4 ms·

In the end, isn't user's choice a compelling factor in deciding such matters? We know what you're trying to do, but you can't force people to be social, at leas

In the end, isn't user's choice a compelling factor in deciding such matters? We know what you're trying to do, but you can't force people to be social, at least not without some awkwardness and discontent. Let us speak clearly: They tell us why it's good for us that we use our real names, and they may be right. But they don't tell us why it's bad for them that we don't. If it's not bad for them, then why restrict user's choice? People socialize in different ways, in my opinion, a good social network would be flexible enough to allow different people socialize in a way that is most comfortable to them. EDIT: My legal name is not "Ben Beltran". Nonetheless, almost everybody in real life and online knows me this way, few know my actual long name and most think I'm called benjamin. I believe this name attaches my statements to my person more than my legal name does. I consider this my "Real Name"

ristretto 15y ago
It's bad for them, because it breaks the whole concept. The concept is that if you start with requiring real name, you prime people to give you the "real" things you like, your "real" preferences etc. It sets the tone, you are not longer spontaneous, you are "serious". Of course, it's all scaremongering: social networks don't have real informative comment, most people share jokes, mindless pleasantries and play games.
- timwiseman 15y ago
  social networks don't have real informative comment I beg to differ. I mostly use facebook to keep in touch with my extended family. Most of it is updates on our children. While that is probably of little significance to anyone outside my extended family, it is important to us. Others though use social networks to find jobs, talk about their most recent artistic project, discuss research, and keep in touch with business contacts. And those are within my social circles. If we step further out, they have been used as a tool with major political consequences in many places.
  - ristretto 15y ago
    my bad. I meant "content of significance to the general public"; i assume your family could tell who you are just from your picture, the issue here is whether you should use your identity outside the social network when you create such "content of significance". It's very rare that you find original content inside social networks, they are mostly amplifiers for content found elsewhere.
esrauch 15y ago
I'm not sure what you claim is so trivially obvious; sometimes a decision to restrict peoples choices ends up being good for the company simply because it is good for the user experience. Consider how facebook never allowed too much freedom over pages, no background images or changing the font or auto playing music. These were all hotly requested features, and why should facebook care if someone put a tiled image background or had a different font? They cared because in reality people often don't make the best decisions and for anything social, other people being morons and using red comic sans over tiled lolcats causes the value of the service to decrease. I'm not sure if the same is true about Google+, but I did think it was jarring that people named things like "Texans for Marijuana Legalization" started following me on Google+. If there was people named anything close to the average xbox handle, it would definitely make me less likely to use the service (things like vagblaster77 or dankbluntz4lyfe)

ristretto 15y ago

It's bad for them, because it breaks the whole concept. The concept is that if you start with requiring real name, you prime people to give you the "real" things you like, your "real" preferences etc. It sets the tone, you are not longer spontaneous, you are "serious". Of course, it's all scaremongering: social networks don't have real informative comment, most people share jokes, mindless pleasantries and play games.

timwiseman 15y ago
social networks don't have real informative comment I beg to differ. I mostly use facebook to keep in touch with my extended family. Most of it is updates on our children. While that is probably of little significance to anyone outside my extended family, it is important to us. Others though use social networks to find jobs, talk about their most recent artistic project, discuss research, and keep in touch with business contacts. And those are within my social circles. If we step further out, they have been used as a tool with major political consequences in many places.
- ristretto 15y ago
  my bad. I meant "content of significance to the general public"; i assume your family could tell who you are just from your picture, the issue here is whether you should use your identity outside the social network when you create such "content of significance". It's very rare that you find original content inside social networks, they are mostly amplifiers for content found elsewhere.

esrauch 15y ago

I'm not sure what you claim is so trivially obvious; sometimes a decision to restrict peoples choices ends up being good for the company simply because it is good for the user experience. Consider how facebook never allowed too much freedom over pages, no background images or changing the font or auto playing music. These were all hotly requested features, and why should facebook care if someone put a tiled image background or had a different font? They cared because in reality people often don't make the best decisions and for anything social, other people being morons and using red comic sans over tiled lolcats causes the value of the service to decrease. I'm not sure if the same is true about Google+, but I did think it was jarring that people named things like "Texans for Marijuana Legalization" started following me on Google+. If there was people named anything close to the average xbox handle, it would definitely make me less likely to use the service (things like vagblaster77 or dankbluntz4lyfe)