4 ms·

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) rule

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?
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Well, suppose I want to find my friend Henry Jones on Google+, but I can't because his pseudonym is Jameson Soulblighter, and since I know him from real life rather than online, I had no idea. Now I'll never get back in touch with him. Now, it's possible that Henry Jones doesn't want to be found, but you can set your profile to be non-searchable.
    - dagw 15y ago
      Well, suppose I want to find my friend Jameson Soulblighter on Google+, but I can't because his real name is Henry Jones, and since I know him from online rather than real life, I had no idea. Now I'll never get back in touch with him. I know enough people online that I'd consider friends and yet I don't know their full legal name.
      - philwelch 15y ago
        It's probably fair to say that if you are close friends with certain people and yet don't know their real names, you're already keeping in touch with them somewhere on the internet anyway, and how completely different people use completely different websites is frankly not your business.
        darklajid 15y ago
        > how completely different people use completely different websites is frankly not your business. Likewise? This is not helpful. Some people want their pseudonym as 'main' handle, optionally adding their real name _if they please_. That would solve the usecase further above. Other people want to use their real name and _keep other people out unless they comply_. I really don't get it how you can try to put it different while keeping a straight face.
        philwelch 15y ago
        optionally adding their real name _if they please_. That would solve the usecase further above. Um, one of the primary use cases of a social network is to search for people you know in real life by their real names. Making that entire thing "optional" hinders that. If your primary use case is to use a pseudonym, the entire rest of the web is more or less set up for you that way already.

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?
- philwelch 15y ago
  Well, suppose I want to find my friend Henry Jones on Google+, but I can't because his pseudonym is Jameson Soulblighter, and since I know him from real life rather than online, I had no idea. Now I'll never get back in touch with him. Now, it's possible that Henry Jones doesn't want to be found, but you can set your profile to be non-searchable.
  - dagw 15y ago
    Well, suppose I want to find my friend Jameson Soulblighter on Google+, but I can't because his real name is Henry Jones, and since I know him from online rather than real life, I had no idea. Now I'll never get back in touch with him. I know enough people online that I'd consider friends and yet I don't know their full legal name.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      It's probably fair to say that if you are close friends with certain people and yet don't know their real names, you're already keeping in touch with them somewhere on the internet anyway, and how completely different people use completely different websites is frankly not your business.
      - darklajid 15y ago
        > how completely different people use completely different websites is frankly not your business. Likewise? This is not helpful. Some people want their pseudonym as 'main' handle, optionally adding their real name _if they please_. That would solve the usecase further above. Other people want to use their real name and _keep other people out unless they comply_. I really don't get it how you can try to put it different while keeping a straight face.
        philwelch 15y ago
        optionally adding their real name _if they please_. That would solve the usecase further above. Um, one of the primary use cases of a social network is to search for people you know in real life by their real names. Making that entire thing "optional" hinders that. If your primary use case is to use a pseudonym, the entire rest of the web is more or less set up for you that way already.