4 ms·

I'm normally a massive Google fanboy, but I quit using Google+ because I find the no-pseudonyms policy unacceptably discriminatory[1], and I don't think this an

I'm normally a massive Google fanboy, but I quit using Google+ because I find the no-pseudonyms policy unacceptably discriminatory[1], and I don't think this announcement really makes a difference to that. Non-Anglo-Saxon names will continue to be routinely flagged as fake, and people who want a persistent identity unlinked to details that could expose them in real life be continue to be unable to use the service. In short, Google allows cosmetic pseudonyms, which is great, but they didn't remove any restrictions that made the no-pseudonyms policy obnoxious in the first place. I'm hopeful that the "first steps" they refer to this as presage changes that will make the service more inclusive (and I can go back to my usual unthinking approval of the company). [1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea... -- originally I said I found it "racist and sexist", but it's not confined to racism and sexism - pretty much everyone who suffers from disadvantage is further disadvantaged by Google's stance.

fennecfoxen 15y ago
I quit G+ because it's much easier to violate the terms of service on G+, and because they also take away your Gmail access when you violate the terms, and when you get down to it I need Gmail more. Ironic, I suppose.
- raldi 15y ago
  > they also take away your Gmail access when you violate the terms Are you sure? This seems to be a persistent rumor, but other than COPA-mandated takedowns of accounts belonging to children, I haven't seen any such reports like that which stood up to scrutiny.
- mvgoogler 15y ago
  This should definitely not have been the case for violations of the old G+ naming policy. The time the g-mail account should have been suspended is for other violations of the g-mail TOS (e.g. age, illegal content, etc).
abrahamsen 15y ago
I hate this "anglo-saxon" meme. The head of Google+ has an Indian name. His boss has a Russian name. And Google+ seems to be going strong in Asia, with names like สมนึกน้อย or 盧小小. Could you please write "unconventional" instead? There are good and coherent arguments for allowing anonymity and strong pseudonyms, but the accusations of racism and sexism are definitely not among them.
- hythloday 15y ago
  You're quite right that "Anglo-Saxon" doesn't quite cover it, there are definitely users with Anglo-Saxon names (ones made from words in the dictionary, usually) who've fallen afoul of the naming policy. In my far-from-comprehensive experience, people who've put their names in non-Latin scripts have a higher suspend rate. It's not really amenable to statistical evidence, I agree, but that's the crux of my racism claim. If you don't agree with my anecdotal observation, that's fine, but it's made in good faith. I am far unhappier writing "unconventional" (though users with unconventional names have been banned) because it reinforces the idea that the "convention" is Latin script. This is not the case for a huge portion of the world. As for the accusations of sexism (and also homophobia, transphobia etc. that I didn't mention), the page I linked went into some detail about why members of some disadvantaged groups would be further disadvantaged by the name policy. Were there concrete rebuttals you wanted to make to them? I use "sexist" in the structural sense of disadvantaging (maybe indirectly) women on average more than men rather than imagining Gundotra and Horowitz waking up each morning thinking "how can we keep the wimminz down today?"
mvgoogler 15y ago
"Non-Anglo-Saxon names will continue to be routinely flagged as fake" Please read through Yonatan Zunger's comments on the original post - in particular "Our name check is therefore looking, not for things that don’t look like “your” name, but for things which don’t look like names, period. In fact, we do not give a damn whether the name posted is “your” name or not: we will not challenge you on this basis, nor is there any mechanism for other users to cause you to be challenged for this." There was a lot of research done to understand what names "look like" around the world and for many different cultures. There was also work to make sure that the human review process had both reviewers in place from the various cultures and that there was an effective process in place to make sure that reviews were routed appropriately. "people who want a persistent identity unlinked to details that could expose them in real life be continue to be unable to use the service" Google+ will no longer require you to provide your real or legal name. Just something that looks like a name. Were you asking for something more?
- hythloday 15y ago
  Thanks for the explanation and for pointing out Yonatan Zunger's comments: I hadn't seen them when I made my post and they paint the new policy in a much more positive light. I understand that Google did a lot of research in designing the real names policy, and that there are culturally aware teams implementing them. I don't really understand how they determine what's a likely-looking name--even in English, there are a great number of naming cultures: I would imagine the name StJohn Fetherstonhaugh looks as unlikely to an American as Page Lane does to someone from England, but both are "real" names. Would they be routed to the same team? When you broaden this to the entire world, my confidence in Google's ability to do what is effectively a tedious customer service job falters, especially when you consider that the exact spelling of one's name can be a contentious issue in some parts of the world if one identifies as a particular ethnicity. What more would I like? I'd like Yonatan Zunger's explanation to be made official policy; I'd also like to know what would happen if I sign up as Fifi Trixibelle Honeyblossom Peaches Pixie Heavenly Hiranni Tigerlily[0] Harlow (not my real name, but equally obviously someone's real name, and thus "name-shaped"), and I'm flagged what recourse I have that doesn't involve changing my name on Google+. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Geldof#Personal_life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Geldof#Personal_life
chronomex 15y ago
My name on Google+ is a Hangul transliteration of my very clearly Anglo-Saxon name. I haven't had any problems with it. (Shortly after the beginning of the #nymwars, I changed my "real name" on Google+ and Facebook to a transliteration.)

fennecfoxen 15y ago

I quit G+ because it's much easier to violate the terms of service on G+, and because they also take away your Gmail access when you violate the terms, and when you get down to it I need Gmail more. Ironic, I suppose.

raldi 15y ago
> they also take away your Gmail access when you violate the terms Are you sure? This seems to be a persistent rumor, but other than COPA-mandated takedowns of accounts belonging to children, I haven't seen any such reports like that which stood up to scrutiny.
mvgoogler 15y ago
This should definitely not have been the case for violations of the old G+ naming policy. The time the g-mail account should have been suspended is for other violations of the g-mail TOS (e.g. age, illegal content, etc).

abrahamsen 15y ago

I hate this "anglo-saxon" meme. The head of Google+ has an Indian name. His boss has a Russian name. And Google+ seems to be going strong in Asia, with names like สมนึกน้อย or 盧小小. Could you please write "unconventional" instead? There are good and coherent arguments for allowing anonymity and strong pseudonyms, but the accusations of racism and sexism are definitely not among them.

hythloday 15y ago
You're quite right that "Anglo-Saxon" doesn't quite cover it, there are definitely users with Anglo-Saxon names (ones made from words in the dictionary, usually) who've fallen afoul of the naming policy. In my far-from-comprehensive experience, people who've put their names in non-Latin scripts have a higher suspend rate. It's not really amenable to statistical evidence, I agree, but that's the crux of my racism claim. If you don't agree with my anecdotal observation, that's fine, but it's made in good faith. I am far unhappier writing "unconventional" (though users with unconventional names have been banned) because it reinforces the idea that the "convention" is Latin script. This is not the case for a huge portion of the world. As for the accusations of sexism (and also homophobia, transphobia etc. that I didn't mention), the page I linked went into some detail about why members of some disadvantaged groups would be further disadvantaged by the name policy. Were there concrete rebuttals you wanted to make to them? I use "sexist" in the structural sense of disadvantaging (maybe indirectly) women on average more than men rather than imagining Gundotra and Horowitz waking up each morning thinking "how can we keep the wimminz down today?"

mvgoogler 15y ago

"Non-Anglo-Saxon names will continue to be routinely flagged as fake" Please read through Yonatan Zunger's comments on the original post - in particular "Our name check is therefore looking, not for things that don’t look like “your” name, but for things which don’t look like names, period. In fact, we do not give a damn whether the name posted is “your” name or not: we will not challenge you on this basis, nor is there any mechanism for other users to cause you to be challenged for this." There was a lot of research done to understand what names "look like" around the world and for many different cultures. There was also work to make sure that the human review process had both reviewers in place from the various cultures and that there was an effective process in place to make sure that reviews were routed appropriately. "people who want a persistent identity unlinked to details that could expose them in real life be continue to be unable to use the service" Google+ will no longer require you to provide your real or legal name. Just something that looks like a name. Were you asking for something more?

hythloday 15y ago
Thanks for the explanation and for pointing out Yonatan Zunger's comments: I hadn't seen them when I made my post and they paint the new policy in a much more positive light. I understand that Google did a lot of research in designing the real names policy, and that there are culturally aware teams implementing them. I don't really understand how they determine what's a likely-looking name--even in English, there are a great number of naming cultures: I would imagine the name StJohn Fetherstonhaugh looks as unlikely to an American as Page Lane does to someone from England, but both are "real" names. Would they be routed to the same team? When you broaden this to the entire world, my confidence in Google's ability to do what is effectively a tedious customer service job falters, especially when you consider that the exact spelling of one's name can be a contentious issue in some parts of the world if one identifies as a particular ethnicity. What more would I like? I'd like Yonatan Zunger's explanation to be made official policy; I'd also like to know what would happen if I sign up as Fifi Trixibelle Honeyblossom Peaches Pixie Heavenly Hiranni Tigerlily[0] Harlow (not my real name, but equally obviously someone's real name, and thus "name-shaped"), and I'm flagged what recourse I have that doesn't involve changing my name on Google+. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Geldof#Personal_life http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Geldof#Personal_life

chronomex 15y ago

My name on Google+ is a Hangul transliteration of my very clearly Anglo-Saxon name. I haven't had any problems with it. (Shortly after the beginning of the #nymwars, I changed my "real name" on Google+ and Facebook to a transliteration.)