3 ms·

Actually, G+ does support pseudonyms, although there are some subtleties with how they work and the approval process involved with them. See this very long thr

by tytso 14y ago

Actually, G+ does support pseudonyms, although there are some subtleties with how they work and the approval process involved with them. See this very long thread for the details, and some really interesting discussion about names, pseudonyms, "core identities", "peripheral identies"/hats, "firewalled identies", and more: https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/YJbzDptWGQt https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/YJbzDptWGQt

joe_the_user 14y ago
I don't think your statement accurately describes the text in your link. The only thing I see here is the ability to add a nicknames - your "alternate names" - to your "real" name. That is not at all the same thing. Edit: Comment on the page - "I'm sorry, but the only difference I see here is that you're now listing the nickname field on the hovercard and profile. I see no substantive policy change. Fame was already an obvious and hypocritical exception to the policy; now you're just open about it." That's what I read.
- tytso 14y ago
  Read through to the rest of the comments..... there is also the ability to use pseudonyms.
- Tuvaloon 14y ago
  G+ has the same policy as Facebook now: you must use a name that looks reasonably appealing for a marketing campaign, and nothing obviously not anyone's real name, nor excessively foreign looking.
- webwanderings 14y ago
  G+ totally allows pseudo names. But that's not really a game changer. Whether you are at FB or G+, if you are using pseudo name to protect your identity, than you are rendering yourself useless because you can't be hiding and expect to be networking authentically with the people you know for real. What would make sense for FB/G+ to provide is the ability to have each person choose his/her self-identity based on different situations, i.e, provide complete autonomy to the people on how they wish to portray themselves to the different sets of people. I can be a real name in front of my family and co-workers, but at the same time, projecting and sharing different sets of updates based on who am I sharing with. At the same time, I can be a pseudo name in front of the strangers and/or people I may only know online.
  - tytso 14y ago
    Are you trying to make these identities to be firewalled from each other? i.e., do you not want your family to know that you go by "Master Dan" in certain BDSM communities? Or for someone who is transgener, but isn't yet ready to let a set of friends/family/coworkers know yet by the choice of a differently-gendered name? It turns out this is extraordinarily difficult, and if users think they can maintain this separation using a single account, and then they get burned, they are very likely to blame the social network involved. Which is a pretty good reason why the architects at FB or G+ would probably think very, very carefully before implementing such a feature.
    - webwanderings 14y ago
      But isn't this how people live their life in the offline world?

by tytso 14y ago

joe_the_user 14y ago

I don't think your statement accurately describes the text in your link. The only thing I see here is the ability to add a nicknames - your "alternate names" - to your "real" name. That is not at all the same thing. Edit: Comment on the page - "I'm sorry, but the only difference I see here is that you're now listing the nickname field on the hovercard and profile. I see no substantive policy change. Fame was already an obvious and hypocritical exception to the policy; now you're just open about it." That's what I read.

tytso 14y ago
Read through to the rest of the comments..... there is also the ability to use pseudonyms.
Tuvaloon 14y ago
G+ has the same policy as Facebook now: you must use a name that looks reasonably appealing for a marketing campaign, and nothing obviously not anyone's real name, nor excessively foreign looking.
webwanderings 14y ago
G+ totally allows pseudo names. But that's not really a game changer. Whether you are at FB or G+, if you are using pseudo name to protect your identity, than you are rendering yourself useless because you can't be hiding and expect to be networking authentically with the people you know for real. What would make sense for FB/G+ to provide is the ability to have each person choose his/her self-identity based on different situations, i.e, provide complete autonomy to the people on how they wish to portray themselves to the different sets of people. I can be a real name in front of my family and co-workers, but at the same time, projecting and sharing different sets of updates based on who am I sharing with. At the same time, I can be a pseudo name in front of the strangers and/or people I may only know online.
- tytso 14y ago
  Are you trying to make these identities to be firewalled from each other? i.e., do you not want your family to know that you go by "Master Dan" in certain BDSM communities? Or for someone who is transgener, but isn't yet ready to let a set of friends/family/coworkers know yet by the choice of a differently-gendered name? It turns out this is extraordinarily difficult, and if users think they can maintain this separation using a single account, and then they get burned, they are very likely to blame the social network involved. Which is a pretty good reason why the architects at FB or G+ would probably think very, very carefully before implementing such a feature.
  - webwanderings 14y ago
    But isn't this how people live their life in the offline world?