5 ms·

I don't see how it is an "evil concept", I think what he means by identity service is a platform on which they can build social apps, it's same as social networ

by yanw 15y ago

I don't see how it is an "evil concept", I think what he means by identity service is a platform on which they can build social apps, it's same as social network. And I'm quite annoyed by claims that associate a real identity requirement with selling data or ad targeting and such, they can target well enough using interests, not sure your name improves much on it. Also instead of speculating read the service's privacy policy and be certain about it.

0x44 15y ago
Speaking as a caucasian male with a name that's basically unique in the world (there is only one person who has my name but that might have been a typo in the article as every where else he uses a different last name), having my name improves their ad targeting considerably.
- 01Michael10 15y ago
  What does the fact you are a Caucasian male have to do with your point?
  - 0x44 15y ago
    One of the complaints about Google's true-name policy is that it unfairly discriminates against people who don't have Western sounding names, or who aren't middle-class white guys. The reported retort is that they're not yet out of beta and shouldn't have to concern themselves with multi-culturalism, so people with "non-standard" or "unique" names should just use something else.
  - dredmorbius 15y ago
    It's pointing out that it's not necessarily the socially marginalized , deviant, oppressed, or victimized who've an interest in anonymity or pseudonymity. As with 0x44, I've a name that's to the best of my knowledge unique in all the world. That's helpful when I wish to be known. When not, not so much. And I've accumulated a (thankfully short) list of people I don't much care to advertise my goings-on to. Having a distinctive pseudonym for certain roles is useful. Having a non-distinctive pseudonym (or several) for others, likewise. Sometimes, on the Internet, you really do want to be a dog.
- yanw 15y ago
  Be that as it may, do think the primary reason for insisting on real names is to target ads better? they first need a sufficient critical mass to implement that, their reasons are different, at least in this early stage.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    I do think it's primarily about data. Maybe not specifically ad targeting, but about owning a relatively "clean" set of data that they can later exploit or sell in whatever way they prefer.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - yanw 15y ago
      Yeah but that isn't new it's how everyone is operating, facebook, linkedin, whomever. And users get to use the service freely in return.
rjd 15y ago
Its because the root motivation most people including myself see is that its about control. And things that try and control other things are evil. Years ago Google was a disruption force towards existing controlling organisations. Now Google are trying to prevent disruptive technologies eroding their market share. Hence they have joined the ranks of the old guard such as Microsoft, IBM, Apple etc... those desiring control, and hence arguably evil. Just the nature of business, they don't really have a choice, and many respects are bound by law to become 'evil'.
- Permit 15y ago
  You don't think it cheapens the world 'evil' to be using it like that? I don't think control constitutes "profound immorality and wickedness" to be honest.
  - dredmorbius 15y ago
    Barron Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton) got this right a long time ago: all power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. There's a modern corrolary: data corrupts, absolute data corrupts absolutely. Google are well and truly headed down this path, it seems.
  - rjd 15y ago
    Well I haven't seen them sacrificing children to Baphomet or anything, but I do believe they are ethical and morally in the wrong camp and have been for a few years now. They take money from one industry and use it to crush/undermine competitors in other industries. Hence making a situation where no one can compete with them. IMO abusing market position i.e. they use advertising money to drive technology business out of business They have also perpetuated a belief that you shouldn't pay for anything on the internet. You know that would be fine if we lived in some Marxist utopia, but we don't. Things are expensive to make and produce and Google is making it harder and harder on a daily basis to get returns off products. They did what was needed, improved the world, but those days are gone.
    - 15y ago

by yanw 15y ago

0x44 15y ago

Speaking as a caucasian male with a name that's basically unique in the world (there is only one person who has my name but that might have been a typo in the article as every where else he uses a different last name), having my name improves their ad targeting considerably.

01Michael10 15y ago
What does the fact you are a Caucasian male have to do with your point?
- 0x44 15y ago
  One of the complaints about Google's true-name policy is that it unfairly discriminates against people who don't have Western sounding names, or who aren't middle-class white guys. The reported retort is that they're not yet out of beta and shouldn't have to concern themselves with multi-culturalism, so people with "non-standard" or "unique" names should just use something else.
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  It's pointing out that it's not necessarily the socially marginalized , deviant, oppressed, or victimized who've an interest in anonymity or pseudonymity. As with 0x44, I've a name that's to the best of my knowledge unique in all the world. That's helpful when I wish to be known. When not, not so much. And I've accumulated a (thankfully short) list of people I don't much care to advertise my goings-on to. Having a distinctive pseudonym for certain roles is useful. Having a non-distinctive pseudonym (or several) for others, likewise. Sometimes, on the Internet, you really do want to be a dog.
yanw 15y ago
Be that as it may, do think the primary reason for insisting on real names is to target ads better? they first need a sufficient critical mass to implement that, their reasons are different, at least in this early stage.
- _delirium 15y ago
  I do think it's primarily about data. Maybe not specifically ad targeting, but about owning a relatively "clean" set of data that they can later exploit or sell in whatever way they prefer.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - yanw 15y ago
    Yeah but that isn't new it's how everyone is operating, facebook, linkedin, whomever. And users get to use the service freely in return.

rjd 15y ago

Its because the root motivation most people including myself see is that its about control. And things that try and control other things are evil. Years ago Google was a disruption force towards existing controlling organisations. Now Google are trying to prevent disruptive technologies eroding their market share. Hence they have joined the ranks of the old guard such as Microsoft, IBM, Apple etc... those desiring control, and hence arguably evil. Just the nature of business, they don't really have a choice, and many respects are bound by law to become 'evil'.

Permit 15y ago
You don't think it cheapens the world 'evil' to be using it like that? I don't think control constitutes "profound immorality and wickedness" to be honest.
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  Barron Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton) got this right a long time ago: all power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. There's a modern corrolary: data corrupts, absolute data corrupts absolutely. Google are well and truly headed down this path, it seems.
- rjd 15y ago
  Well I haven't seen them sacrificing children to Baphomet or anything, but I do believe they are ethical and morally in the wrong camp and have been for a few years now. They take money from one industry and use it to crush/undermine competitors in other industries. Hence making a situation where no one can compete with them. IMO abusing market position i.e. they use advertising money to drive technology business out of business They have also perpetuated a belief that you shouldn't pay for anything on the internet. You know that would be fine if we lived in some Marxist utopia, but we don't. Things are expensive to make and produce and Google is making it harder and harder on a daily basis to get returns off products. They did what was needed, improved the world, but those days are gone.
  - 15y ago