7 ms·

> If you aren't happy giving out your real name, you shouldn't be using social networking. The many dissidents who live in oppressive regimes and use these too

> If you aren't happy giving out your real name, you shouldn't be using social networking. The many dissidents who live in oppressive regimes and use these tools to coordinate resistance and provide support for like-minded allies will care not even a little bit about your guidance. The privilege implied by the bias in your remark is exactly the trouble with these real name policies in the first place. Christians in China, gay kids in the Bible belt, women in Saudi Arabia, they're all entitled to take measured risks to find fellowship in their struggle. It's not for you or Google or Facebook to tell them what they should or should not do with their identity on social tools. Assuming the social platform operators provide reasonable disclosure about the risks, it's up to these folks to assume those risks and try for anonymity if they want it.

smokinjoe 15y ago
Given the fact that the number of social tools is only increasing, isn't there feasibly a social network for everyone? If anonymity is important, use Twitter or another product. I actually appreciate Google making people use their real names, it's a step forward to actually having the ability to make people responsible for their actions online. Google isn't forcing you to use your real name everywhere until the end of time, simply on their Google Plus Network.
- danilocampos 15y ago
  > I actually appreciate Google making people use their real names, it's a step forward to actually having the ability to make people responsible for their actions online. I'm going to be honest: your comfort and enjoyment of the internet is orders of magnitude less valuable to me than the knowledge that good, decent folks who are endangered by harmful zealots can have a safe place to communicate with their compatriots. If the companies responsible for these platforms don't recognize the importance of this opportunity, they're squandering their unique position to make some good money while making the world a better place. And that's a shame.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    See, in an ideal world there would be an internet with lots of web sites, some that make people like smokinjoe happy by requiring real names and others that make you happy, by providing a forum for people to speak out anonymously. If anything, your viewpoint--that every single website on the internet has to be run the way you would run it--is the more oppressive one.
    - danilocampos 15y ago
      > If anything, your viewpoint--that every single website on the internet has to be run the way you would run it--is the more oppressive one. That's an awfully cute straw man, but not really what's being discussed here. My calling for some basic human decency is no more "oppressive" than my remarking that hey, people who kick puppies or don't say thank you to waiters are pricks. > by providing a forum for people to speak out anonymously. That doesn't address the issue. The value of large companies with large social graphs is one of networking. Having a soapbox to talk shout into silence doesn't do anything to improve the cause of someone who can't be safe with their own identity online. Cramming people who are unable, for their own safety and well-being, into a ghetto cut off from the larger world is hardly a kind thing to do. For one, it deprives them of the ability to open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help or resources to begin flowing. At a certain scale, the privilege of network effects comes with social responsibility. People have the right, and often the need, to define their identity along specific parameters. Refusing to acknowledge that does not respect users – and it's entirely valid to condemn that.
      - philwelch 15y ago
        That's an awfully cute straw man, but not really what's being discussed here. My calling for some basic human decency is no more "oppressive" than my remarking that hey, people who kick puppies or don't say thank you to waiters are pricks. Lots of people actually, voluntarily, want to participate in social networks based on people's real names. You don't want to let them do that. Cramming people who are unable, for their own safety and well-being, into a ghetto cut off from the larger world is hardly a kind thing to do. For one, it deprives them of the ability to open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help or resources to begin flowing. No, it doesn't, because there are lots of places online for people to "open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help". In fact, most of the web is accepting of pseudonymous or anonymous socialization. (You're on one of many such sites right now.) Facebook (and now Google+) are an exception, and Facebook, at the very least, is popular. That doesn't make it a public utility--it's still a private service that people are free to use or ignore. No one's obligated to use Facebook and no one on Facebook is obligated to truthfully divulge any more information than they want.
- bandushrew 15y ago
  You are suffering from a false sense of security. Google doesn't make people use their real names, they cannot. Google just forces people to have to try a tinsy bit harder to use fake names, The more google tightens up its grip, the greater will be your false sense of security and the more devastating will be the consequences when someone takes advantage of you.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
gaius 15y ago
Sure it is. On the kit that Company X owns, it gets to set whatever policies it likes. I think the word "social" is confusing people. These are not public utilities like electricity or water.
- danilocampos 15y ago
  > Sure it is. On the kit that Company X owns, it gets to set whatever policies it likes. Not when Company X is bound by the edict "Don't be evil," as is the parent of the product in question, here. You have a fundamental right to represent your identity in whatever way is necessary to protect yourself from harm or harassment. Any company that makes money from codifying your identity but doesn't recognize that right is run by assholes.
  - gaius 15y ago
    You have a fundamental right That's exactly when I mean. Where is this "fundamental right" in UK, EU, US or any law? These are not public utilities! Please don't confuse your personal preferences with "the Constitution".
    - gte910h 15y ago
      It's a fundamental right to go by whatever name you want in Common Law actually. You have to do it fairly consistently for entities to HAVE to recognize it though, and it does a good fuckup of your credit reports when you change, and is pretty hard to do pre-18 (and you have to tell lots of entities when you have a felony record). So yeah, fundamental right is accurate. http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/documents/1488013400EN.pdf?stateabbrev=/wa/ http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/documents/1488013400EN.pdf?...
- forensic 15y ago
  Discrimination is illegal. Companies can't just do whatever they want. They are bound by laws and ethics. If these policies are found to discriminate against rape survivors (for example) they could very well be ruled illegal. Don't confuse a legal grey area with something being legal.
philwelch 15y ago
Google+ and Facebook are two websites. There's the entire rest of the internet for pseudonymous discussion and "fellowship", and no one's trying to take that away.

smokinjoe 15y ago

Given the fact that the number of social tools is only increasing, isn't there feasibly a social network for everyone? If anonymity is important, use Twitter or another product. I actually appreciate Google making people use their real names, it's a step forward to actually having the ability to make people responsible for their actions online. Google isn't forcing you to use your real name everywhere until the end of time, simply on their Google Plus Network.

danilocampos 15y ago
> I actually appreciate Google making people use their real names, it's a step forward to actually having the ability to make people responsible for their actions online. I'm going to be honest: your comfort and enjoyment of the internet is orders of magnitude less valuable to me than the knowledge that good, decent folks who are endangered by harmful zealots can have a safe place to communicate with their compatriots. If the companies responsible for these platforms don't recognize the importance of this opportunity, they're squandering their unique position to make some good money while making the world a better place. And that's a shame.
- philwelch 15y ago
  See, in an ideal world there would be an internet with lots of web sites, some that make people like smokinjoe happy by requiring real names and others that make you happy, by providing a forum for people to speak out anonymously. If anything, your viewpoint--that every single website on the internet has to be run the way you would run it--is the more oppressive one.
  - danilocampos 15y ago
    > If anything, your viewpoint--that every single website on the internet has to be run the way you would run it--is the more oppressive one. That's an awfully cute straw man, but not really what's being discussed here. My calling for some basic human decency is no more "oppressive" than my remarking that hey, people who kick puppies or don't say thank you to waiters are pricks. > by providing a forum for people to speak out anonymously. That doesn't address the issue. The value of large companies with large social graphs is one of networking. Having a soapbox to talk shout into silence doesn't do anything to improve the cause of someone who can't be safe with their own identity online. Cramming people who are unable, for their own safety and well-being, into a ghetto cut off from the larger world is hardly a kind thing to do. For one, it deprives them of the ability to open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help or resources to begin flowing. At a certain scale, the privilege of network effects comes with social responsibility. People have the right, and often the need, to define their identity along specific parameters. Refusing to acknowledge that does not respect users – and it's entirely valid to condemn that.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      That's an awfully cute straw man, but not really what's being discussed here. My calling for some basic human decency is no more "oppressive" than my remarking that hey, people who kick puppies or don't say thank you to waiters are pricks. Lots of people actually, voluntarily, want to participate in social networks based on people's real names. You don't want to let them do that. Cramming people who are unable, for their own safety and well-being, into a ghetto cut off from the larger world is hardly a kind thing to do. For one, it deprives them of the ability to open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help or resources to begin flowing. No, it doesn't, because there are lots of places online for people to "open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help". In fact, most of the web is accepting of pseudonymous or anonymous socialization. (You're on one of many such sites right now.) Facebook (and now Google+) are an exception, and Facebook, at the very least, is popular. That doesn't make it a public utility--it's still a private service that people are free to use or ignore. No one's obligated to use Facebook and no one on Facebook is obligated to truthfully divulge any more information than they want.
bandushrew 15y ago
You are suffering from a false sense of security. Google doesn't make people use their real names, they cannot. Google just forces people to have to try a tinsy bit harder to use fake names, The more google tightens up its grip, the greater will be your false sense of security and the more devastating will be the consequences when someone takes advantage of you.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

gaius 15y ago

Sure it is. On the kit that Company X owns, it gets to set whatever policies it likes. I think the word "social" is confusing people. These are not public utilities like electricity or water.

danilocampos 15y ago
> Sure it is. On the kit that Company X owns, it gets to set whatever policies it likes. Not when Company X is bound by the edict "Don't be evil," as is the parent of the product in question, here. You have a fundamental right to represent your identity in whatever way is necessary to protect yourself from harm or harassment. Any company that makes money from codifying your identity but doesn't recognize that right is run by assholes.
- gaius 15y ago
  You have a fundamental right That's exactly when I mean. Where is this "fundamental right" in UK, EU, US or any law? These are not public utilities! Please don't confuse your personal preferences with "the Constitution".
  - gte910h 15y ago
    It's a fundamental right to go by whatever name you want in Common Law actually. You have to do it fairly consistently for entities to HAVE to recognize it though, and it does a good fuckup of your credit reports when you change, and is pretty hard to do pre-18 (and you have to tell lots of entities when you have a felony record). So yeah, fundamental right is accurate. http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/documents/1488013400EN.pdf?stateabbrev=/wa/ http://www.washingtonlawhelp.org/documents/1488013400EN.pdf?...
forensic 15y ago
Discrimination is illegal. Companies can't just do whatever they want. They are bound by laws and ethics. If these policies are found to discriminate against rape survivors (for example) they could very well be ruled illegal. Don't confuse a legal grey area with something being legal.

philwelch 15y ago

Google+ and Facebook are two websites. There's the entire rest of the internet for pseudonymous discussion and "fellowship", and no one's trying to take that away.