, L33tB0Y username that would innundate every well known and heavily followed G+ user. I'll just get annoyed instead. I am not comparing the trauma of tasteless names everywhere to being stalked -- but it would quite possible keep me from wanting to use the site. Along with a lot of other people. Which also has the effect of causing the person you are talking about not wanting to use it, either. Any name you want was allowed for Buzz, and was certainly a turn off.
koobaf 15y ago
They may give on this in the end, but it still shows the problem of consolidating too much power in one place. I have no problem with FB disabling my account, because it's not a necessity. But if G+ decided it was OK to disable my Gmail because of a change in policy, or a rogue automated profile checker then that's an entirely different story.
- simonk 15y ago
  read the post, if you are suspended on google+ due to a name issue, the rest of your account works fine.
- doctoboggan 15y ago
  In the post he says your Gmail will not be disabled if you used a fake name.
  - pgroves 15y ago
    From the article: (Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension.) So don't post about your favorite torrents site that violates copyright law. Or if you're like me and live in Illinois, video tape a police officer because that violates wire tapping laws. Yes, I know I would be in violation of this policy if I sent an email from gmail about these things, but I'm guessing I'm more likely to get caught if it's on g+. Keeping my gmail account active is worth far more to me than any potential benefits of google+ at this point. In any event, the down votes on the grandparent were uncalled for.
yanw 15y ago
I think this matter highlights the absurdity of being offended by issues discovered during beta-testing. I suppose it's beta testing for the masses so people start assuming it's the finished product.
- sixtofour 15y ago
  Given history, it's going to be beta for a long time.
phil 15y ago
The funny thing is, none of this would have been an issue if their initial real-name enforcement had been to temporarily suspend a profile, prompting users to change their name in order to turn them back on. It's the lack of recourse that gets everyone up in arms more than the name policy
britta 15y ago
I found this a interesting comment, from Danny Sullivan - it's not always straightforward to define what a "common name" is: "What are the best ways for people to prove their 'common name' status. Unless +50 Cent has a government ID with that name, it's pretty clear that Google made the sensible decision to let him use his stage name, which he's commonly known by, here rather than a legal name. But if you're not as well known as him, asking for things like government IDs to prove your 'common name' -- which you do allow -- seems difficult."
dlss 15y ago
tl;dr "we believe our naming policy was right, but the way we enforced it was wrong"
joshu 15y ago
i think ALL bhorowitz blog posts should start with rap lyrics.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
darklajid 15y ago
My rant, commented that over at G+ as well. Not sure if that counts as cross-posting, I'd love to hear some opinions here though: People complaining about pseudonyms, with weird statements like 'Don't turn this into MySpace' or 'Leave those on Twitter': Are you serious? You are asking for a global policy, because you like to see full names? Chances are, your circles/contacts are already on the same page. No issues here, with or without the naming rule. IF some of your best friends would like to be 'PinkUnicorn' from today on, would you just cease reading his/her news? Do you really want to forcefully (go by your real name or leave the service) make them change? That's about the most egocentric thing I've ever heard or read. This is a social network - or tries to become one. You can choose with whom you are in contact, you can ignore people. But you cannot make people behave according to your own preferences. You sound like someone that complains from his front lawn that everyone should wear ties, to look more professional. If you would rule, ties would be a requirement to leave the house. No more unprofessional Jeans & T-Shirts on the street, right? Stay over at LinkedIn please and stop debating about other peoples wishes and needs for their own frikkin' account. If you don't get the reasons: Fine, nobody's perfect. But in that case here's a newsflash: It's not about you. You want yourself to go by your real name: Works as intended and no one wants to take that right away from you. You have not the slightest right to ask Google to force your personal believe down everyone's throat, however.

43 points by phil 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mtogo 15y ago

Glad to know that gmail and other google products won't be lost if this happens to you. It's still a ludicrous policy, though; something I'd expect from microsoft of facebook. I'm not sure why google is so hell-bent on enforcing it.

raganwald 15y ago
They’re taking an opinionated stance on creating a community. That’s generally a good thing, and in order to provide what they believe is a better experience for the kinds of people who interact with each other based on a conventional “real” name, they are willing to forgo that portion of the market that want to use a handle for some or all of their online interaction. As I tweeted, I have no use for “circles” if I can’t be “raganwald" to those people who know me through my writing and “Reg Braithwaite” to those people who know me face to face, but I have zero problem with choosing not to use Google+, so why should I have a problem with Google choosing not to cater to me?

edash 15y ago

Several commenters on this post claim this is an issue of safety: "The ability to add nicknames/maiden names etc is of no use to people who actually need to keep their identity secret for their own or their family's safety." "There are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons for someone to need, not just want, to use pseudonym." I'm sorry, but you don't need to use Google+. And for the love of Peter please don't if you'll endanger yourself or your family. Wanting to remain anonymous on Google+ is like going to a dinner party and insisting on wearing a mask. Yes, you'll reduce the chance that people will know who you are—but you're also super freakin' creepy. If you don't want to be recognized...stay home or go to another party! And if you don't want to share your real identity online, I'd recommend not using social networks altogether.

rmrm 15y ago
or, for these particular people -- just use a fake name. Not starpony76, but Mike Jones or Jane Smith. Google does not need to allow starpony76 to allow you to be Mike Jones or Jane Smith. They will happily allow you to be perfectly safe as Jane Smith. Conversely, don't post anything publicly and lock down your profile. My profile on G+ has my name. That's it. If someone "found" me on G+, they find my name. If they are stalking me, they already know my name I would guess. They won't get anything else unless I choose to give it to them. Which is broadly similiar to me choosing to email something to them. Don't message your stalker! There are plenty of good positive reasons in the "pro" camp for allowing any kind of name someone wants to call themselves, including starpony76. But there are also plenty of good reasons to oppose it. Like not having a network filled with ridiculous spammy, crude, borderline offensive names just (primarily) because people like being clever.
- saurik 15y ago
  If you don't like someone's name, you don't have to circle them, and you can always block them if they insist on commenting on your public posts (which they probably won't be doing anyway). (Oh, and if they are spam, please report them as spam: Google cares a lot about ridding spam, and that is an entirely separate issue from "starpony76".)
  - rmrm 15y ago
    Every single thread I read at G+ would be filled with their names, its not my public posts I'm worried about -- it quite possibly destroys the value of everyone elses public posts for me. There would be no escape from it, I am not going to block every SEO EXPERT XChange, Mr Piddles, Big Johnson, L33tB0Y username that would innundate every well known and heavily followed G+ user. I'll just get annoyed instead. I am not comparing the trauma of tasteless names everywhere to being stalked -- but it would quite possible keep me from wanting to use the site. Along with a lot of other people. Which also has the effect of causing the person you are talking about not wanting to use it, either. Any name you want was allowed for Buzz, and was certainly a turn off.

koobaf 15y ago

They may give on this in the end, but it still shows the problem of consolidating too much power in one place. I have no problem with FB disabling my account, because it's not a necessity. But if G+ decided it was OK to disable my Gmail because of a change in policy, or a rogue automated profile checker then that's an entirely different story.

simonk 15y ago
read the post, if you are suspended on google+ due to a name issue, the rest of your account works fine.
doctoboggan 15y ago
In the post he says your Gmail will not be disabled if you used a fake name.
- pgroves 15y ago
  From the article: (Of course there are other Google-wide policies (e.g. egregious spamming, illegal activity, etc) that do apply to all Google products, and violations of these policies could in fact lead to a Google-wide suspension.) So don't post about your favorite torrents site that violates copyright law. Or if you're like me and live in Illinois, video tape a police officer because that violates wire tapping laws. Yes, I know I would be in violation of this policy if I sent an email from gmail about these things, but I'm guessing I'm more likely to get caught if it's on g+. Keeping my gmail account active is worth far more to me than any potential benefits of google+ at this point. In any event, the down votes on the grandparent were uncalled for.

yanw 15y ago

I think this matter highlights the absurdity of being offended by issues discovered during beta-testing. I suppose it's beta testing for the masses so people start assuming it's the finished product.

sixtofour 15y ago
Given history, it's going to be beta for a long time.

phil 15y ago

The funny thing is, none of this would have been an issue if their initial real-name enforcement had been to temporarily suspend a profile, prompting users to change their name in order to turn them back on. It's the lack of recourse that gets everyone up in arms more than the name policy

britta 15y ago

I found this a interesting comment, from Danny Sullivan - it's not always straightforward to define what a "common name" is: "What are the best ways for people to prove their 'common name' status. Unless +50 Cent has a government ID with that name, it's pretty clear that Google made the sensible decision to let him use his stage name, which he's commonly known by, here rather than a legal name. But if you're not as well known as him, asking for things like government IDs to prove your 'common name' -- which you do allow -- seems difficult."

dlss 15y ago

tl;dr "we believe our naming policy was right, but the way we enforced it was wrong"

joshu 15y ago

i think ALL bhorowitz blog posts should start with rap lyrics.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

darklajid 15y ago

My rant, commented that over at G+ as well. Not sure if that counts as cross-posting, I'd love to hear some opinions here though: People complaining about pseudonyms, with weird statements like 'Don't turn this into MySpace' or 'Leave those on Twitter': Are you serious? You are asking for a global policy, because you like to see full names? Chances are, your circles/contacts are already on the same page. No issues here, with or without the naming rule. IF some of your best friends would like to be 'PinkUnicorn' from today on, would you just cease reading his/her news? Do you really want to forcefully (go by your real name or leave the service) make them change? That's about the most egocentric thing I've ever heard or read. This is a social network - or tries to become one. You can choose with whom you are in contact, you can ignore people. But you cannot make people behave according to your own preferences. You sound like someone that complains from his front lawn that everyone should wear ties, to look more professional. If you would rule, ties would be a requirement to leave the house. No more unprofessional Jeans & T-Shirts on the street, right? Stay over at LinkedIn please and stop debating about other peoples wishes and needs for their own frikkin' account. If you don't get the reasons: Fine, nobody's perfect. But in that case here's a newsflash: It's not about you. You want yourself to go by your real name: Works as intended and no one wants to take that right away from you. You have not the slightest right to ask Google to force your personal believe down everyone's throat, however.