3 ms·

This is seriously silly. I agree with the other poster that I normally see sane things written by you, so I don't totally understand where this is coming from.

This is seriously silly. I agree with the other poster that I normally see sane things written by you, so I don't totally understand where this is coming from. Moreover, why is this being held to the top of this comment section? (I guess the subject brings in people that agree) To respond: First, it doesn't follow at all that the only reason to include a real name is to correlate online activity with your real life person. For instance, the reasoning could be exactly what they are saying it is. Now, there's no reason to trust corporations (large or small, startups certainly aren't white knights in this area), but that does not preclude that as a possible answer. Second, do you honestly think, after keeping your email account with google for (presumably) 7 years and doing every single web search through them for 11 years that they need some "authoritative method" to figure out your identity?? I could see if you're starting an account today, but your conclusion here just makes no sense at all. You trusted a freaking privacy policy for all these years, but now that they offer pseudonyms for google+ accounts, the only possible conclusion is that they are now partners with the NSA to do....some unspecified evil? I'm trying to stay civil here, but I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

rednaught 15y ago
Trust is ever-changing. For instance, if you trust sane thoughts or actions from an entity only to one day perceive that the same source creates not so-sane thoughts or actions, do you lose trust in that entity? Perspective is an interesting thing just as is your pseudonym here.
- magicalist 15y ago
  My point is perhaps narrower than you are seeing. It was not that trust levels don't change, or advocating for some level of trust. Just that his conclusions do not follow from the evidence presented, to the point where the connection borders on the irrational (to me). I don't think my username here is particularly interesting, just a variation on a typical one that was already taken.
  - rohern 15y ago
    I agree entirely with magicalist. I've tried to get my head around the stink about real names on Google+ since it first went crashing through the internet, but it seems like people shouting about teacups being too small. The point of Google+ seems to be to do networking with your friends and co-workers. Why would one want to be anonymous in this environment? You're going to anonymously share pictures of yourself? I do not get it. If it's a pseudonym that you just happen to really like, then okay -- maybe you've kept it since your days on AIM and are really fond of it, after all things like JHR1987ILOVETHEBEATLES are pretty cool -- but other than that what is the point of this? It seems like wanting the right to carry a gun in space. It's not going to do you any good, so why are you fighting about it?
    - rednaught 15y ago
      Substitute space with "Google space", add in Google becoming an online/offline identity provider without the same access(or oversight) as your local County Clerk of records, add in shareholder value and the the innocent concerns of networking with friends and co-workers(oh, Google is considerate enough to add companies and other entities to the mix to increase the fun party factor because nothing is free right?) becomes apparent. Yah, nothing could go wrong. Joe user's medical practice's patients, his frat buddies, the parents of his children's soccer league, his NRA buddies and the local chapter of Curious Men all are interested in the exact same photo of Joe? As I said, perspective is interesting. Lack of understanding is less interesting.

rednaught 15y ago

Trust is ever-changing. For instance, if you trust sane thoughts or actions from an entity only to one day perceive that the same source creates not so-sane thoughts or actions, do you lose trust in that entity? Perspective is an interesting thing just as is your pseudonym here.

magicalist 15y ago
My point is perhaps narrower than you are seeing. It was not that trust levels don't change, or advocating for some level of trust. Just that his conclusions do not follow from the evidence presented, to the point where the connection borders on the irrational (to me). I don't think my username here is particularly interesting, just a variation on a typical one that was already taken.
- rohern 15y ago
  I agree entirely with magicalist. I've tried to get my head around the stink about real names on Google+ since it first went crashing through the internet, but it seems like people shouting about teacups being too small. The point of Google+ seems to be to do networking with your friends and co-workers. Why would one want to be anonymous in this environment? You're going to anonymously share pictures of yourself? I do not get it. If it's a pseudonym that you just happen to really like, then okay -- maybe you've kept it since your days on AIM and are really fond of it, after all things like JHR1987ILOVETHEBEATLES are pretty cool -- but other than that what is the point of this? It seems like wanting the right to carry a gun in space. It's not going to do you any good, so why are you fighting about it?
  - rednaught 15y ago
    Substitute space with "Google space", add in Google becoming an online/offline identity provider without the same access(or oversight) as your local County Clerk of records, add in shareholder value and the the innocent concerns of networking with friends and co-workers(oh, Google is considerate enough to add companies and other entities to the mix to increase the fun party factor because nothing is free right?) becomes apparent. Yah, nothing could go wrong. Joe user's medical practice's patients, his frat buddies, the parents of his children's soccer league, his NRA buddies and the local chapter of Curious Men all are interested in the exact same photo of Joe? As I said, perspective is interesting. Lack of understanding is less interesting.