3 ms·

[I am surprized that this post is still on the top!] Here are my comments: > I'm removing myself from google. I'm setting up mail services elsewhere, I'm mig

[I am surprized that this post is still on the top!] Here are my comments: > I'm removing myself from google. I'm setting up mail services elsewhere, I'm migrating my Google Apps and App Engine accounts to other services. I've stopped using Plus, and as I move things elsewhere I'm deleting them from google. Gmail Accounts are still 'anonymous' and largely disconnected from plus accounts. If a person is really bothered by the pseudonym policy they can chose to continue using other services but plus. > But requiring a real name, tells me that google doesn't just want to track me to advertise to me. They want to correlate my online activities with my offline identity. Well, if you had seen other comments, there are 2 reasons they have given for not allowing pseudonyms: (A) User behaviour is better and more dignified when real identities are used (Youtube comments vs Facebook comments on various blogs. HN is a niche community of professionals - doesn't count) (B) They cannot provide a fake support of pseudonyms - if they do they will provide full support > ...online activities with my offline identity Possibly. Which is still fine for most people. As their online actions shadow their offline behaviour. Refer to previous point on how they think it will help the online community > The search results stuff There was a recent article on HN itself I think, where this issue was discussed. Google is now focusing less on the technologically skilled users and trying to serve a larger mass. For them, autocorrect and instant are good. Again, this is NOT the topic of discussion here. You can turn off some of the features, I guess. >PS: Last I remember, they were adding features using which you could opt out from analytics, adsense and other forms of tracking. If the direction you are suggesting is true, either Google has two very very different instances in existence or you will never be able to trust anyone. And by that, I mean that you will be in deep unrest as some distrust is necessary.

vidarh 15y ago
> (A) User behaviour is better and more dignified when real identities are used But they are not enforcing real identities, but real sounding names, which is the worst of both worlds: It makes people more likely to think they are dealing with real names, while it is trivial for those who want to use pseudonyms to continue doing so if their purpose is to be trolls. > Which is still fine for most people. That it's fine for "most people" still means it will effectively silence a lot of people on Google+ that a lot of other people would like to be able to communicate with. It massively reduces the value of the service for me, and others.
- mayanksinghal 15y ago
  Both the points you are making, makes Google a bad marketing/strategy firm but not evil: the sentiment I was replying to. And this is being done after they have agreed to provide support for pseudonyms! It may not be their first priority - or may require significant changes in the way data is being handled to allow for security of the real identity. But the OP assumed that this is because of a conspiracy between the firm, ISPs and Government, and that the company is not to be trusted. I fail to understand how does this results in the conclusion that the company is not trustworthy or moral. It can be derived that company is rigid, slow, lazy and even a poor investment. Failing to provide a feature(and yes it's a feature not a right - the service is no way mandatory) that might affect a significant (in terms of their reach and not numbers) consumer base makes them a bad service provider - not evil genius. Additionally, this is not the worst of both worlds. Worst of both worlds would be to selectively allow pseudonyms to some and while others have to use real identity. That not only makes the service partial, but skewed towards anarchy (using it for the lack of a replacement). Given a choice between pseudonyms and real identities - the choice is based majorly on the type of culture the networks supports. For example: I tend to use the same username nearly everywhere - unfortunately I can't comment on youtube; the culture is very troll-y and I would not like to be associated at all. On the other hand, Buzz was quite successful in my university - majorly because it was associated with sort-of-a-real identity (Everyone was using clean & real names) which resulted in much saner, smarter interaction that was fun to be a part of. Facebook seems to have achieved the same though real sounding names which is the reason many blogs use their comment system. [edit: typos]

vidarh 15y ago

> (A) User behaviour is better and more dignified when real identities are used But they are not enforcing real identities, but real sounding names, which is the worst of both worlds: It makes people more likely to think they are dealing with real names, while it is trivial for those who want to use pseudonyms to continue doing so if their purpose is to be trolls. > Which is still fine for most people. That it's fine for "most people" still means it will effectively silence a lot of people on Google+ that a lot of other people would like to be able to communicate with. It massively reduces the value of the service for me, and others.

mayanksinghal 15y ago
Both the points you are making, makes Google a bad marketing/strategy firm but not evil: the sentiment I was replying to. And this is being done after they have agreed to provide support for pseudonyms! It may not be their first priority - or may require significant changes in the way data is being handled to allow for security of the real identity. But the OP assumed that this is because of a conspiracy between the firm, ISPs and Government, and that the company is not to be trusted. I fail to understand how does this results in the conclusion that the company is not trustworthy or moral. It can be derived that company is rigid, slow, lazy and even a poor investment. Failing to provide a feature(and yes it's a feature not a right - the service is no way mandatory) that might affect a significant (in terms of their reach and not numbers) consumer base makes them a bad service provider - not evil genius. Additionally, this is not the worst of both worlds. Worst of both worlds would be to selectively allow pseudonyms to some and while others have to use real identity. That not only makes the service partial, but skewed towards anarchy (using it for the lack of a replacement). Given a choice between pseudonyms and real identities - the choice is based majorly on the type of culture the networks supports. For example: I tend to use the same username nearly everywhere - unfortunately I can't comment on youtube; the culture is very troll-y and I would not like to be associated at all. On the other hand, Buzz was quite successful in my university - majorly because it was associated with sort-of-a-real identity (Everyone was using clean & real names) which resulted in much saner, smarter interaction that was fun to be a part of. Facebook seems to have achieved the same though real sounding names which is the reason many blogs use their comment system. [edit: typos]