We have a policy about victim-blaming. You’re in violation.

What your not understanding is Google is wanting to only really support that concept.  They are not wanting to be facebook, they want it, at least as their design has gone so far to be mainly be a way to communicate with those people that you do in meatspace.

To the extent that’s true, this is what Corey called cargo-cult copying of Facebook. It’s stupid – the whole point is supposedly to be better than Facebook.

But also, I don’t actually know that that is true. Is there a Google exec on record as saying G+ is only for your meatspace friends? I doubt it. It would be a stupid thing to say. (But we do have the stupid policy that implies it…)

And they have a place where you can put and be found though those pseudonyms.  They have provided you the ability to still be found though those other names, they just ask for your real name as well.   They allow you to use a pseudonyms, but they also are requiring you to have a real identity as well.

The policy, the controversy and the bannings concern the “display name” at the top, not any optional nicknames further down. If we accept that a “display name” can in fact be what your [online] friends call you, then there is NOTHING in the policy which requires the use of (let alone public sharing) of anything like a “real” name.

And what part of people interacting with each other in an online social network is incompatible with that exactly? What’s in it for the rest of us to effectively ban such people from the space? How does it make the experience anything but poorer?

Then be upset that they are not following their policy, not that you think the policy is unfair…but the complaint should not be…

BOTH complaints are being made. Loudly. And they BOTH have merit.

Also please note that strict adherence to the stated policy allows pseudonyms. A great many people are known to large circles of friends (and even co-workers) only online and pseudonymously. The policy does not specify “real [meatspace] life”.   

Here is an idea… if your being stalked, maybe you should stay off social networking sites.  The best way to avoid attention is to avoid attention….

Ooooh. I missed this one. 

So, [slightly longer but more explicit] geekandwife: “Bad stalking victim! Bad! Don’t you know that the internet is only for decent people who have never had to deal with being threatened by a creepy stalker who wants to control your life? If anyone’s ever stalked you, make sure you shut up forever and stay off the internet!”

What your not understanding is Google is wanting to only really support that concept.  They are not wanting to be facebook, they want it, at least as their design has gone so far to be mainly be a way to communicate with those people that you do in meatspace.  

That’s fine in places where you don’t have to deal with these people in RL, but on social networks I expect to hang out in meatspace as well, or I’ve met them there some time in the past.

This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone uses social networks the same way you do. I.e.: to interact exclusively with people you already know in meatspace.

I’m reading you as expressing quite a vociferous desire to make G+ (and maybe other social networks) exclusively useful to people who use them exactly the same way you do. Doing your best to neuter and poison them for all of the other variations of use cases the rest of us out here might have for them. 

And all, basically, to make it slightly more convenient for you to locate your meatspace friends whose online nicknames you don’t know.

Yeesh. That’s fine if that’s what you want, but I think you could stand to be more explicit about your aims.

If its not the name your mother calls you, then its not your common name according to google rules. 

UmWut?

You just quoted the google rule in question. I repeat: friends, family or co-workers. You see that word OR? If your mother always calls you Aloysius Popewhit Dumbledore, but your friends call you “Sharkster”, then Google’s written policy is supposedly to accept either one. That doesn’t appear to be what they’re doing.

 how does that not help them to tailor better ads to you?

That’s rather short sighted.

It might help them target the people who still choose to use the service, but:

1. Address and “real name” information seem pretty valueless. They can already get geographic information quite well, if necessary (which is plenty good enough – the only reason you’d need actual mailing addresses would be to sell them to direct marketers or something — which isn’t happening, but in which case we would have a whole different problem here). And much, much more interesting than anything they could possibly use a “real” name for are the various inferences they can make based on the interests of you and your various circles of friends. (But the latter is provisional on you actively using the service, which brings us to:)

2. They’re not going to be able to advertise at all to all of the millions of people who decide not to use the service because they can’t actually be themselveses (compound plural) on it.

Google can be as silly, inconsistent or stubborn as they wish, you’re right. But that doesn’t protect them from criticism, or from wasting money ignoring good (as opposed to ‘common’) sense. They can ignore the criticism, but it’s not going to go away.

Google gives you a social networking site to use the data to better their primary business… the service is not for you.  Its just that simple.

Google should use this for advertising copy.

Particularly offensive about the real names policy is that 1) some people use false names because of issues with stalkers, and 2) apparently it only goes for people who aren’t currently REALLY famous, because guess what names Lady Gaga and Fifty Cent are allowed on there with? Even though OTHER people with pen/stage names aren’t being allowed to use them or have two profiles.

2. And I am saying even if it doesn’t have a benefit to the user of the product, it has a clear benefit to the owner of the system.  Nothing in the world is ever free.  Google gives you a social networking site to use the data to better their primary business.  In reality this is no different than a site requiring you to register with a comment system in order to post.  By the act of registering i am giving up a great deal of privacy, and allow myself to be be tracked by said comment system and advertisers.  

3.  Read exactly what they say “common” name is to them.  

“Your common name is the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you.”

If its not the name your mother calls you, then its not your common name according to google rules.  Google doesnt want you living out an different life than the one you present to said family friends and coworkers.  If your one of these people that has to keep secrets from those people, then the service is not for you.  Its just that simple.    

For example, Joe’s mother is a devout ——, and would likely have a heart attack if she discovered that he had given up —– and, worse, become a *****. Therefore, he uses Joe Realname for his traditional fasebuk account, and Joey Truname for his other fasebuk account. (Yes, of course he has more than one. Doesn’t everybody?)

For professional connections, though, he uses Joseph.S.Realname at geemail.com, so he can keep that correspondence and associated professional activity separate from his real life. And he’s got a work email as well, which will be void (but probably still receiving mail) when he changes jobs.

I’m sure this and similar arguments have been raised in the many, many discussions on this topic. I’m also sure that there are many people who would dismiss this argument as being useless, because they’re not “weirdos” (or whatever) like Joe. Or the other Joe Realnames that are out there, who can’t use Joe Realname because it’s already taken by Joey.  :-)

1. what people are complaining about is that what Google is doing is NOT logical
2. Google (and the people arguing for the use of “real names”) are the ones who are asserting that it *does* have a benefit
3. As mentioned in TFA and other stories about this, Google hasn’t actually been abiding by the “common name” bit, even for people who have ample evidence

So, statements like “Google+ is not a goodwill gesture to the world” are really rather off point.

Second: Lady Gaga gets to post as Lady Gaga.  Google specifically makes that decision if they feel a user is “important enough”.

Third: you’re right, Google is free to do whatever they damn well please, because they’re not the government.  However, there is still harm done to society if an entity as ubiquitous as Google makes the wrong decision – and there’s the harm done to Google as well.

Google’s actual policy is a poor match for reality on many levels.  First, they think the government should be the authority in what you call yourself.  If you happen to be a dissident, well, too bad – you won’t be using Google.  Second, they make a lot of the assumptions on Patrick’s list.  The “Howard Howard” cited above would probably have a great deal problems getting an account reenabled.  (And unfortunately, he could lose his email as well, if he were foolish enough to depend on Google for it.)

You seem to have some really deeply felt opinion on this topic, so it’s a little discordant to me that you don’t seem to have followed this topic as it’s evolved over the past couple of weeks.

Reality meets Google policy with predictable confusion. Hence threads like this, because Google aren’t even allowing their own policy to be followed (let alone the bootstrapping problem of how your common name becomes commonly known).

Maggie opened her Dispatch from the Nym Wars post by linking to Xeni’s two posts on the topic.  The present post would be Cory’s third.

And that makes 6 or 7 posts in approaching three weeks.

I ma kinda curious who on boingboing’s staff hates their name so much that we need 2-3 posts a day about it.

That would be Xeni Jardin. Which would make her in violation of their “Real Names” policy.

“Google+ makes connecting with people on the web more like connecting with people in the real world. Because of this, it’s important to use your common name so that the people you want to connect with can find you. Your common name is the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you. For example, if your legal name is Charles Jones Jr. but you normally use Chuck Jones or Junior Jones, any of these would be acceptable”

It allows for the use of common names, but if you have no proof of that name being your common used name, then you should expect problems.