3 ms·
This still misses the issue by making a distinction between "real names" and pseudonyms in the first place. Fine you might now be able to go by a pseudonym, bu
by mindstab 15y ago
This still misses the issue by making a distinction between "real names" and pseudonyms in the first place. Fine you might now be able to go by a pseudonym, but are you still required to sign up with a Google Approved real name?
Will Lennart Poettering's Google+ be unbanned? [http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/google-doesnt-like-my-name.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/google-doesnt-like-my-name....] Will they keep auto banning names they don't like?
They seem to continue to fail to get it. :(
- SkyMarshal 15y agoAt least one other problem is that the term Gundrotta used, 'pseudonym', implies it will be connected to their primary account and real id, rather than being an entirely separate account under a anonymous persona. Hence, it doesn't sound like it will offer dissidents and whistleblowers real protection from a government order to Google for their identity.
- joebadmo 15y agoI don't understand. Why wouldn't a dissident or whistleblower just create a separate account under a fake but real-sounding name, then use their preferred pseudonym? It seems to me that the issue wasn't about anonymity from government, since that's easy with a fake name. The issue was about respecting people's choice of self-representation, which this policy does in a way that more accurately mirrors our analog procedures.
- fl3tch 15y agoIf you require whistleblower-level anonymity, Google properties are the last place you want to post anyway. Drop your docs in a file sharing service over Tor and send the link to some journalists. No service can be everything to everybody.