3 ms·
I would like to add that while I disagree with the comment you're replying to (reminds me of "why disagree with spying if you have nothing to hide" ...), I unde
by nolok 13y ago
I would like to add that while I disagree with the comment you're replying to (reminds me of "why disagree with spying if you have nothing to hide" ...), I understand that nothing forces a particular company to allow anonymous content on their website and that's fine by me.
But there is a world between refusing anon, and suddenly and posteriorly displaying the real name of people on top of content they thought was anonymous. I don't claim to be particularly smart but if their popup was unclear for me, I can't imagine how it is for people who are less tech literate.
- cbhl 13y agoYou shouldn't rely on Mother Google or Daddy Facebook to fight your battles for you, because their interests are not the same as yours. Real Names was protested to death the moment that Google+ came out; my understanding is that their compromise was that your entire Google profile was to use the same name, but that name could be a pseudonym so long as it was realistic. (If your legal name was weird, well, too bad, send in some ID.) There's nothing we can do about this now, whining about it on HN. Choose to stop using YouTube, switch to a new account with a pseudonym, use Vimeo instead, start your own.
- makomk 13y agoThere's a huge amount of social pressure against being so paranoid about whether Google or Facebook might hypothetically decide to do something bad in the future. Saying that people should stop whining about it once it actually happens is effectively equivalent to saying that no-one should complain about it at all.