6 ms·

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 o

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.
      - danilocampos 15y ago
        > 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. I certainly don't want a bunch of privileged western jagoffs to enjoy a marginally better online experience at the expense of anyone else not similarly privileged. Ya got me there. I'm just not impressed by the tradeoff. I'm reminded of a favorite book: "Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop. Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good." I think when we optimize around what the group wants at the expense of the individual, we're on our way to misery. Let each person do what is best for their own needs, so long as it doesn't come at the cost of any other individual. That's a good rule for any human community, including one built on the internet. And that includes companies. If these guys want a completely homogenous platform where everyone is perfectly marketable to advertisers, that's ultimately their decision and their right. But it's a damn waste of a lot of power.
  - darklajid 15y ago
    Nope, I disagree. People that are for this rule want _other_ people to use a profile name according to some weird (and inconsistent, not fully understood) rules. People that are against this rule just want to define their _own_ profile name as they like. Erm.. Seriously? Who's the one oppressing (if that even applies here, but you brought it up)?
    - philwelch 15y ago
      The real freedom of choice is that some people can choose to use websites that enforce the real name rule, and some people can choose to use websites that don't enforce the real name rule. If you don't want to allow any website anywhere to enforce the real name rule, you're taking that freedom away from people who want that environment.
      - darklajid 15y ago
        I .. have a hard time taking that serious. Let us stick with the site in question, G+. You can block persons very, very easily. It's just 2(?) clicks away. Someone posts in your (extended) circles using a pseudonym and you don't like it? You can _easily_ make sure you'll never be disturbed in that perfect world of 'valid' names. I see no freedom issues here? The _real_ issue is, that you want your personal believe, which in this case might align with what Google arbitrary enforces or not, forced upon everyone. To save you those 2 clicks. And maybe (I'm not trying to make this a personal attack, but this is more or less the only reason I can actually imagine as being 'pro real names' among users) you just don't want to end up in the dilemma that your mum is listed as KnittingGoddess and your girlfriend as PinkUnicorn, because that would mean that you'd either have to block them or - cope with other people's choice of a name. Again, your argument is really, really backwards. I was suspended on G+ because of a name that didn't conform to the rule (intentionally, I set it to "short-version-of-firstname .", as a protest. It was my real name before) Now - did you see me somewhere? To help you out: I'd be "Ben .". Have you seen me in your circles? In your incoming stream? No? So... Why do you bother? YOU are in charge of your personal network. Here, like in any other social network. Over at FB you'd just not befriend me. Here you'd just not put me in a circle. If I'd do that though you'd notice that a creepy person with no real name is in your incoming stream and you'd block me easily. Done. You _have_ your environment. You still fail to understand the difference between rules about one's own profile ("I'd like to be darklajid") and some weird filtering that is going to happen anyway, names or not ("I'd like to see nothing but realnames"). Listen - you can choose what you see on the network. I want to choose what represents me. You have to use the controls I talked about (i.e. blocking users) _anyway_, because you'll encounter people that you don't care about/that annoy you. I cannot imagine a reason for not being able to use these same mechanisms to build yourself the illusion of a world without pseudonyms. What stops you? Where's the danger for your use case?
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]

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.
    - danilocampos 15y ago
      > 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. I certainly don't want a bunch of privileged western jagoffs to enjoy a marginally better online experience at the expense of anyone else not similarly privileged. Ya got me there. I'm just not impressed by the tradeoff. I'm reminded of a favorite book: "Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop. Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good." I think when we optimize around what the group wants at the expense of the individual, we're on our way to misery. Let each person do what is best for their own needs, so long as it doesn't come at the cost of any other individual. That's a good rule for any human community, including one built on the internet. And that includes companies. If these guys want a completely homogenous platform where everyone is perfectly marketable to advertisers, that's ultimately their decision and their right. But it's a damn waste of a lot of power.
- darklajid 15y ago
  Nope, I disagree. People that are for this rule want _other_ people to use a profile name according to some weird (and inconsistent, not fully understood) rules. People that are against this rule just want to define their _own_ profile name as they like. Erm.. Seriously? Who's the one oppressing (if that even applies here, but you brought it up)?
  - philwelch 15y ago
    The real freedom of choice is that some people can choose to use websites that enforce the real name rule, and some people can choose to use websites that don't enforce the real name rule. If you don't want to allow any website anywhere to enforce the real name rule, you're taking that freedom away from people who want that environment.
    - darklajid 15y ago
      I .. have a hard time taking that serious. Let us stick with the site in question, G+. You can block persons very, very easily. It's just 2(?) clicks away. Someone posts in your (extended) circles using a pseudonym and you don't like it? You can _easily_ make sure you'll never be disturbed in that perfect world of 'valid' names. I see no freedom issues here? The _real_ issue is, that you want your personal believe, which in this case might align with what Google arbitrary enforces or not, forced upon everyone. To save you those 2 clicks. And maybe (I'm not trying to make this a personal attack, but this is more or less the only reason I can actually imagine as being 'pro real names' among users) you just don't want to end up in the dilemma that your mum is listed as KnittingGoddess and your girlfriend as PinkUnicorn, because that would mean that you'd either have to block them or - cope with other people's choice of a name. Again, your argument is really, really backwards. I was suspended on G+ because of a name that didn't conform to the rule (intentionally, I set it to "short-version-of-firstname .", as a protest. It was my real name before) Now - did you see me somewhere? To help you out: I'd be "Ben .". Have you seen me in your circles? In your incoming stream? No? So... Why do you bother? YOU are in charge of your personal network. Here, like in any other social network. Over at FB you'd just not befriend me. Here you'd just not put me in a circle. If I'd do that though you'd notice that a creepy person with no real name is in your incoming stream and you'd block me easily. Done. You _have_ your environment. You still fail to understand the difference between rules about one's own profile ("I'd like to be darklajid") and some weird filtering that is going to happen anyway, names or not ("I'd like to see nothing but realnames"). Listen - you can choose what you see on the network. I want to choose what represents me. You have to use the controls I talked about (i.e. blocking users) _anyway_, because you'll encounter people that you don't care about/that annoy you. I cannot imagine a reason for not being able to use these same mechanisms to build yourself the illusion of a world without pseudonyms. What stops you? Where's the danger for your use case?

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]