10 ms·

Google Begins Practically Begging You to Use Your Real Name on YouTube

115 points by iProject 14y ago

munin 14y ago
comments on youtube are a cesspool? why not remove the comments feature?
stevewillows 14y ago
Without the real names -- or at least names that aren't 'basketballstar69' -- Google won't have the same perception of authenticity as facebook. They should reward 'real names' (first, last) with more Drive space and an opt-out of the nickname option.
runjake 14y ago
What's the point of forcing "real names", when they're not forcing REAL names? Google will throw a fit if I use Red Ghost, but not if I use John Smith. What value does that actually bring? A weak perception of legitimacy?
- Karunamon 14y ago
  Weak perhaps to you and me, but to the average internet user, much stronger.
  - runjake 14y ago
    I'm convinced the average Internet user doesn't care. It doesn't matter who it convinces, because it's still a weak charade.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- zem 14y ago
  they have explicitly said that they think the "feel" of an online community with name-shaped userids is qualitatively different from the feel of one with handle-shaped ones.
- ams6110 14y ago
  Is there a "real name" that communicates "this is not my real name" but could just as easily be a really name? Nathan Roberts (NR = Not Real)? Frank Nash (FN = Fake Name)? Art Vandelay?
  - fluidcruft 14y ago
    Some ideas here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe#Other_variants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe#Other_variants
  - thaumasiotes 14y ago
    traditionally, John Doe.
stellar678 14y ago
Am I the only person who really enjoys YouTube comments? It's obviously not the place to go for high-brow discussion. But the fact that it's a no-holds-barred space means that occasionally some genuinely hilarious and unexpected stuff pops up. I really wouldn't want that to change...
- Wilya 14y ago
  I like their blunt feel. If people don't like something, they will say so. Loudly. I find that a good thing. Plus, in my experience, they are not so bad. The number of rational and moderate people is quite higher than, for example, in newspaper websites comments. On even moderately successful videos, they accumulate really too fast, though. They quickly become impossible to follow.
  - eli 14y ago
    That's only because they added rudimentary voting a few years back. Do you remember what it was like before that?
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    Personally I think YouTube should have HN/Reddit-style threaded comments, but I wonder how well that works for videos seen and commented on every day.
    - mitchty 14y ago
      They sorta do now with the in reply to link now. Its pretty bad though.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  What kills YouTube comments is the same thing that kills Ars comments, along with pretty much every blog ever; there's no threading and no peer moderation or ranking. No one wants to sort through a river of random comments.
  - 14y ago
stfu 14y ago
I gave up commenting on YouTube at that point where Google forced me to auto login with my Gmail account. It is already bad enough that they can trace my viewing behavior. But I can see their side of the story. YouTube is holding a massive marketshare in the online video segment and they might have no problem with a few percent less comments when at the same time the overall quality of the comments might rise.
thehotelambush 14y ago
The real reason for this isn't to improve comment quality; it's so they can store information on you more effectively and then sell it to the government. Facebook has a leg up on this because of how it started, but Google wants to level the playing field more and more.
- _delirium 14y ago
  In addition, it seems like this is as much about real names for video uploaders as for commenters. My guess is that's what they really care about, not the comments cesspool.
  - adrianwaj 14y ago
    So once your channel is banned, you are then pursued legally. Business model of the 2010s.
- eli 14y ago
  Sell it to the government? Using it to better target ads (which translates directly into more revenue for Google) seems a lot more likely them some secret government profiling conspiracy.
  - thehotelambush 14y ago
    Certainly that's a motive too. And it's no secret that the government (in particular the NSA) has been amassing large swathes of data on what could be the entire population of the US.
- deelowe 14y ago
  Wow. That's a mighty impression tin foil hat you wear. I'm sure the government can already tie people's names to their browsing history (including youtube) via the dns lookups and project echelon. I doubt they'd need anyone's assistance beyond the isp wiretaps, which they already have, for something as simple as this.
  - 14y ago
adrianwaj 14y ago
Since when does real name equate to a better quality comment? Perhaps it is more about Big Brother tracking people's points-of-view on controversial issues? Or is it for better targeted ads? I am uninclined to comment with my real name generally because my opinion changes, and I change over time. I recently left a FB blog comment simply as "I like it" and felt almost uncomfortable with that. Does it matter what my real name is or what I look like? HN shows that anonymity works with just modding and the option to reveal one's identity. Why doesn't YouTube tally user comments and comment scores if they want to improve quality.. that's why I think this is a Big Brother or ad push. Comments that self-destruct after a set period are another answer to comment quality, or ones that revert to a pseudonym, either fixed or random after a period of time.
patio11 14y ago
This isn't about Youtube, this is simply use of a property with a massive userbase owned by Google to promote its strategic priority du jour, which is getting traction for Google+. This is hardly the first time Google has done this -- for example, they'll often bootstrap key products with "Oh yeah, we have a mortal lock on navigation on the Internet." That's why Google Video (and later Youtube) got such prominent billing in the search results, why Chrome has a front-page-of-the-Internet banner ad on the homepage of the company that doesn't do banner ads, etc. + Edit to add: A quick check of a few diverse searches show that Youtube is substantially less prominent than I remember it being.
- esrauch 14y ago
  Google does sell image ads, though I suppose they never put them on their own properties.
- sodafountan 14y ago
  Not necessarily just to get traction for Google+ but I believe that Google is also competing directly with Facebook to control your "Identity on the internet". Once one of these monolithic companies controls your identity they can then directly target you no matter where you are on the internet. It's kind of scary, and I believe that it's a fight that Google is destined to win.
z92 14y ago
> UPDATE: A YouTube representative got back to us and said: YouTube users with existing Google+ profiles see this option when they comment or upload a video. I am glad that I decided to delete my G+ account when news started to float that Google was forcing everyone to use real name in G+ and was closing accounts in cases of un-cooperation, which unintentionally affected someone's gmail account.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  > I am glad that I decided to delete my G+ account when > news started to float that Google was forcing everyone > to use real name in G+ and was closing accounts in cases > of un-cooperation, which unintentionally affected > someone's gmail account. To my knowledge, nobody has had their gmail account suspended because they didn't enter an approved name. You are probably thinking of the guy who had his account suspended for uploading illegal porn to his Picassa account.
  - z92 14y ago
    I clearly remember closing my G+ account to protect my gmail account. Did a quick google search for the news articles of that time, and these were the first links. Spending a few more minutes would have given even better results. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jul/25/1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/201... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-deleting-accounts-en-masse-no-clear-answers/567 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-deleting-ac... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-unnecessary-drama/652 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-un... The Picassa incidence was a later happening.
chmike 14y ago
What is the rationale of such demand ? This reminds me Schneir's objection to biometric identification. What do we do if it's compromized ? There is no way we could change it. One should obviously be able to publish a video that we made without disclosing our identity. Supose I film my cat in my living room showing also the nice HiFi installation behind it. If it is published under my name, it would be like publishing my address on the HiFi. If as a teenager I film and publish a party where I wouldn't be at my advantage, I don't want that my name is associate to it forever. I must be able to reset my Internet image and reputation. Especially for young people. Google is already very reluctant to remove references on demand. At least this now gives something competitors can differentiate with. We need a place where we can create a virtual identity we can throw away. An identity that we can use as signature for publishing comments, articles and videos.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  (disclaimer: I work for Google, and dislike the Google+ names policy) In this case, it's not a demand; the user has already entered a Google+ name, and Google is offering to show that name on the user's YouTube account. > Supose I film my cat in my living room showing also the nice > HiFi installation behind it. If it is published under my > name, it would be like publishing my address on the HiFi. That's ridiculous. Unless you're also posting your address in the video description, it's practically impossible for a viewer to match a name (even your legal name) to your physical location. The concern here is about privacy, not physical security. Thinking up unrealistic danger scenarios is not productive. > If as a teenager I film and publish a party where I wouldn't > be at my advantage, I don't want that my name is associate > to it forever. > > I must be able to reset my Internet image and reputation. > Especially for young people. Google is already very > reluctant to remove references on demand. Currently, the idea of interacting with the web through multiple disposable identities is constrained to nerds. I believe that as time goes on, and the privacy implications of a single identity become widely apparent, the majority of users (especially younger users) will learn to use multiple identities. You ask for the ability to "reset" an identity, but this is impossible. You can't un-break an egg. Everything posted to the internet is public and potentially eternal. In twenty years, the idea of posting something risqué under one's legal name will be considered as foolish as stapling bank statements and tax returns to a telephone pole. > We need a place where we can create a virtual identity we > can throw away. An identity that we can use as signature > for publishing comments, articles and videos. You mean, like a Google account? There's no restriction on the number of accounts a single person can create, and the censors won't blink twice as long as the name sounds caucasian (citation: http://infotrope.net/2011/08/04/google-plus-names-policy-explained/#govtid http://infotrope.net/2011/08/04/google-plus-names-policy-exp... ). Accounts at any major internet site, including Google, are inherently ephemeral and disposable.
lazyjones 14y ago
Youtube has had many issues lately that should affect its popularity, from legitimate content disappearing because of some (non-)copyright holders having tools to "delete first, ask later", to issues with Google harrassing users to do things of no benefit to them. I am also getting "this video is currently not available" messages frequently because I don't have a browser with H.264 (which Google was supposed to drop in favour of free alternatives? Go convert uploaded video then...). Youtube has reached a dangerous annoyance level, seems like a good time for competitors to grow.
- Flow 14y ago
  I surf using Chrome for the latest and most secure Flash. I like being up to date and secure. On YouTube Flash crashes in about 50% of trying to load the videos. Really annoying. And even more annoying is that if I disable Flash altogether there are quite a few videos on YouTube that can't be played. I'm beginning to see the bundling of Flash as a negative thing, it only prolongs the life of that hell-hole called Flash.
dacilselig 14y ago
This reminds me of the time where Blizzard wanted to do something similar for their forums as people would troll often. From what I remember, there was a huge backlash. They seem to be trying to take a safer approach by suggesting you do it versus forcing you. I wonder if they had that incident in the back of their mind when taking this approach. For those interested: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101916-Blizzard-Forums-Make-Real-Names-Mandatory http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101916-Blizzard-Fo...
- thornofmight 14y ago
  This is a little bit different because it's only giving users with pre-existing accounts an option to change their username to their real name. Anybody who registers a new account is forced to use their real name (or a fake real name).
ars 14y ago
Related to this: http://www.wired.com/business/2012/06/youtube-commenters/ http://www.wired.com/business/2012/06/youtube-commenters/
joe_the_user 14y ago
I have a youtube account in my "real name". I use only to satisfy my particular taste in videos. I have stale old accounts for other Google stuff but I never use them and don't care about any of it except to browse videos. Google still keeps demanding my cell phone number. constantly. I use my real with the youtube account but I actually don't want anyone to see anything I do there. Google's opinion that it should be my world is quite obnoxious.
- thornofmight 14y ago
  I really truly wish that there was an option for "No, I don't want to give you my cell phone number, and I NEVER want to give it to you." Also, I used to love making throw-away Gmail accounts for various spam purposes. Now, my cell phone # is associated with 3 accounts so I can't make anymore.
  - newman314 14y ago
    Google Voice to the rescue
    - thornofmight 14y ago
      Nope, that doesn't work. I tried that too.
johnbenwoo 14y ago
YouTube comments may be the lowest common denominator of the internet, but at least they're a common denominator.
thinkbohemian 14y ago
The only thing stopping me from linking my channel to my G+ account is them changing my username to my real name. I've built an online brand around that username and changing it would mean i'm harder to find on Youtube. (funny enough that name is different from my HN name, since I can't change my HN username and don't want to lose my Karma.)
morsch 14y ago
I got that prompt recently and I want to emphasize just how obnoxious it is. I'm still really angry about this. I wanted to quickly fire off a comment, something I almost never do. Instead, and completely unexpectedly, I get a scary modal dialog "Start using your full name on YouTube". Really, that's bad enough as it is. I didn't interact in a way that'd make me expect any kind of dialog (e.g. logging in/out or a major account modification). And there is no easy way to dismiss the dialog without making a decision, no X in a corner, clicking the background does nothing. Also really, really bad. Opening another YouTube window doesn't help, either, you just get another copy of the dialog. But the reaction to declining the request -- which is the non-default, non-highlighted option -- is just outrageous. Instead of simply going away silently, or maybe telling me where to activate the feature if I change my mind, it tells me it'll show my real name anyway, but just in a preview mode that's only visible to me, if I just click the default, highlighted button. That's not exactly the opposite of what I wanted it to do when I declined their unprovoked offer, but it's pretty damn close. And again, there is no easy way out, you have to chose a reason why you dare refuse them, with none of the options being "I decline to answer" or "Go to hell"; the closest thing being "I'm not sure, I'll decide later", which I chose and which I expect will just mean I'll be assaulted again in the near future. This is the kind of hostile user experience I expect on cheap travel websites and other scummy parts of the net, but not on a Google property and certainly not on a website I visit a lot.
- moron 14y ago
  Wow. That is pretty terrible. Assuming you left the comment, did you try a browser in private mode to confirm the """"preview"""" was in fact limited to only you?
  - morsch 14y ago
    No, when you select "I don't know, I'll decide later", the account does stay pseudonymous. So there is a way out, it's just not easy, because you need to choose a "legit" reason for not using the real name (e.g. "my channel name is for a show or character"). You can't simply dismiss it permanently. I haven't been reminded yet, though.
- 14y ago
ww520 14y ago
Youtube has problems lately. It has suddenly started to send me notification emails everyday non-stopped. The unsubscribe links had no effect. Even after I have unsubscribed a number of times, the spam kept coming. Finally I deleted my account but the spams kept coming in anyway. Of course marking the spamming emails as spam in GMail doesn't work. Worse there's no way to contact Youtube to report the problem.
yuhong 14y ago
Personally I am not for a real name policy, but I do prefer that people post under their real name if possible.
- Bootvis 14y ago
  May I ask why? Personally I don't see any benefit whatsoever.
  - yuhong 14y ago
    In the long term I want the problems with using real names to fixed properly if possible.
    - Bootvis 14y ago
      But what are these problems? What is it that requires fixing?
Jach 14y ago
I never got the prompt, just a broken reply button that took no action. Searching for others with the problem revealed it's due to wanting my real name. I went through my settings looking for an option to use my real name, since I don't care, but couldn't find one. On a screen that was supposed to contain that option for other people, it was not there for my account. Solution? Delete all G+ data and log out and back in to Youtube.
aestetix 14y ago
Why does this keep coming up? Google seems to not learn. 1. There is no such thing as a real name. You might have a legal name, but they'd need to validate it somehow if contested. Up until now, Google has just been suspending names that didn't look "real" to them. 2. How do they validate this? Do they expect you to send a copy of an ID? What if you photoshop it? What is their data retention policy? Do they have procedures in place for handling sensitive data? 3. Most important, using a legal name does not somehow make the conversation more valid, or more useful. I have yet to see a strong argument that using a name on a government issued ID somehow makes your discourse better. There are countless arguments against this. I've had to deal with this before. Here's an idea of what happens to you if you run afoul of this policy: https://plus.google.com/115896012705745653160/posts/Kdg2nPzMB4M https://plus.google.com/115896012705745653160/posts/Kdg2nPzM...
leif 14y ago
Often the simplest solution is the best: don't comment on YouTube videos.
millzlane 14y ago
I don't feel they begged. They asked, I said no, they then asked why, and then I answered. Man that was simple. I applaud Google. At least they don't do things without your permission. I'm looking at you Facebook.
petitmiam 14y ago
I use my real name online for professional work-related things. I use a username for non-work related things like posting a videos of toy animals to youtube. The way things are headed, I guess I need to invent a "real name" for my online personal persona, to replace my username.
fluxon 14y ago
"Real" (heh) names don't improve comment quality. What improves comment quality is moderation (approve/decline/delete), enabled by default for every single user. I moderate when I answer the door, who I answer the phone for, who I hang out with, and which mail I open. Who wouldn't moderate their YouTube comments? Sheesh. Yes, it can be abused. To prevent "damage to the community", users who misuse the moderation system by deleting too many comments, declining only specific users, or declining polite (negative) comments, can be flagged as moderation abusers.

115 points by iProject 14y ago

munin 14y ago

comments on youtube are a cesspool? why not remove the comments feature?

Without the real names -- or at least names that aren't 'basketballstar69' -- Google won't have the same perception of authenticity as facebook. They should reward 'real names' (first, last) with more Drive space and an opt-out of the nickname option.

runjake 14y ago

What's the point of forcing "real names", when they're not forcing REAL names? Google will throw a fit if I use Red Ghost, but not if I use John Smith. What value does that actually bring? A weak perception of legitimacy?

Karunamon 14y ago
Weak perhaps to you and me, but to the average internet user, much stronger.
- runjake 14y ago
  I'm convinced the average Internet user doesn't care. It doesn't matter who it convinces, because it's still a weak charade.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
zem 14y ago
they have explicitly said that they think the "feel" of an online community with name-shaped userids is qualitatively different from the feel of one with handle-shaped ones.
ams6110 14y ago
Is there a "real name" that communicates "this is not my real name" but could just as easily be a really name? Nathan Roberts (NR = Not Real)? Frank Nash (FN = Fake Name)? Art Vandelay?
- fluidcruft 14y ago
  Some ideas here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe#Other_variants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe#Other_variants
- thaumasiotes 14y ago
  traditionally, John Doe.

stellar678 14y ago

Am I the only person who really enjoys YouTube comments? It's obviously not the place to go for high-brow discussion. But the fact that it's a no-holds-barred space means that occasionally some genuinely hilarious and unexpected stuff pops up. I really wouldn't want that to change...

Wilya 14y ago
I like their blunt feel. If people don't like something, they will say so. Loudly. I find that a good thing. Plus, in my experience, they are not so bad. The number of rational and moderate people is quite higher than, for example, in newspaper websites comments. On even moderately successful videos, they accumulate really too fast, though. They quickly become impossible to follow.
- eli 14y ago
  That's only because they added rudimentary voting a few years back. Do you remember what it was like before that?
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  Personally I think YouTube should have HN/Reddit-style threaded comments, but I wonder how well that works for videos seen and commented on every day.
  - mitchty 14y ago
    They sorta do now with the in reply to link now. Its pretty bad though.
WiseWeasel 14y ago
What kills YouTube comments is the same thing that kills Ars comments, along with pretty much every blog ever; there's no threading and no peer moderation or ranking. No one wants to sort through a river of random comments.
- 14y ago

stfu 14y ago

I gave up commenting on YouTube at that point where Google forced me to auto login with my Gmail account. It is already bad enough that they can trace my viewing behavior. But I can see their side of the story. YouTube is holding a massive marketshare in the online video segment and they might have no problem with a few percent less comments when at the same time the overall quality of the comments might rise.

thehotelambush 14y ago

The real reason for this isn't to improve comment quality; it's so they can store information on you more effectively and then sell it to the government. Facebook has a leg up on this because of how it started, but Google wants to level the playing field more and more.

_delirium 14y ago
In addition, it seems like this is as much about real names for video uploaders as for commenters. My guess is that's what they really care about, not the comments cesspool.
- adrianwaj 14y ago
  So once your channel is banned, you are then pursued legally. Business model of the 2010s.
eli 14y ago
Sell it to the government? Using it to better target ads (which translates directly into more revenue for Google) seems a lot more likely them some secret government profiling conspiracy.
- thehotelambush 14y ago
  Certainly that's a motive too. And it's no secret that the government (in particular the NSA) has been amassing large swathes of data on what could be the entire population of the US.
deelowe 14y ago
Wow. That's a mighty impression tin foil hat you wear. I'm sure the government can already tie people's names to their browsing history (including youtube) via the dns lookups and project echelon. I doubt they'd need anyone's assistance beyond the isp wiretaps, which they already have, for something as simple as this.
- 14y ago

adrianwaj 14y ago

Since when does real name equate to a better quality comment? Perhaps it is more about Big Brother tracking people's points-of-view on controversial issues? Or is it for better targeted ads? I am uninclined to comment with my real name generally because my opinion changes, and I change over time. I recently left a FB blog comment simply as "I like it" and felt almost uncomfortable with that. Does it matter what my real name is or what I look like? HN shows that anonymity works with just modding and the option to reveal one's identity. Why doesn't YouTube tally user comments and comment scores if they want to improve quality.. that's why I think this is a Big Brother or ad push. Comments that self-destruct after a set period are another answer to comment quality, or ones that revert to a pseudonym, either fixed or random after a period of time.

patio11 14y ago

This isn't about Youtube, this is simply use of a property with a massive userbase owned by Google to promote its strategic priority du jour, which is getting traction for Google+. This is hardly the first time Google has done this -- for example, they'll often bootstrap key products with "Oh yeah, we have a mortal lock on navigation on the Internet." That's why Google Video (and later Youtube) got such prominent billing in the search results, why Chrome has a front-page-of-the-Internet banner ad on the homepage of the company that doesn't do banner ads, etc. + Edit to add: A quick check of a few diverse searches show that Youtube is substantially less prominent than I remember it being.

esrauch 14y ago
Google does sell image ads, though I suppose they never put them on their own properties.
sodafountan 14y ago
Not necessarily just to get traction for Google+ but I believe that Google is also competing directly with Facebook to control your "Identity on the internet". Once one of these monolithic companies controls your identity they can then directly target you no matter where you are on the internet. It's kind of scary, and I believe that it's a fight that Google is destined to win.

z92 14y ago

> UPDATE: A YouTube representative got back to us and said: YouTube users with existing Google+ profiles see this option when they comment or upload a video. I am glad that I decided to delete my G+ account when news started to float that Google was forcing everyone to use real name in G+ and was closing accounts in cases of un-cooperation, which unintentionally affected someone's gmail account.

jmillikin 14y ago
> I am glad that I decided to delete my G+ account when > news started to float that Google was forcing everyone > to use real name in G+ and was closing accounts in cases > of un-cooperation, which unintentionally affected > someone's gmail account. To my knowledge, nobody has had their gmail account suspended because they didn't enter an approved name. You are probably thinking of the guy who had his account suspended for uploading illegal porn to his Picassa account.
- z92 14y ago
  I clearly remember closing my G+ account to protect my gmail account. Did a quick google search for the news articles of that time, and these were the first links. Spending a few more minutes would have given even better results. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2011/jul/25/1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/201... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-deleting-accounts-en-masse-no-clear-answers/567 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-deleting-ac... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-unnecessary-drama/652 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-un... The Picassa incidence was a later happening.

chmike 14y ago

What is the rationale of such demand ? This reminds me Schneir's objection to biometric identification. What do we do if it's compromized ? There is no way we could change it. One should obviously be able to publish a video that we made without disclosing our identity. Supose I film my cat in my living room showing also the nice HiFi installation behind it. If it is published under my name, it would be like publishing my address on the HiFi. If as a teenager I film and publish a party where I wouldn't be at my advantage, I don't want that my name is associate to it forever. I must be able to reset my Internet image and reputation. Especially for young people. Google is already very reluctant to remove references on demand. At least this now gives something competitors can differentiate with. We need a place where we can create a virtual identity we can throw away. An identity that we can use as signature for publishing comments, articles and videos.

jmillikin 14y ago
(disclaimer: I work for Google, and dislike the Google+ names policy) In this case, it's not a demand; the user has already entered a Google+ name, and Google is offering to show that name on the user's YouTube account. > Supose I film my cat in my living room showing also the nice > HiFi installation behind it. If it is published under my > name, it would be like publishing my address on the HiFi. That's ridiculous. Unless you're also posting your address in the video description, it's practically impossible for a viewer to match a name (even your legal name) to your physical location. The concern here is about privacy, not physical security. Thinking up unrealistic danger scenarios is not productive. > If as a teenager I film and publish a party where I wouldn't > be at my advantage, I don't want that my name is associate > to it forever. > > I must be able to reset my Internet image and reputation. > Especially for young people. Google is already very > reluctant to remove references on demand. Currently, the idea of interacting with the web through multiple disposable identities is constrained to nerds. I believe that as time goes on, and the privacy implications of a single identity become widely apparent, the majority of users (especially younger users) will learn to use multiple identities. You ask for the ability to "reset" an identity, but this is impossible. You can't un-break an egg. Everything posted to the internet is public and potentially eternal. In twenty years, the idea of posting something risqué under one's legal name will be considered as foolish as stapling bank statements and tax returns to a telephone pole. > We need a place where we can create a virtual identity we > can throw away. An identity that we can use as signature > for publishing comments, articles and videos. You mean, like a Google account? There's no restriction on the number of accounts a single person can create, and the censors won't blink twice as long as the name sounds caucasian (citation: http://infotrope.net/2011/08/04/google-plus-names-policy-explained/#govtid http://infotrope.net/2011/08/04/google-plus-names-policy-exp... ). Accounts at any major internet site, including Google, are inherently ephemeral and disposable.

lazyjones 14y ago

Youtube has had many issues lately that should affect its popularity, from legitimate content disappearing because of some (non-)copyright holders having tools to "delete first, ask later", to issues with Google harrassing users to do things of no benefit to them. I am also getting "this video is currently not available" messages frequently because I don't have a browser with H.264 (which Google was supposed to drop in favour of free alternatives? Go convert uploaded video then...). Youtube has reached a dangerous annoyance level, seems like a good time for competitors to grow.

Flow 14y ago
I surf using Chrome for the latest and most secure Flash. I like being up to date and secure. On YouTube Flash crashes in about 50% of trying to load the videos. Really annoying. And even more annoying is that if I disable Flash altogether there are quite a few videos on YouTube that can't be played. I'm beginning to see the bundling of Flash as a negative thing, it only prolongs the life of that hell-hole called Flash.

dacilselig 14y ago

This reminds me of the time where Blizzard wanted to do something similar for their forums as people would troll often. From what I remember, there was a huge backlash. They seem to be trying to take a safer approach by suggesting you do it versus forcing you. I wonder if they had that incident in the back of their mind when taking this approach. For those interested: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101916-Blizzard-Forums-Make-Real-Names-Mandatory http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101916-Blizzard-Fo...

thornofmight 14y ago
This is a little bit different because it's only giving users with pre-existing accounts an option to change their username to their real name. Anybody who registers a new account is forced to use their real name (or a fake real name).

ars 14y ago

Related to this: http://www.wired.com/business/2012/06/youtube-commenters/ http://www.wired.com/business/2012/06/youtube-commenters/

joe_the_user 14y ago

I have a youtube account in my "real name". I use only to satisfy my particular taste in videos. I have stale old accounts for other Google stuff but I never use them and don't care about any of it except to browse videos. Google still keeps demanding my cell phone number. constantly. I use my real with the youtube account but I actually don't want anyone to see anything I do there. Google's opinion that it should be my world is quite obnoxious.

thornofmight 14y ago
I really truly wish that there was an option for "No, I don't want to give you my cell phone number, and I NEVER want to give it to you." Also, I used to love making throw-away Gmail accounts for various spam purposes. Now, my cell phone # is associated with 3 accounts so I can't make anymore.
- newman314 14y ago
  Google Voice to the rescue
  - thornofmight 14y ago
    Nope, that doesn't work. I tried that too.

johnbenwoo 14y ago

YouTube comments may be the lowest common denominator of the internet, but at least they're a common denominator.

thinkbohemian 14y ago

The only thing stopping me from linking my channel to my G+ account is them changing my username to my real name. I've built an online brand around that username and changing it would mean i'm harder to find on Youtube. (funny enough that name is different from my HN name, since I can't change my HN username and don't want to lose my Karma.)

morsch 14y ago

I got that prompt recently and I want to emphasize just how obnoxious it is. I'm still really angry about this. I wanted to quickly fire off a comment, something I almost never do. Instead, and completely unexpectedly, I get a scary modal dialog "Start using your full name on YouTube". Really, that's bad enough as it is. I didn't interact in a way that'd make me expect any kind of dialog (e.g. logging in/out or a major account modification). And there is no easy way to dismiss the dialog without making a decision, no X in a corner, clicking the background does nothing. Also really, really bad. Opening another YouTube window doesn't help, either, you just get another copy of the dialog. But the reaction to declining the request -- which is the non-default, non-highlighted option -- is just outrageous. Instead of simply going away silently, or maybe telling me where to activate the feature if I change my mind, it tells me it'll show my real name anyway, but just in a preview mode that's only visible to me, if I just click the default, highlighted button. That's not exactly the opposite of what I wanted it to do when I declined their unprovoked offer, but it's pretty damn close. And again, there is no easy way out, you have to chose a reason why you dare refuse them, with none of the options being "I decline to answer" or "Go to hell"; the closest thing being "I'm not sure, I'll decide later", which I chose and which I expect will just mean I'll be assaulted again in the near future. This is the kind of hostile user experience I expect on cheap travel websites and other scummy parts of the net, but not on a Google property and certainly not on a website I visit a lot.

moron 14y ago
Wow. That is pretty terrible. Assuming you left the comment, did you try a browser in private mode to confirm the """"preview"""" was in fact limited to only you?
- morsch 14y ago
  No, when you select "I don't know, I'll decide later", the account does stay pseudonymous. So there is a way out, it's just not easy, because you need to choose a "legit" reason for not using the real name (e.g. "my channel name is for a show or character"). You can't simply dismiss it permanently. I haven't been reminded yet, though.
14y ago

ww520 14y ago

Youtube has problems lately. It has suddenly started to send me notification emails everyday non-stopped. The unsubscribe links had no effect. Even after I have unsubscribed a number of times, the spam kept coming. Finally I deleted my account but the spams kept coming in anyway. Of course marking the spamming emails as spam in GMail doesn't work. Worse there's no way to contact Youtube to report the problem.

yuhong 14y ago

Personally I am not for a real name policy, but I do prefer that people post under their real name if possible.

Bootvis 14y ago
May I ask why? Personally I don't see any benefit whatsoever.
- yuhong 14y ago
  In the long term I want the problems with using real names to fixed properly if possible.
  - Bootvis 14y ago
    But what are these problems? What is it that requires fixing?

Jach 14y ago

I never got the prompt, just a broken reply button that took no action. Searching for others with the problem revealed it's due to wanting my real name. I went through my settings looking for an option to use my real name, since I don't care, but couldn't find one. On a screen that was supposed to contain that option for other people, it was not there for my account. Solution? Delete all G+ data and log out and back in to Youtube.

aestetix 14y ago

Why does this keep coming up? Google seems to not learn. 1. There is no such thing as a real name. You might have a legal name, but they'd need to validate it somehow if contested. Up until now, Google has just been suspending names that didn't look "real" to them. 2. How do they validate this? Do they expect you to send a copy of an ID? What if you photoshop it? What is their data retention policy? Do they have procedures in place for handling sensitive data? 3. Most important, using a legal name does not somehow make the conversation more valid, or more useful. I have yet to see a strong argument that using a name on a government issued ID somehow makes your discourse better. There are countless arguments against this. I've had to deal with this before. Here's an idea of what happens to you if you run afoul of this policy: https://plus.google.com/115896012705745653160/posts/Kdg2nPzMB4M https://plus.google.com/115896012705745653160/posts/Kdg2nPzM...

leif 14y ago

Often the simplest solution is the best: don't comment on YouTube videos.

millzlane 14y ago

I don't feel they begged. They asked, I said no, they then asked why, and then I answered. Man that was simple. I applaud Google. At least they don't do things without your permission. I'm looking at you Facebook.

petitmiam 14y ago

I use my real name online for professional work-related things. I use a username for non-work related things like posting a videos of toy animals to youtube. The way things are headed, I guess I need to invent a "real name" for my online personal persona, to replace my username.

fluxon 14y ago

"Real" (heh) names don't improve comment quality. What improves comment quality is moderation (approve/decline/delete), enabled by default for every single user. I moderate when I answer the door, who I answer the phone for, who I hang out with, and which mail I open. Who wouldn't moderate their YouTube comments? Sheesh. Yes, it can be abused. To prevent "damage to the community", users who misuse the moderation system by deleting too many comments, declining only specific users, or declining polite (negative) comments, can be flagged as moderation abusers.