4 ms·

Google+ Can Be A Social Network Or The Name Police – Not Both

14 points by jdp23 15y ago

ori_b 15y ago
I don't understand the sudden outcry. I mean, Facebook has been doing this for years -- and enforcing it. The policy may or many not be common, but it's certainly nothing new.
- Hyena 15y ago
  Consider that a lot of us don't like Facebook and use it only grudgingly, if at all. I use it solely as an address book, it's practically never updated; I largely retain it as a service to others who have lost/forgotten my contact info.
- teaneedz 15y ago
  I think FB's root in a campus atmosphere encouraged the use of names as Mr. Blakley points out. The trend was set early on. FB has not been as strict on this policy either. Google is different with wide reach. What happens here may very well set the trend if not addressed early on.
- beachrat 15y ago
  Facebook doesn't have a multitude of apps and services that people have been using for years, under whatever names, and isn't ambushing people by offering a brand new 'service' that has a hidden requirement designed to compel people to out themselves across all of their work, family, and other social connections -- or else lose access to those other tools already invested with tons of time, data, and distinct networks (for distinct reasons). It's entirely different (and there are boatloads of folks with unreal names on FB, for heaven's sake). I don't know what FB requires if you sign up for a new account today, but I do know that my FB account contains =zero= accurate info about me (besides my name). Across the Google suite it is a very, very, very different case.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ansy 15y ago
Google should relent on this issue. It's clear the policy is polarizing and even Google should have the good sense to react to customer feedback. It is not in Facebook's position to do what it wants because it can nor should Google be that kind of company. This doesn't affect me. But I don't see the convincing argument against pseudonyms. Gmail has pseudonyms. Twitter has pseudonyms. Blogger has pseudonyms. Why can't Google+ have pseudonyms?
- joebadmo 15y ago
  I agree. Not only can Google+ not get away with what FB can given their respective market positions, they could use it as a differentiating feature. And not only that, but it seems like an obvious complement to the Circles feature, so you can present yourself differently to different Circles, even to the same person depending on which Circle you share to. And it could be a progressive enhancement, too, in that it could be completely invisible to people who aren't looking for the feature. So many reasons to allow them, and so few good reasons not to.

14 points by jdp23 15y ago

ori_b 15y ago

I don't understand the sudden outcry. I mean, Facebook has been doing this for years -- and enforcing it. The policy may or many not be common, but it's certainly nothing new.

Hyena 15y ago
Consider that a lot of us don't like Facebook and use it only grudgingly, if at all. I use it solely as an address book, it's practically never updated; I largely retain it as a service to others who have lost/forgotten my contact info.
teaneedz 15y ago
I think FB's root in a campus atmosphere encouraged the use of names as Mr. Blakley points out. The trend was set early on. FB has not been as strict on this policy either. Google is different with wide reach. What happens here may very well set the trend if not addressed early on.
beachrat 15y ago
Facebook doesn't have a multitude of apps and services that people have been using for years, under whatever names, and isn't ambushing people by offering a brand new 'service' that has a hidden requirement designed to compel people to out themselves across all of their work, family, and other social connections -- or else lose access to those other tools already invested with tons of time, data, and distinct networks (for distinct reasons). It's entirely different (and there are boatloads of folks with unreal names on FB, for heaven's sake). I don't know what FB requires if you sign up for a new account today, but I do know that my FB account contains =zero= accurate info about me (besides my name). Across the Google suite it is a very, very, very different case.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ansy 15y ago

Google should relent on this issue. It's clear the policy is polarizing and even Google should have the good sense to react to customer feedback. It is not in Facebook's position to do what it wants because it can nor should Google be that kind of company. This doesn't affect me. But I don't see the convincing argument against pseudonyms. Gmail has pseudonyms. Twitter has pseudonyms. Blogger has pseudonyms. Why can't Google+ have pseudonyms?

joebadmo 15y ago
I agree. Not only can Google+ not get away with what FB can given their respective market positions, they could use it as a differentiating feature. And not only that, but it seems like an obvious complement to the Circles feature, so you can present yourself differently to different Circles, even to the same person depending on which Circle you share to. And it could be a progressive enhancement, too, in that it could be completely invisible to people who aren't looking for the feature. So many reasons to allow them, and so few good reasons not to.