Slashdot Mirror
Google Launches Identity Verification Badge Scheme
theodp writes "CNET reports that rather than backing down after complaints about its insistence that Google+ user accounts be opened under a real name, Google has upped the ante and will pin 'verification badges' on users in an effort to assure people that 'the person you're adding to a circle is really who they claim to be.' In a Friday night post, Google employee Wen-Ai Yu explained that the Google+ team is initially 'focused on verifying public figures, celebrities, and people who have been added to a large number of Circles, but we're working on expanding this to more folks.'"
I'm getting to the point where I no longer like Google, nor it's products. Verify this, Google+ that, really now.
Custom hosting is on the cheap (for email), you can use something like DuckDuckGo for searches (not quite as good as some of the others I guess, but still not that bad), and Diaspora (if it ever really gets out) for your social networking goodness (goes with the custom hosting)...
Ultimately, the largest schlep is the migration from everything-gmail-oriented to everything @domain.name oriented (forums etc).
If, at the same time, they limit or stop disabling accounts that don't use a real name. Having a verification badge as "proof of real name" while allowing the use of unverified, pseudonymous identities (without the badge) is a perfectly fine idea.
Of course, if they're going to keep up the nonsense of entirely forbidding pseudonymous accounts, this means nothing.
"whether or not we like it,"
That's just the thing. We DO like it. Well, I don't, maybe you don't either, but in the aggregate we the public LOVE giving up our privacy and anonymity. We do it voluntarily, in exchange for things we could have gotten without giving it up.
I've been on the internet a long time. Since the early 80's. I've watched people by the hundreds of millions chose the paths that allow for more monitoring, less privacy, and so forth, time after time after time.
We GAVE the authorities and the data mining private companies this control. I'm willing to PGP my mail to anyone. I don't use facebook, I block their "like" buttons, I block google's tracking crap, I encrypt my IM conversations with friends. But do other people? Generally no. The internet has turned into a place that allows a scale of monitoring and behavioral profiling that exceeds anything George Orwell could have imagined. It didn't have to be this way. It's this way because we don't care.
It's a fight I fought for many years, trying to convince people to value their privacy. I lost.
Do I remember the GNAA? Sure I do. I read slashdot at -1 at all times, simply because the moderation here is unbelievably wrongheaded. So I see every troll post. And they don't bother me one bit -- I would much rather see what an Anonymous Coward has to say than subject myself to Slashdot's rather pitiful offering of preemptively devaluing the anonymous remarks. Quite often, the anonymous remarks contain more valuable content than the "highly rated" remarks. Part of that is that moderation here is so badly broken, but part of it stems directly from the fact that as an anonymous speaker, people do indeed have wider latitude in what they can say. I'm not only interested in the things we're allowed, or supposed, to say. I want to hear what people think as they actually choose to express it in the most unfettered manner possible. GNAA? That stuff is utterly pitiful, and takes just about zero effort to recognize and skip over. An anonymous post containing material unsanctioned at the source from someone in Washington, from within congress (yeah, we have posts like that here), or Iraq, or Google, for that matter... now *that's* something I'm interested in reading. And those posts would not exist in the same form if they were signed by Real Name.
The thing about slashdot is that although the corporate culture leans strongly towards the muzzling of the anonymous, it does NOT enforce this -- it leaves that up to the individual user. So I see everyone. Others choose, that is CHOOSE, to stick with the results of moderation and the default low ranking of anonymous posts.
Google's corporate culture path here is, apparently, not going to allow the users any choice about how they manage their circles. It would be as simple as Slashdot's "browse at -1" option; "only let people into my particular circle(s) if they have the "real name" thing in their profile, and then allow individual lockouts on top of that. Control it at circle granularity, and it's workable. I could have circles that were unrepressed, and others could bask in the knowledge that so-and-so is using their "Real Name."
But Google, as you point out, isn't in this for the users. That whole "do no evil" thing? Utter nonsense. As these policies show, when it comes to a choice between money and not doing people harm, money wins. And that *is* a choice they can make. And we can just look at "do no evil" as just another marketing slogan. Which I guess is exactly what it is.
The one thing consumers -- which is what we are with relation to Google -- have as our little bit of leverage is that we can vote with our value to the company; That's why you won't find me on Google+ (or Facebook.) I've never opted into either one. I always found Facebook's TOS to be odious (yeah, I actually read site TOS declarations) and Google's whole "we must know who everyone is" simply makes me want to be somewhere else where I can interact with the people they leave out.
When you opt into this real name thing, you're leaving behind those who have been stalked, those who are political rebels or pariahs,
those who the state (or the feds) have declared outcasts, those on "lists", justifiably or not, people in countries where free speech is a free ticket to a machete party... me, I have no interest in this sanitized "we know who you are" world. That's a very bad, even immoral, choice for me. But I won't say you're bad because you want to go there. I'll just view it as a place containing the people I *don't* need to be listening to. The sheep. The ones who all say the same thing, think the same thing, and are happy to have the ostracized folks living under bridges -- and would just as soon forget they exist.
I lean strongly libertarian; I think Google should be able to do what they want. But when they do things I consider odious, then *I* get to do what I want, too, and that is to not engage the company in what I consider to be less than good practices. Google+ is odious, as I presently understand it. As long as that is the case, "teh social" is "teh worthless."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The essential problem is the same thing that killed Friendster and Buzz - it's the common startup failure mode where they decide how they want the users to use the service, the users have their own ideas, and they end up b anning large chunks of their userbase to disastrous effect.
If you want users, you have to not piss off a huge proportion of your userbase. Stupid startups forget this and die; smart ones realise the users will tell them what business they're actually in. But if the company is large enough, and you have a sufficiently arrogant ex-MS VP on the case, stupidity can run for really quite some time.
G+ is fantastic software. It's really nice to use. It kills office productivity way deader than Facebook. But half my stream is people outraged at the names fuckup.
People are seriously talking about leaving all Google services (and posting how-to FAQs). They're even contemplating using Bing for search. Just how toxic do you need to make your brand for people to contemplate using Bing?
http://rocknerd.co.uk