4 ms·

I do understand that the mail post is about why he doesn't want to work at Google and not about demonizing Google. Yet, what still strikes me odd is that many p

by tommi 15y ago

I do understand that the mail post is about why he doesn't want to work at Google and not about demonizing Google. Yet, what still strikes me odd is that many people feel like Google and other big companies should act the way they want. "Their “real names” policy on Google+ is one example; it makes it likely that only people who feel they have no repercussions to fear from anyone, ever, will write there." And that is fine in my opinion. Not everybody needs to be on the Google+. It's their playground, let them run it the way they want.

4ad 15y ago
Yeah, I expected this to be yet another post about how evil google really is, but instead I found a very well written and very insightful post with very interesting references. It might not apply to everyone, but it's a great read.
scotu 15y ago
the problem in the real name policy, to me, is more related to the fact that they want your ID name while they claim to need the name you go by usually. Would google accept _why as a name for a user? Probably not unless this _why is a well known guy. But what if you are not well known, but your friends call you that way? To me they should accept it based on their terms... P.S. I like/use google plus
- michaelochurch 15y ago
  What concerns me about RN policies is the immoderacy with which they're often pursued, not the idea itself. It's actually (gasp!) a good idea at root. I have no problem with allowing pseudonyms and role accounts-- I think G+ and Facebook should-- but Google is right not to want profiles with names like Fuckhead89 and MiKeY ~:~ j0n3S on the service. Giving less leniency (in terms of the decision whether to can spammers) to non-real-name accounts makes sense. Stopping impersonation is obviously the right thing to do. Preemptively treating accounts as negative-value accounts simply because they look* pseudonymous is the wrong thing to do. What I think needed to be said in the boardroom conversations is that the damage done by deleting a good (even pseudonymous) profile is about 100 times that done by allowing a bad profile. Bad profiles (spammers, trolls) will ruin a site, but they're only dangerous if numerous enough to establish a critical mass. The cost of ripping out a good, potentially pseudonymous profile, is a nasty blog post that makes the rounds on the internet.
gcp 15y ago
I guess an issue for many hackers is that whether or not to work for Google is a real, nagging question. Many of us will have the skill-sets that cause Google to seek us out when they are on hiring sprees. Some will certainly get offers. For hackers, Google is clearly an interesting company to work for. They have good infrastructure, good technology, a culture that is likeable to hackers, competitive pay, and an ability to make world-changing technology. So, all in all, it's an enticing offer. However, for many hackers, there's the question if Google's overall corporate direction fits our values. Combined with the fact that Google is so powerful, one wonders if Google is the ally or the threat. I believe that the article make the point that if you have the abilities to land a job at Google, you might as well have the abilities to change things for the better without Google.
- bergie 15y ago
  Exactly. Right now for good hackers the job market is such that they can pretty much choose where to work. And the market is even so good that most are able to do these decisions based on matching corporate values and not just salary.
DasIch 15y ago
It is not that simple. Big companies have an impact on society and culture, that cannot and should not be ignored. Much like there are systems in place to protect the market from companies (or more accurately itself), it needs to be considered if that impact is negative, if such a negative impact is somehow encouraged (like monopolies) and if so what can be done about it. Democracy works because we assume that communication can be done freely and anonymously. If these assumptions don't hold true for major communication platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Google+ we do have a significant problem. The fact that you don't have to join these platforms becomes irrelevant if the societal impact extends beyond them or not-joining prevents you from communicating with others in society.
- VMG 15y ago
  > Democracy works because we assume that communication can be done freely and anonymously. The real name policy on Google+ doesn't change anything about that. People can still communicate anonymously, just not via Google+. Democracy does not require anonymity on every communication platform imaginable. There also isn't anonymous internet access, and there aren't anonymous domain names (or only few). Democracy depends on the State allowing anonymity, not on every communication provider implementing it. Google thinks that it's system profits from accountability, and they have the right to enforce it on their platform.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    If it's a single provider doing it, without anything close to a dominant market share (the current situation), I agree. It would become more problematic if it became de facto the standard communication platform, though, or even a large share of it. For example, if Facebook messages replace email for 90% of the population, you will find it very difficult to avoid using Facebook messages. I don't see it as much different than the State, really. Companies with smallish market share are like local governments: relatively harmless, because you can just avoid the ones you don't like. Bigger governments and companies get increasingly hard to avoid; it's easier to move out of Pittsburgh than to move out of the U.S.A., and it's easier to avoid Google Plus than to avoid the big-4 telecoms.
kijiki 15y ago
I would explain why "so just don't use it" isn't the whole story, but Moxie already did a much better job: http://www.securitytube.net/video/1084 http://www.securitytube.net/video/1084
kragen 15y ago
Let me explain. I think we have a very fundamental disagreement. I believe that some actions are good and some actions are evil, according to, among other things, whether they harm others, whether they are fair, and whether they are honest. I believe that people should do things that are good and not do things that are evil, whether in their capacity as employees or otherwise; big companies are not moral agents, but their employees are. I can assure you that most of the people who work on Google+ believe that, too, which is one of the reasons they work at Google instead of somewhere else. And I believe that the “real names” policy is evil, because it strengthens existing imbalances of power in the world, which is unfair and also harms people. If I'm wrong, and it is not evil, then I do not want Google (by which I mean a large group of people, especially those with a lot of influence) to abandon it. But if I'm right, and it is evil, then I do want Google to abandon it. That is, I don't want Google to conform to my personal preferences; I want Google to do good and not evil, and I have an opinion about what that consists of, an opinion that might be wrong. Does that clarify? What in the above "strikes you odd"?
- tommi 15y ago
  I somewhat see where you are going and I do like it. Employees should work in a company where they believe in the way of working and feel comfortable doing the job. Agreed on that. But I see the problem arising on how to define what's evil and what is not. There are lot of things which can be thought as strengthening existing imbalances of power in the world. Even the Google search could be considered to be such. I can't figure out why "real names" policy is evil. I don't see it harming people. From what I have been using Facebook and Google+, I actually enjoy and prefer it so that people use real names. Not all products are suited for everybody and alternatives for different use cases exist. I'm sure that Google has lot to offer for people who don't want to use their real name publicly.
  - kragen 15y ago
    > Employees should work in a company where they believe in the way of working and feel comfortable doing the job. Agreed on that. That's not what I said, although it's probably a good HR policy. I didn't say people should do things that they think are good and not evil (at work or otherwise). I said people should do things that are good and not evil. If I thought what you think I thought, it would be counterproductive to bring up these issues publicly, because it might make people uncomfortable by making them question their values. > But I see the problem arising on how to define what's evil and what is not. Yes, of course it's difficult to know what's good and what's evil (it's not a question of "definition" unless moral relativism is correct), and if past experience is any guide, we probably won't come to any kind of permanent consensus. That doesn't mean that discussing it is pointless. We can probably come to better conclusions about what's good and what's evil with the discussion than without it. > There are lot of things which can be thought as strengthening existing imbalances of power in the world. Even the Google search could be considered to be such. Someone might think Google Search strengthens existing imbalances of power, but I don't think so. And of course it does the opposite of harming people. > I can't figure out why "real names" policy is evil. I don't see it harming people. I don't really want to get into the whole #nymwars discussion here, but suffice it to say that the broad consensus among Google+ users is that you're wrong about that — which is what I meant by saying that Google's policy was undemocratically chosen.

by tommi 15y ago

4ad 15y ago

Yeah, I expected this to be yet another post about how evil google really is, but instead I found a very well written and very insightful post with very interesting references. It might not apply to everyone, but it's a great read.

scotu 15y ago

the problem in the real name policy, to me, is more related to the fact that they want your ID name while they claim to need the name you go by usually. Would google accept _why as a name for a user? Probably not unless this _why is a well known guy. But what if you are not well known, but your friends call you that way? To me they should accept it based on their terms... P.S. I like/use google plus

michaelochurch 15y ago
What concerns me about RN policies is the immoderacy with which they're often pursued, not the idea itself. It's actually (gasp!) a good idea at root. I have no problem with allowing pseudonyms and role accounts-- I think G+ and Facebook should-- but Google is right not to want profiles with names like Fuckhead89 and MiKeY ~:~ j0n3S on the service. Giving less leniency (in terms of the decision whether to can spammers) to non-real-name accounts makes sense. Stopping impersonation is obviously the right thing to do. Preemptively treating accounts as negative-value accounts simply because they look* pseudonymous is the wrong thing to do. What I think needed to be said in the boardroom conversations is that the damage done by deleting a good (even pseudonymous) profile is about 100 times that done by allowing a bad profile. Bad profiles (spammers, trolls) will ruin a site, but they're only dangerous if numerous enough to establish a critical mass. The cost of ripping out a good, potentially pseudonymous profile, is a nasty blog post that makes the rounds on the internet.

gcp 15y ago

I guess an issue for many hackers is that whether or not to work for Google is a real, nagging question. Many of us will have the skill-sets that cause Google to seek us out when they are on hiring sprees. Some will certainly get offers. For hackers, Google is clearly an interesting company to work for. They have good infrastructure, good technology, a culture that is likeable to hackers, competitive pay, and an ability to make world-changing technology. So, all in all, it's an enticing offer. However, for many hackers, there's the question if Google's overall corporate direction fits our values. Combined with the fact that Google is so powerful, one wonders if Google is the ally or the threat. I believe that the article make the point that if you have the abilities to land a job at Google, you might as well have the abilities to change things for the better without Google.

bergie 15y ago
Exactly. Right now for good hackers the job market is such that they can pretty much choose where to work. And the market is even so good that most are able to do these decisions based on matching corporate values and not just salary.

DasIch 15y ago

It is not that simple. Big companies have an impact on society and culture, that cannot and should not be ignored. Much like there are systems in place to protect the market from companies (or more accurately itself), it needs to be considered if that impact is negative, if such a negative impact is somehow encouraged (like monopolies) and if so what can be done about it. Democracy works because we assume that communication can be done freely and anonymously. If these assumptions don't hold true for major communication platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Google+ we do have a significant problem. The fact that you don't have to join these platforms becomes irrelevant if the societal impact extends beyond them or not-joining prevents you from communicating with others in society.

VMG 15y ago
> Democracy works because we assume that communication can be done freely and anonymously. The real name policy on Google+ doesn't change anything about that. People can still communicate anonymously, just not via Google+. Democracy does not require anonymity on every communication platform imaginable. There also isn't anonymous internet access, and there aren't anonymous domain names (or only few). Democracy depends on the State allowing anonymity, not on every communication provider implementing it. Google thinks that it's system profits from accountability, and they have the right to enforce it on their platform.
- _delirium 15y ago
  If it's a single provider doing it, without anything close to a dominant market share (the current situation), I agree. It would become more problematic if it became de facto the standard communication platform, though, or even a large share of it. For example, if Facebook messages replace email for 90% of the population, you will find it very difficult to avoid using Facebook messages. I don't see it as much different than the State, really. Companies with smallish market share are like local governments: relatively harmless, because you can just avoid the ones you don't like. Bigger governments and companies get increasingly hard to avoid; it's easier to move out of Pittsburgh than to move out of the U.S.A., and it's easier to avoid Google Plus than to avoid the big-4 telecoms.

kijiki 15y ago

I would explain why "so just don't use it" isn't the whole story, but Moxie already did a much better job: http://www.securitytube.net/video/1084 http://www.securitytube.net/video/1084

kragen 15y ago

Let me explain. I think we have a very fundamental disagreement. I believe that some actions are good and some actions are evil, according to, among other things, whether they harm others, whether they are fair, and whether they are honest. I believe that people should do things that are good and not do things that are evil, whether in their capacity as employees or otherwise; big companies are not moral agents, but their employees are. I can assure you that most of the people who work on Google+ believe that, too, which is one of the reasons they work at Google instead of somewhere else. And I believe that the “real names” policy is evil, because it strengthens existing imbalances of power in the world, which is unfair and also harms people. If I'm wrong, and it is not evil, then I do not want Google (by which I mean a large group of people, especially those with a lot of influence) to abandon it. But if I'm right, and it is evil, then I do want Google to abandon it. That is, I don't want Google to conform to my personal preferences; I want Google to do good and not evil, and I have an opinion about what that consists of, an opinion that might be wrong. Does that clarify? What in the above "strikes you odd"?

tommi 15y ago
I somewhat see where you are going and I do like it. Employees should work in a company where they believe in the way of working and feel comfortable doing the job. Agreed on that. But I see the problem arising on how to define what's evil and what is not. There are lot of things which can be thought as strengthening existing imbalances of power in the world. Even the Google search could be considered to be such. I can't figure out why "real names" policy is evil. I don't see it harming people. From what I have been using Facebook and Google+, I actually enjoy and prefer it so that people use real names. Not all products are suited for everybody and alternatives for different use cases exist. I'm sure that Google has lot to offer for people who don't want to use their real name publicly.
- kragen 15y ago
  > Employees should work in a company where they believe in the way of working and feel comfortable doing the job. Agreed on that. That's not what I said, although it's probably a good HR policy. I didn't say people should do things that they think are good and not evil (at work or otherwise). I said people should do things that are good and not evil. If I thought what you think I thought, it would be counterproductive to bring up these issues publicly, because it might make people uncomfortable by making them question their values. > But I see the problem arising on how to define what's evil and what is not. Yes, of course it's difficult to know what's good and what's evil (it's not a question of "definition" unless moral relativism is correct), and if past experience is any guide, we probably won't come to any kind of permanent consensus. That doesn't mean that discussing it is pointless. We can probably come to better conclusions about what's good and what's evil with the discussion than without it. > There are lot of things which can be thought as strengthening existing imbalances of power in the world. Even the Google search could be considered to be such. Someone might think Google Search strengthens existing imbalances of power, but I don't think so. And of course it does the opposite of harming people. > I can't figure out why "real names" policy is evil. I don't see it harming people. I don't really want to get into the whole #nymwars discussion here, but suffice it to say that the broad consensus among Google+ users is that you're wrong about that — which is what I meant by saying that Google's policy was undemocratically chosen.