3 ms·

Great. Another opinionated post with no substance that reaches number one. What is this garbage? It's not like this person even has any first-hand knowledge of

Great. Another opinionated post with no substance that reaches number one. What is this garbage? It's not like this person even has any first-hand knowledge of anything with regards to the cited excerpt. Why would anyone upvote such a short, speculative rant?

kevinalexbrown 15y ago
I think it's still a reasonable "BS" call. If you support pseudonyms, you stop kicking them off. That doesn't take first-hand knowledge to notice.
- methodin 15y ago
  So is it common knowledge when they kick someone off for using them? Did it happen after this announcement? Etc... All this article does is speculate on what Google will do in the next couple months... how is it even relevant?
  - kevinalexbrown 15y ago
    "Whatever Google is planning cannot be [just not kicking off pseudonyms], because they think it will take them months to implement." That's relevant speculation, regardless of whether he's right.
    - methodin 15y ago
      You are correct - I did not mean to say the article was off-topic however speculative it was.
Uhhrrr 15y ago
Allowing pseudonyms is not just technically easy, it's the default. Also, it's no secret that Google uses your data to advertise to you (it is so far from secret as to be their business model), and that various governments at the least would like very much to have access to user data. The piece is almost completely speculation-free. If you think the post's brevity was a shortcoming, though, read this, which was linked from the OP: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/08/nym-wars/ http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/08/nym-wars/
- methodin 15y ago
  This piece is the opposite of speculation free. Every single sentence is an opinion and speculation.
msbarnett 15y ago
Because: 1) The short, speculative rant is well-reasoned. If you disagree with his reasoning that Google saying it will take "months" to implement pseudonyms implies that their solution is significantly more complicated than simply "stop deleting accounts with names we don't like", it would be conducive to discussion if you explained your reasoning. 2) This short, speculative, well-reasoned rant is written by JWZ, whose insight and wisdom is held in wide regard by many, many people. He's earned the right to have his speculations taken seriously many, many times over.
- rryan 15y ago
  I'm afraid I'm spitting into the wind here, but.. Let's say there is a right way and a wrong way to do pseudonyms (empirical evidence: YouTube, HN). You think Google would haphazardly enable them as JWZ proposes without making damn sure they had the best chances of it turning out the right way rather than the wrong way? Larry Page thinks without Google+, Google is doomed in 10 years (I believe he said that in an interview recently). I think JWZ is vastly oversimplifying the careful testing that Vic and co. are putting into this. If you believed the company's livelihood depended on it, wouldn't you?
  - buff-a 15y ago
    Lets say that in a system where you go to this huge effort to develop and then advertise a self-selection system (circles) that there is no wrong way to do pseudonyms. Larry Page thinks without Google+, Google is doomed in 10 years I'm a google fan boy. I use apps, gmail, gae. Today I deleted my google+ account. So if Page thinks that without Google+, Google is doomed, why (to paraphrase Vilos Cohaagen) is he fucking making it happen?
- methodin 15y ago
  How do you possibly get well-reasoned from this? He makes a bunch of assumptions followed by a deduction based on those assumptions. I can make any assumption I want then deduce a final statement from it - that does not make it well-reasoned. Oh yeah, I forgot this was HN where infamy weighs higher than substantive posts. Just because someone is usually reliable doesn't mean you take their word without question.
jxi 15y ago
They really need to bring back the downvote button. Posts like this make me really fell like the quality of HN is going downhill.

kevinalexbrown 15y ago

I think it's still a reasonable "BS" call. If you support pseudonyms, you stop kicking them off. That doesn't take first-hand knowledge to notice.

methodin 15y ago
So is it common knowledge when they kick someone off for using them? Did it happen after this announcement? Etc... All this article does is speculate on what Google will do in the next couple months... how is it even relevant?
- kevinalexbrown 15y ago
  "Whatever Google is planning cannot be [just not kicking off pseudonyms], because they think it will take them months to implement." That's relevant speculation, regardless of whether he's right.
  - methodin 15y ago
    You are correct - I did not mean to say the article was off-topic however speculative it was.

Uhhrrr 15y ago

Allowing pseudonyms is not just technically easy, it's the default. Also, it's no secret that Google uses your data to advertise to you (it is so far from secret as to be their business model), and that various governments at the least would like very much to have access to user data. The piece is almost completely speculation-free. If you think the post's brevity was a shortcoming, though, read this, which was linked from the OP: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/08/nym-wars/ http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/08/nym-wars/

methodin 15y ago
This piece is the opposite of speculation free. Every single sentence is an opinion and speculation.

msbarnett 15y ago

Because: 1) The short, speculative rant is well-reasoned. If you disagree with his reasoning that Google saying it will take "months" to implement pseudonyms implies that their solution is significantly more complicated than simply "stop deleting accounts with names we don't like", it would be conducive to discussion if you explained your reasoning. 2) This short, speculative, well-reasoned rant is written by JWZ, whose insight and wisdom is held in wide regard by many, many people. He's earned the right to have his speculations taken seriously many, many times over.

rryan 15y ago
I'm afraid I'm spitting into the wind here, but.. Let's say there is a right way and a wrong way to do pseudonyms (empirical evidence: YouTube, HN). You think Google would haphazardly enable them as JWZ proposes without making damn sure they had the best chances of it turning out the right way rather than the wrong way? Larry Page thinks without Google+, Google is doomed in 10 years (I believe he said that in an interview recently). I think JWZ is vastly oversimplifying the careful testing that Vic and co. are putting into this. If you believed the company's livelihood depended on it, wouldn't you?
- buff-a 15y ago
  Lets say that in a system where you go to this huge effort to develop and then advertise a self-selection system (circles) that there is no wrong way to do pseudonyms. Larry Page thinks without Google+, Google is doomed in 10 years I'm a google fan boy. I use apps, gmail, gae. Today I deleted my google+ account. So if Page thinks that without Google+, Google is doomed, why (to paraphrase Vilos Cohaagen) is he fucking making it happen?
methodin 15y ago
How do you possibly get well-reasoned from this? He makes a bunch of assumptions followed by a deduction based on those assumptions. I can make any assumption I want then deduce a final statement from it - that does not make it well-reasoned. Oh yeah, I forgot this was HN where infamy weighs higher than substantive posts. Just because someone is usually reliable doesn't mean you take their word without question.

jxi 15y ago

They really need to bring back the downvote button. Posts like this make me really fell like the quality of HN is going downhill.