4 ms·

I don't want to have to deal with pseudonyms to talk to people I know in real life just because I'm using a computer. Facebook understood this, and Google does

I don't want to have to deal with pseudonyms to talk to people I know in real life just because I'm using a computer. Facebook understood this, and Google does too. Pseudoynm communities can still be awesome for situations where you want your persona to stay within the internet. I love HN, and I wouldn't want to use my real name here. Same with most forums. But pseudonyms have no place in social networking. As Zuckerburg figured out from watching MySpace unfold, having Internet-only "friends" is sketchy, unfulfilling, and kind of dangerous; the mainstream wants to use the internet to connect to their real-life friends. That was the principle behind Facebook, and that's what Google+ is trying for. There is still a segment of people that likes talking to anonymous strangers. Usually it's about some topic, but some people still have MySpace "friends." There is certainly a market there, but it's not for everyone. Google tends to build products for the widest possible audience, and I don't see why Google+ would be any different.

troymc 15y ago
Are you kidding? The proposal isn't to force you to learn two names for every person, one for "real life" and one for when you're using a computer. That's a straw man. Facebook began as a network for Harvard students, then island networks for other universities, and so on, and it only got merged into one monster network later on. Because of that history, it tends to be a social network for people to connect to school friends, family, work colleagues, etc. (i.e. people you've met in real life). Google+ has much different beginnings. Twitter seems to be doing quite well allowing pseudonyms. Same with Hacker News. You wrote "pseudonyms have no place in social networking" but what is Hacker News if not (in part) a social network? An anonymous comment isn't the same thing as a comment under a pseudonym. People tend to use the same pseudonym (or set of pseudonyms) everywhere they go: people can get a sense of who they are, what they believe. They can even use that pseudonym when not online (e.g. Mark Twain never had Internet access). "Real names" and pseudonyms are just handles. They're like variable names when programming. The computer doesn't care what you call the variables. Why should you care whether someone goes by the name their parents gave them or something else? Shouldn't that be their choice?
- esrauch 15y ago
  Except if I want to see if Steve Yegge or Steve Jobs or Steve Wozniak or X has a twitter it is extremely difficult. In general you have to search on google for their personal website and hope that it mentions their twitter info on the page. The situation is even worse for finding your friends if they have their username as Rogue7777; you can't sit down at a computer and determine if your friend has a hackernews or reddit account for example. That is fine for some communities where it is a feature that any random schmo can theoretically have the same visibility as Linus Torvalds, but that is the exact opposite of what Facebook, Twitter and Google+; you care foremost about who is saying it and want to listen to what specific people have to say, not hear what any random anonymous 13 year old thinks about copyright law. The issue isnt "real names", its "name you are commonly known by", unfortunately that is an extremely difficult thing to determine by looking at usernames; in general people don't call their friends "texans for marijuana legalization" or "darth vader" in real life though.
  - marshray 15y ago
    It'd be a lot easier to find your buddy if he went by the handle Rogue7777 than his real name, Fred Jones.
    - esrauch 15y ago
      That's only true if he told you that he signed up as Rogue7777, in which case he could just give you a link to his profile.
  - runningdogx 15y ago
    site:twitter.com steve wozniak Not all famous people will have a twitter account, but if they do, it'll probably be in the top few results. Those people who want to use pseudonyms, and have less visibility, can do that too. I do not think a social networking site itself needs to distinguish between famous people, ordinary people, and pseudonyms. Link popularity and user-generated status within the social networking site will do that, and search is pretty good at picking up on those cues. If anything, perhaps G+ and twitter need [better] tools that enable the userbase to ensure that a "real" Steve Jobs account can be given more status (let's call it whuffie), but Google and Twitter themselves do not need to take it upon themselves to unilaterally declare one account or another as special or reserved. That way madness lies. It will stress out the companies who have to pay employees to vet accounts. It will stress out the companies when they get it wrong or get into disputes over well-known identities. It will stress out users when they see network effects being overridden by corporate administrative fiat.

troymc 15y ago

Are you kidding? The proposal isn't to force you to learn two names for every person, one for "real life" and one for when you're using a computer. That's a straw man. Facebook began as a network for Harvard students, then island networks for other universities, and so on, and it only got merged into one monster network later on. Because of that history, it tends to be a social network for people to connect to school friends, family, work colleagues, etc. (i.e. people you've met in real life). Google+ has much different beginnings. Twitter seems to be doing quite well allowing pseudonyms. Same with Hacker News. You wrote "pseudonyms have no place in social networking" but what is Hacker News if not (in part) a social network? An anonymous comment isn't the same thing as a comment under a pseudonym. People tend to use the same pseudonym (or set of pseudonyms) everywhere they go: people can get a sense of who they are, what they believe. They can even use that pseudonym when not online (e.g. Mark Twain never had Internet access). "Real names" and pseudonyms are just handles. They're like variable names when programming. The computer doesn't care what you call the variables. Why should you care whether someone goes by the name their parents gave them or something else? Shouldn't that be their choice?

esrauch 15y ago
Except if I want to see if Steve Yegge or Steve Jobs or Steve Wozniak or X has a twitter it is extremely difficult. In general you have to search on google for their personal website and hope that it mentions their twitter info on the page. The situation is even worse for finding your friends if they have their username as Rogue7777; you can't sit down at a computer and determine if your friend has a hackernews or reddit account for example. That is fine for some communities where it is a feature that any random schmo can theoretically have the same visibility as Linus Torvalds, but that is the exact opposite of what Facebook, Twitter and Google+; you care foremost about who is saying it and want to listen to what specific people have to say, not hear what any random anonymous 13 year old thinks about copyright law. The issue isnt "real names", its "name you are commonly known by", unfortunately that is an extremely difficult thing to determine by looking at usernames; in general people don't call their friends "texans for marijuana legalization" or "darth vader" in real life though.
- marshray 15y ago
  It'd be a lot easier to find your buddy if he went by the handle Rogue7777 than his real name, Fred Jones.
  - esrauch 15y ago
    That's only true if he told you that he signed up as Rogue7777, in which case he could just give you a link to his profile.
- runningdogx 15y ago
  site:twitter.com steve wozniak Not all famous people will have a twitter account, but if they do, it'll probably be in the top few results. Those people who want to use pseudonyms, and have less visibility, can do that too. I do not think a social networking site itself needs to distinguish between famous people, ordinary people, and pseudonyms. Link popularity and user-generated status within the social networking site will do that, and search is pretty good at picking up on those cues. If anything, perhaps G+ and twitter need [better] tools that enable the userbase to ensure that a "real" Steve Jobs account can be given more status (let's call it whuffie), but Google and Twitter themselves do not need to take it upon themselves to unilaterally declare one account or another as special or reserved. That way madness lies. It will stress out the companies who have to pay employees to vet accounts. It will stress out the companies when they get it wrong or get into disputes over well-known identities. It will stress out users when they see network effects being overridden by corporate administrative fiat.