4 ms·
Well, I can understand them requiring you to pick one name as your primary name. While e.g. a feature that allowed you to present a different name to different
by jsdalton 15y ago
Well, I can understand them requiring you to pick one name as your primary name. While e.g. a feature that allowed you to present a different name to different Circles might be a good one, I don't think it's unfair of them not to implement such a feature.
That said, the gray area here -- and the difference between the stated policy and their actions -- is the problem. Per their policy, I don't see why you couldn't use "Pyrodogg" as your name, if that is in fact what you're most frequently known by. I guess it's not a "full" name (first and last) but I don't see anything in their policy that explicitly prohibits that.
But I guess what people are saying is they would take action against you if you went that route -- in which case, the problem is one of enforcement rather than policy, no?
Don't get me wrong, I think they are mucking this up -- I'm just not convinced (yet) that their stated policy is as bad as some of the criticism is making it out to be. Most of the rules make sense (no impersonations, no special chars, etc.), so I don't get why they can't just say, "Call yourself whatever you want as long as it doesn't break these rules."
- nknight 15y agoIt's clear that their stated policy is not the same as their actual internal policy. If it were, the outcry would be half the size it is. Google is lying about what their policy actually is, plain and simple. Questions of anonymity aside, the much of the outcry is because of the severe dishonesty being displayed by Google.