3 ms·

I just don't understand why people are so against Google over this, when Facebook has always been doing it. I know it's a delicate issue and it deserves debate

I just don't understand why people are so against Google over this, when Facebook has always been doing it. I know it's a delicate issue and it deserves debate, but at least I'd like the issue being discussed in a more general setting. That being said, I think it would be another advantage of Google+ over Facebook to allow people to use pseudonyms, because it's yet another thing Facebook would never change.

esrauch 15y ago
I think pseudonyms might have the same problem that too much customization over myspace profiles drove people to facebook; people are stupid and don't do what is best for them. More customization of profiles has probably been the #1 request on facebook since it's inception and they have deliberately not launched it, which ends up being what the people actually want despite what they think they want. Everyone wants to be able to set their profile to their favorite color and have their favorite song autoplay, but no one wants to see other peoples crappy color schemes or hear their music that you don't like. Lots of people want to have some random name on Google+ but people don't want to interact with a bunch of people named "vagtastic" or "bluntzzz".
frossie 15y ago
I just don't understand why people are so against Google over this, when Facebook has always been doing it. Because we wouldn't be interested in Google+ if we thought it would just be another Facebook? I mean, if the fresh launch of a beta product to an audience of mainly tech-savvy users is not the time to complain loudly about what you don't you like, what is?
- joe_the_user 15y ago
  Yes, I'd been rooting for Google, against Facebook on this. Till now.. But now... The thing is that Facebook so far mostly has just made noise about not allowing pseudonyms - I've only seen them ban obvious organizations from using individual accounts and then only when someone complains. If you're locked out of your Facebook account, you have to show state ID. But it's a lot easier to just another "fake" account (which is not really particular fake if it is you representing you). I'm in a somewhat "special" neck of the woods on Facebook but I'd say more than half my friends use pseudonyms on there. If all of those got banned, we'd move elsewhere. That might be a good thing. But we sure wouldn't move to G+.
icebraining 15y ago
Isn't FB pretty lenient when it comes to disabling people's accounts for such reasons?
badclient 15y ago
Because facebook had years to fine tune this process. I don't think they had one kill-all switch that they pressed one morning after writing the fake name algo. It really helped that facebook grew in a very carefully plan Ed manner. On the otherhand, google plus' growth is kind of random from a geographic point of view. Why is this relevant? A lot of fake name confusion arises from lack of knowledge of names from another region. For facebook, they could soften specific criterias that would typically denote a bad name if the name ends up being a legit one in Thailand and there was a recent spike in Thai signups. G+'s lack of planned growth really hurts them, this being just one instance.

esrauch 15y ago

I think pseudonyms might have the same problem that too much customization over myspace profiles drove people to facebook; people are stupid and don't do what is best for them. More customization of profiles has probably been the #1 request on facebook since it's inception and they have deliberately not launched it, which ends up being what the people actually want despite what they think they want. Everyone wants to be able to set their profile to their favorite color and have their favorite song autoplay, but no one wants to see other peoples crappy color schemes or hear their music that you don't like. Lots of people want to have some random name on Google+ but people don't want to interact with a bunch of people named "vagtastic" or "bluntzzz".

frossie 15y ago

I just don't understand why people are so against Google over this, when Facebook has always been doing it. Because we wouldn't be interested in Google+ if we thought it would just be another Facebook? I mean, if the fresh launch of a beta product to an audience of mainly tech-savvy users is not the time to complain loudly about what you don't you like, what is?

joe_the_user 15y ago
Yes, I'd been rooting for Google, against Facebook on this. Till now.. But now... The thing is that Facebook so far mostly has just made noise about not allowing pseudonyms - I've only seen them ban obvious organizations from using individual accounts and then only when someone complains. If you're locked out of your Facebook account, you have to show state ID. But it's a lot easier to just another "fake" account (which is not really particular fake if it is you representing you). I'm in a somewhat "special" neck of the woods on Facebook but I'd say more than half my friends use pseudonyms on there. If all of those got banned, we'd move elsewhere. That might be a good thing. But we sure wouldn't move to G+.

icebraining 15y ago

Isn't FB pretty lenient when it comes to disabling people's accounts for such reasons?

badclient 15y ago

Because facebook had years to fine tune this process. I don't think they had one kill-all switch that they pressed one morning after writing the fake name algo. It really helped that facebook grew in a very carefully plan Ed manner. On the otherhand, google plus' growth is kind of random from a geographic point of view. Why is this relevant? A lot of fake name confusion arises from lack of knowledge of names from another region. For facebook, they could soften specific criterias that would typically denote a bad name if the name ends up being a legit one in Thailand and there was a recent spike in Thai signups. G+'s lack of planned growth really hurts them, this being just one instance.