Google Wants You to Use Your Real Name on YouTube

Just like a slashdot poll by danbert8 · 2012-07-23 04:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Somebody always bitches about the lack of options. Maybe Google should have included a "My name is Cowboy Neal" option?

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?

Re:Just like a slashdot poll by fractoid · 2012-07-23 04:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Trolololo- no. Lack of options in a multiple choice question is almost always a way to manufacture a false N-chotomy for the reader. Referendum-type votes do it all the time to manipulate the results. If the question is "Why would you not like to reveal personally identifiable data online" then one of the fields should be either free-form, or "because I'm not a complete muppet."

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by jeffmeden · 2012-07-23 04:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Trolololo- no.
Lack of options in a multiple choice question is almost always a way to manufacture a false N-chotomy for the reader. Referendum-type votes do it all the time to manipulate the results. If the question is "Why would you not like to reveal personally identifiable data online" then one of the fields should be either free-form, or "because I'm not a complete muppet."
If they did add that, they would need to also include (and make default) the option that is almost certainly the correct one: "I want to troll with no repercussion."
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by rtfa-troll · 2012-07-23 04:46 · Score: 3, Funny
There is a European Union decision that people have the right to use Pseudonyms. Google has said they accept this. The only reason that "Cowboy Neal" isn't accepted is that is that their policy demands that names be convincing as normal every day usage. So; for now two suggestions
1. All slashdotters should agree that our future kids will be named "Cowboy Neal" (no requirement to rename existing kids - especially the ones old enough to resist).
2. Everybody should, for now, sign up to Google+ and Facebook from a European union hosted system with a fake but real sounding name and fake data
3. When the children get to an age to legally sign up, we can use their names as a precedent to get the "Cowboy Neal" option open for everybody
4. If either Facebook or Google+ resist on either point 2 or point 3 then be ready to take them to the European Court of Human Rights;
5. For great justice
--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cayenne8 · 2012-07-23 04:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Isn't it just simple to by pass this...by not having a Google or FB account...or at the very least, NOT telling Google about a G+ account when creating a new YouTube account?
Hell....my YT account is with a non-gmail, throw away account...set up with another throw away acct...etc.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

There would never be any repercussions to begin with.
But there are valid reasons to remain anonymous, including avoiding getting fired/not hired by insane employers or staying out of sight of insane people. No need to stifle people's speech, either. The Internet is great because there is so much anonymity. Otherwise, more people would be afraid to speak their mind. Much less interesting.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by fractoid · 2012-07-23 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

So between our two viewpoints, it comes down essentially to what your motivation is in posting. Any way you look at it, the only reason to wish to post anonymously is to avoid some form of repercussion (whether identity theft, stalking/harassment, or simply being outed as a douchetard.)

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by causality · 2012-07-23 04:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

So between our two viewpoints, it comes down essentially to what your motivation is in posting. Any way you look at it, the only reason to wish to post anonymously is to avoid some form of repercussion (whether identity theft, stalking/harassment, or simply being outed as a douchetard.)
Whatever happened to the concept of "it's just not your business?" It's the idea of "if I wanted you to know or thought you were entitled to this information, I would provide it willingly without being prompted for it." Is that disappearing along with the idea of focusing on what is being said rather than making everything into a petty personal matter focused on who is saying it?

I mean sure, Google can do what they like with their properties. That doesn't make it a worthy or noble idea, though.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-07-23 05:03 · Score: 1

Legally change your name to Cowboy Neal then emigrate to Germany to seed the name? I think it'd be hard to deny someone naming their child Cowboy Neal, Jr. no matter the legal name approval requirements.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by fractoid · 2012-07-23 05:03 · Score: 2

But there are valid reasons to remain anonymous, including avoiding getting fired/not hired by insane employers or staying out of sight of insane people.
Which of these reasons (or any other for that matter) for remaining anonymous are not fundamentally driven by concern regarding repercussions?

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-23 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

That they can doesn't mean they should. It also doesn't mean they can't be criticized for it.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by jedidiah · 2012-07-23 05:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not all "repercussions" are the fault of the person who seeks to be careful and not expose himself.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by jeffmeden · 2012-07-23 05:16 · Score: 1

Are there perfectly acceptable non-trolling things to do with anonymity? Of course! I don't disagree with you at all; I am merely pointing out that most people would (as we have seen in every avenue of anonymous or semi-anonymous content) use it to troll. And I love the irony of my post being modded "troll", so that's a win.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Empiric · 2012-07-23 05:17 · Score: 2

Bear in mind, that almost any (even possible) repercussion generally makes it, on a cost/benefit basis, just not worth posting at all. At least not about anything but the most trivial, uncontroversial stuff (see people's Facebook/Twitter posts when they know their family/friends may be collectively passing judgment, let alone future employers). People will censor themselves and/or soften their presentation on the controversial topics, such as politics and religion.

IMHO, what historically made the internet great as a discussion medium is precisely the freedom to speak your mind, and your full mind, on whatever the topic may be. I think we would have lost a lot of quality frank discussion with the "chilling effect" of "everybody's you know is watching you, and realistically, most of those are just hoping for seeing something to indulge themselves in taking offense to".

--
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by rtfa-troll · 2012-07-23 05:19 · Score: 1

Legally change your name to Cowboy Neal then emigrate to Germany to seed the name? I think it'd be hard to deny someone naming their child Cowboy Neal, Jr. no matter the legal name approval requirements.
Probably won't work since I think you will come under a legal exception for foreigners. Unless you are German, in which case you should first emigrate from Germany to the UK or USA for the birth, name your child and then return to Germany. Warning, you will find that in both the UK and the US the health system is vastly inferior to the one you are used to at home and that the maternity and paternity leave provisions in the USA remind you of the 1950s but no sacrifice is too great to be able to answer "Cowby Neal" in a survey.

--
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by residieu · 2012-07-23 05:19 · Score: 4, Funny

Meep Meep Meep Meep Meep Meep Meep
Translation: Just because I'm a muppet, doesn't mean I want people knowing my real name.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Tom · 2012-07-23 05:20 · Score: 2

Whatever happened to the concept of "it's just not your business?"
It was slaughtered by the corrupt politicians when they realized that fear makes for much easier ruling than visions.
Now it's "if you've got nothing to hide..."

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by residieu · 2012-07-23 05:22 · Score: 1

Just wait till I tell everyone at school that you posted "OMG Love this!" to Rebecca Black's Friday
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Joce640k · 2012-07-23 05:25 · Score: 1

NOT telling Google about a G+ account when creating a new YouTube account?
I'm pretty sure they're linked by cookies. If you have a G+ account and go to youtube your name will be at the top of the page.
You could create more accounts and constantly log in/out to avoid it but that's a pain in the ass.
You can do youtube in one browser and G+ in another... but it's still a pain in the ass.

--
No sig today...
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by JesseMcDonald · 2012-07-23 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Any way you look at it, the only reason to wish to post anonymously is to avoid some form of repercussion...
Or perhaps you just believe anonymity improves the quality of the discussion—since you don't know who anyone is, there is less basis for personal attacks and more pressure to debate the substance of an argument, rather than the person who made it. The fact that you can participate in discussions without revealing your ethnicity or gender has always been one of the online community's strengths; forcing people to reveal their real names undermines that implied equality.
A "real name" policy also tends to favor those with popular names (John Smith), who remain effectively anonymous, at the expense of those whose names are relatively unique.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by shentino · 2012-07-23 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have plenty to hide, and it's stuff I simply do not wish to share.
I do not trust strangers to not abuse my private information.
Staying out of jail is not one of my motivations.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cpu6502 · 2012-07-23 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

>>>Any way you look at it, the only reason to wish to post anonymously is to avoid some form of repercussion (whether identity theft, stalking/harassment, or simply being outed as a douchetard.)
No. Shit. Sherlock.
Your comment shows you don't think long term, or wide. I want to avoid the repercussion of employers, governments, et cetera using my comments from 10, 20, 30 years ago against me. (Example: Finding a reason not to hire me. Or finding a reason to put me on a Do Not Travel list.)

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cayenne8 · 2012-07-23 05:30 · Score: 2

Well, I go with the far simpler, no G+ and no FB accounts at all thing.
But I do have gmail....and to keep things separate, when I'm on one of my computers that is using the web interface for gmail...I open a different browser with my YT account...so that they don't inter-mingle.
Not that much of a problem....

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 05:30 · Score: 1

but the real question is: how many proxies did you use??

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cpu6502 · 2012-07-23 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

>>>Which of these reasons (or any other for that matter) for remaining anonymous are not fundamentally driven by concern regarding repercussions?
There's repercussions, and then there's misinterpretations. I've had people unfriend me simply because I said I was libertarian. More scary: A government might choose to put me on a Do-Not-Travel list, because I said on a youtube post (of a girl with her jaw blown-off) that it should not be bombing Libya. With anonymity I am free to post; with realname I have to be afraid.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Plunky · 2012-07-23 05:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

You could create more accounts and constantly log in/out to avoid it but that's a pain in the ass.
You can do youtube in one browser and G+ in another... but it's still a pain in the ass.

Surely if this becomes a significant problem, an extension could be written to allow a browser to have a unique set of cookies per page-domain? Such that a page loaded from www.youtube.com would look like a different user from the one who loads www.google.com.. of course, there would be tricks to get around that, such as tracking referrerals and such, but a privacy extension could handle that too.. I guess even 'Private Browsing' mode could be extended along these lines.. I don't think this war will ever end, and there will be many gains and losses along the way.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Austerity+Empowers · 2012-07-23 05:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Have you considered that Google doesn't care if you use your real name or not? But chances are, if you use your real name you're not going to troll with racist, inane, idiotic, offensive, inflammatory, poorly spelled, quasi-literate trash which describes 99.9% of youtube posts.
You can still do it, but you have to be determined. If you care, and you want to remain anonymous and post, you can still do it. Chances are you are not one of those filling the place up with bullshit.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Austerity+Empowers · 2012-07-23 05:48 · Score: 1

I wonder if there are laws in the EU forbidding me from naming my son Seph1r0th M4s4mun3. It's sort of "hiding in plain site", since posts could be him, or the legions of MMO characters.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Tom · 2012-07-23 05:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have plenty to hide
Of course you do. One of my more common answers to "if you've got nothing to hide..." is: "So you're ok with me installing a camera in your bedroom?"

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by nbauman · 2012-07-23 05:50 · Score: 2

That's not what the writers of the Federalist Papers thought.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by hoggoth · 2012-07-23 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

> "I want to troll with no repercussion."
Bullshit. I like things that are irreverently funny. I like things that are sexy. I don't believe in a magic old man with a white beard watching over us and getting pissed if I wack off. The majority of my extended family would have a problem with all of these.

--
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by gmuslera · 2012-07-23 05:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Just don't call your son Bobby Tables
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Moses48 · 2012-07-23 06:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think the problem here is that everyone is a dissident in some circles. So while I hold opinion A and like to promote it, my (family/boss/co-worker/government) don't know that opinion and will keep treating me normal. If I start publicly promoting opinion A then I would be disowned/fired/disasociated/killed.
So we are all dissidents in that respect when we want to remain anonymous. Early supporters of rights for minorities and females would fall into this category. If you try and define what is legitimate to disagree with anonymously and what isn't, then you have already ruled out dissidents from opposing you without being subject to your prejudice/judgement/punishment.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cheesybagel · 2012-07-23 06:05 · Score: 2

We are talking about fscking video comments of LOLcats and Trololos here. Why the heck should they be proper or sane?
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Cheech+Wizard · 2012-07-23 06:06 · Score: 2

That's what I do. I have my general use browser (Firefox), and I "save" Chrome, Safari, IE, Camino, and Opera each for different things I do. While I don't use TOR or anything to hide my IP it does keep cookies separated. Personally I'm not at all worried about using my real name, though. When I Google search my full, real name there are hundreds of me in the US alone.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-23 06:08 · Score: 1, Redundant

you have no legitimate reason
It's nice to know you have the ability to define what is and is not a "legitimate reason" for everyone.
But of course, there is another choice that you did not present: continue posting anonymously.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cheesybagel · 2012-07-23 06:10 · Score: 1

Great. Now we just need someone to name their kid 1337 h4x0r.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by nospam007 · 2012-07-23 06:10 · Score: 1

I just checked a US phone book and I found 67 Cowboys.
http://www.theyellowpages.com/results.php?ReportType=34&qi=0&qk=10&qn=Cowboy
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by StripedCow · 2012-07-23 06:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Also, the internet never forgets. So a teenager who makes some stupid comments may regret this for the rest of his life.
Me now != me in five or ten years.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-07-23 06:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

Try running firefox with these options:
-ProfileManager -no-remote
That will let you have separate profiles within firefox. You'll have separate configurations for each profile which means things like different extensions, different bookmarks and different skins (I use different skins to make it easy to tell what "task" instance of firefox is the current one).
One flaw with both your multiple-browsers and my multiple-profile approach is flash cookies - if you use flash in any browser, they all use the same cookie storage. I work around the problem by using the BetterPrivacy plugin to delete flash cookies after 5 minutes.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by busyqth · 2012-07-23 06:22 · Score: 1

Unless you are German, in which case you should first emigrate from Germany to the UK or USA for the birth, name your child and then return to Germany. Warning, you will find that in both the UK and the US the health system is vastly inferior to the one you are used to at home.
Having lived and experienced both the German and the US health care systems, I have to disagree with you here.

While I generally prefer the German health care system, I ran into a lot of shabby, run-down, doctor's offices that were generally in a state of disrepair. Speaking of the 1950s, I experienced some major hospitals in Germany that very much reminded me of the 1950s in many aspects, such as seas of ugly white tile, patient wards with 4-8 beds per room, and grumpy nurses who aren't allowed to do much more than change a bedpan. On the other hand, I also experienced excellent doctors, with well-equipped facilities and, of course, a non-socialist comprehensive and universal health coverage system, in which I didn't have to worry how to pay the bills, having already paid them through payroll deductions to the health insurance co-op of my choice.

In the USA, health care is absolutely top notch for people with massive bank accounts or gold-plated insurance policies. The rest of us get to deal with well-meaning and good doctors, with excellent facilities at their disposal, whose medical decisions, however, are heavily influenced by insurance company demands. We get to pay large co-pays and lab fees for all of the questionably-necessary testing that is done to avoid negligence lawsuits. Our hospitals look like palaces, with marble floors everywhere, gold-plated faucets, and 500 luxurious single rooms for patients. In the end the standard of care for the average American is high, but we go broke trying to pay for it.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by iamhassi · 2012-07-23 06:22 · Score: 1

This is why I do not have a google+ account or android phone.... because next thing you know they'll want you to post your GPS location next to your comment and maybe even a "call now" button.

How far does google have to go before we can start calling them evil?

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by snspdaarf · 2012-07-23 06:24 · Score: 1

Everybody should, for now, sign up to Google+ and Facebook from a European union hosted system with a fake but real sounding name and fake data
"Adolf Elisabeth Hitler"

--
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cayenne8 · 2012-07-23 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

When you speak in public, your name IS our business. You can stand behind your words or you can keep quiet. Choose.
Persons at risk are excepted: children, whistleblowers, dissidents, people discussing medical conditions. If you're not one of them, you have no legitimate reason to hide under your Klan bedsheet.
Why should it all not be protected speech that is capable of being disseminated anonymously?
Who is to be the judge of what speech can be protected anon or had to be 'stood by in public'....
To truly allow free speech....you must take the good with what you perceive to be the 'bad' and possibly distasteful, otherwise....someone has to be the judge over what is and isn't permitted.
And, one great way to allow true freedom of speech...is to allow it anonymously.
People are allowed in this country to whistle blow....be pro or anti-gay, and yes....you can think racist thoughts and should be able to freely speak them (and no, it isn't just white people not liking blacks). Do you find it distasteful....ok. But it has to be allowed....otherwise something *you* find to be important, might be later become distasteful to someone with more power than you, and if you could not express your views anon...they you're viewpoint might be squashed.
Remember, it wasn't that long ago that many things could be freely discussed, that just are not politically correct in the past 5-10 years. What if in 5 years...popular culture and thinking swings, and it becomes politically incorrect for you to speak what you find to be an important topic for discussion or call to action?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by mbunch5 · 2012-07-23 06:26 · Score: 1

. Any way you look at it, the only reason to wish to post anonymously is to avoid some form of repercussion

Why do you say that like it was a bad thing? You might as well say I use the steering wheel while driving to avoid the "repercussion" of wrapping around a tree. Except in this case the repercussions brought on by an increasingly nosy government/private watchdog/church/employer whatever can be far, far worse than that.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cayenne8 · 2012-07-23 06:28 · Score: 1

Wait...are ya'll saying that in Germany..t.hey actually have rules and laws as to what you can name your children, or yourself as an adult?!?!?
If so...wow......
I guess in Germany they'd never have kids named China, Moon Unit, or God.....?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by ToadProphet · 2012-07-23 06:30 · Score: 2

When you speak in public, your name IS our business. You can stand behind your words or you can keep quiet. Choose.
Excellent. Could I have a list of all the stupid things or potentially offensive you said as a teenager or 'in public' to share with your your employer and others?
Let's get over this notion that things that are recorded and archived are equivalent to transient things said in context in a public place, ok?

--
It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cayenne8 · 2012-07-23 06:30 · Score: 1

One flaw with both your multiple-browsers and my multiple-profile approach is flash cookies - if you use flash in any browser, they all use the same cookie storage. I work around the problem by using the BetterPrivacy plugin to delete flash cookies after 5 minutes.
What about that 1 flash cooking (the master one?) that you aren't supposed to delete...is that one a problem?
Can it stay safely, or can it too be deleted regularly?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Requiem18th · 2012-07-23 06:48 · Score: 1

Why not? You don't get to chose what I can criticize, otherwise I wouldn't be able to, say, criticize a movie or a restaurant without their blessing.
What ever possesed you to make that statement? No seriously, I'm asking you, what made you think that people shouldn't be able to express their opinion on some one else's actions?

--
But... the future refused to change.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-23 06:51 · Score: 1

No seriously, I'm asking you, what made you think that people shouldn't be able to express their opinion on some one else's actions?
What? I said that they could criticize it in response to someone else to remind them that someone's actions can be criticized.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Andrewkov · 2012-07-23 06:53 · Score: 1

But chances are, if you use your real name you're not going to troll with racist, inane, idiotic, offensive, inflammatory, poorly spelled, quasi-literate trash which describes 99.9% of youtube posts.

Wow, they should do the same thing here.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by jfengel · 2012-07-23 06:56 · Score: 1

And they don't trust you not to abuse the anonymity. Seems fair to me. Seriously.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Chris+Burke · 2012-07-23 06:59 · Score: 1

No, you're wrong on the first count. They absolutely should do what they like with it.
No, they should not do whatever they like with it irrespective of what "what they like" is. If "what they like" is shitty, they should re-evaluate their likes and dislikes and do something else. "Can" and "should" have never and will never be equivalent.
Which is actually the same count as the second one, that they should be open to criticism. Criticizing what someone does without simultaneously suggesting they should not have done it is nonsensical.
The only way these two things would be different is if we're confusing "should not have" with "should have been prevented from" which would be a mistake.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 06:59 · Score: 1

I think it's not that easy. I don't log into youtube and neither do other people in my household. But I noticed that I get recommendations from stuff they watch and they get recommendations from stuff I watch.
I'm guessing lacking any other information youtube associates you with an IP address. Odd thing is, my ISP gives me a dynamic one. So it can't just be that. I know it's not browser cookies because: a) I deny youtube cookies and b) I get these recommendations on fresh installations
I'm guessing the way google identifies users on the internet is pretty sophisticated. And scary.
I'm sure having an account makes it easier for them but it seems it's not that hard for them to identify you anyway.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Yakasha · 2012-07-23 07:13 · Score: 1

You could create more accounts and constantly log in/out to avoid it but that's a pain in the ass.
You can do youtube in one browser and G+ in another... but it's still a pain in the ass.
Surely if this becomes a significant problem, an extension could be written to allow a browser to have a unique set of cookies per page-domain? Such that a page loaded from www.youtube.com would look like a different user from the one who loads www.google.com.. of course, there would be tricks to get around that, such as tracking referrerals and such, but a privacy extension could handle that too.. I guess even 'Private Browsing' mode could be extended along these lines.. I don't think this war will ever end, and there will be many gains and losses along the way.
less talky more codey
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by jvkjvk · 2012-07-23 07:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have no idea where you get avoiding repercussions is a bad thing.
That is simply a stupid argument.
OF COURSE I want to be anonymous to avoid repercussions.
I find it obvious that one needs to avoid repercussions when discussing controversial and/or political topics with a worldwide audience.
I find it obvious that both governments, corporations, groups, and individuals might decide to act in a way I would find objectionable, based on comments I have/will make.
Please let me know what you find wrong with that.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by charlesbakerharris · 2012-07-23 08:12 · Score: 1

Staying out of jail is not one of my motivations.
Then turn yourself in already, you ninny!
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Jafafa+Hots · 2012-07-23 08:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually they DO care. They have deleted accounts with names they decided were "not real."
G+ does not allow people to use pseudonyms, officially.

--
This space available.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by hackula · 2012-07-23 08:24 · Score: 1

There would never be any repercussions to begin with.
Have you read a single youtube "conversation" before. Almost every one of them could get somebody fired if they ended up in the hands of that person's boss. The principle of a school really does not want their kindergarten teacher on the net spewing racism or gay bashing in public forum for anyone to see. It might not matter for many jobs, but I have seen people get fired over this stuff for people in sensitive positions. I am all for the anonymous option in every circumstance...except for youtube. For some reason, youtube comments have become the lowest point on the internet, and as such, should be irradiated using any means necessary. There is so much trolling going on that it might cause a black hole.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 08:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

So what's your real name?
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by shentino · 2012-07-23 08:34 · Score: 1

I'm still innocent until proven guilty, you nitwit!
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 09:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

It is a common reaction, but it's wrong -- it validates the assumption in the question, that there is something to hide.
This. is. false.
The question is not whether or not I have something to hide. The question is with whom I choose to share what.
Hence, my reaction usually is along the lines of "If I have something I desire to share with you, I'll let you know."
PS: delicious to post this as AC...
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-07-23 09:33 · Score: 1

I don't know what cookie you are talking about. BetterPrivacy claims to delete all of them by default.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Rob+Y. · 2012-07-23 09:35 · Score: 1

It's bad enough that poorly considered opinions posted to the internet live forever. Hideous that they show up whenever someone googles your name.
It's one thing to post a blog article anonymously - there should be no need for that. But another for a site that encourages feedback to enshrine off the cuff comments in perpetuity.

--
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Kjella · 2012-07-23 09:37 · Score: 2

When you speak in public, your name IS our business. You can stand behind your words or you can keep quiet. Choose.
Yeah, damn those Federalist Papers, without them we could still have our crumpets and tea (properly taxed by Her Majesty the Queen, of course). Or as someone else put it:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views ... Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. ... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation ... at the hand of an intolerant society.
But hey, piss on the constitution and everything the US was built upon and call it patriotic as so many do. I have a few more you can adopt, "war is peace", "freedom is slavery", and "ignorance is strength". The first one is already done with the permanent war on drugs/terrorists/jaywalkers, the second you're already working on by taking the freedoms away and the last one, well I think there's been plenty in this thread already. In short, go fuck yourself.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by JazzLad · 2012-07-23 09:54 · Score: 1

Congrats, we can now use the Neal Cowboy option ... wait

--
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by war4peace · 2012-07-23 10:10 · Score: 2

Bullshit. My Youtube videos, comments and activity reflect the same mindset that my Slashdot posts do. All my online activity is similarly shaped, for that matter. This means a very small amount of trolling (I only tend to troll very stupid people and that very rarely). However, there are reasons for my real name to be left aside. For example, I am pretty sure that my current employer might see my World of Tanks interest to be not in line with the business. It's easy to get the wrong impression about someone, or to have a right impression skewed by some of his activities. It's human nature.
If your boss is a metal hardcore fan and checks Youtube for your name, sees you are an Eminem fan, he might be pushed into liking you less or even hating you out of simple subjectivity. A Hummer car afficionado might loathe your eco-friendliness; a vegan could detest your affiliation to an Youtube Grill Club. The possibilities are endless and cover gaming, music, TV shows, even pets. Why should one increase risks of being disliked by someone with more power just by displaying their true names, on Youtube, no less?
If benefits greatly outbalance risks, then I'm all for it, but I am yet to be convinced there are any benefits.

--
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by makomk · 2012-07-23 10:29 · Score: 1

Except that Google+'s "real names" policy can't actually enforce the use of real names, all it can do is enforce the use of names that look real enough to bypass the automatic fake name detection. Genuine users are pressured into using their real name through various means, such as their friends not being able to find them and the threat of banning if they're spotted, but trolls with throwaway accounts don't care.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 10:32 · Score: 1

And that's not an acceptable reason?
The only reason to force real names is so that people can come around and beat other people up for saying the wrong things.
Where the wrong things may or may not be things you agree with.
But as long as it hurts your political enemies more than it hurts you, it's okay, right?
I'm 26. Already my political views have changed significantly. I'd rather not have my real name attached to anything, because I might change again, or society might change around me.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 10:42 · Score: 1

In some parts of the world, if the authorities find out you posted certain things, you can go to jail.
In Saudi Arabia, pictures of the Prophet.
In India, insults to the Five Forms of God.
In China, talking about Tienanmen Square or saying stuff that the government considers a threat to social harmony or anything pornographic.
In Thailand, insults to the King.
In Poland, quibbling with the official version of the Holocaust.
In Britain, expressions of native Briton ethnic pride, or insults to other ethnicities or suggestions that they should go home.
So yeah, staying out of jail is a perfectly fine motivation for wanting anonymous speech.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by shentino · 2012-07-23 11:01 · Score: 1

My point was that there were others even if it wasn't one of mine.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by tbird81 · 2012-07-23 11:18 · Score: 1

How to fix this reply problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKxcnKeMTos
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by gmhowell · 2012-07-23 11:43 · Score: 2

I have plenty to hide
Of course you do. One of my more common answers to "if you've got nothing to hide..." is: "So you're ok with me installing a camera in your bedroom?"
Trust me, you aren't going to see anything there other than a demonstration of sleep apnea.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by DriedClexler · 2012-07-23 11:53 · Score: 1

But according to Wikipedia ...

--
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Eponymous+Hero · 2012-07-23 11:55 · Score: 1

or maybe you're like me and you're posting under a fictional character who gets its dialogue from 4 (used to be 5 of us) different people.

--
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by farble1670 · 2012-07-23 11:56 · Score: 1

"So you're ok with me installing a camera in your bedroom?"
if you were interested enough to install a camera in my bedroom and actually watch it, i'd be flattered.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by sootman · 2012-07-23 12:20 · Score: 1

> Any way you look at it, the only reason to wish to post
> anonymously is to avoid some form of repercussion
> (whether identity theft, stalking/harassment, or simply
> being outed as a douchetard.)
Wow, I can't believe you got a +5 for that. You forgot "safely express a contrarian opinion" from your list.
Sometimes, the majority are the thieves, stalkers, and douchebags.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-23 12:28 · Score: 1

I would say using your real identity makes actual trolling (which you don't mean, you mean "double plus ungood" which is the way "troll" is used these days, see "patent troll" etc.) much easier. And the only real repercussion is gloating that the other person fell for it.. you know, the whole "YHBT. YL. HAND." thing. WTF happened, how come being mean or a liar online, or being just stupid, is called trolling now? It isn't. Who trolled you into believing it is? Tell us, so we can update the highscore table accordingly.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-23 12:34 · Score: 1

In Poland, quibbling with the official version of the Holocaust.
To me, that's the odd one out of that list. It's like yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by BeanThere · 2012-07-23 13:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's fucking stupid. Even Nelson Mandela operated under false names at times, and for good reason - he could have been murdered simply for believing in freedom and equal rights. And what about all the Jews in WWII Germany, you think the ones trying to sneak out of the country should have openly shouted their real identities on the streets rather?
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Pentium100 · 2012-07-23 13:23 · Score: 1

Which is why I do not use it (or facebook for that matter).
The only time I send someone my real name over the internet is when I am buying something online (so that the item can be shipped to me).
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by humanrev · 2012-07-23 13:35 · Score: 1

An opinion doesn't have to extend to a crusade. You might not like how the Government is behaving, but I don't' begrudge anyone who's not willing to ruin the one life they have by trying to fight the Government and undoubtedly losing.

--
Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-23 13:45 · Score: 1

Because you're posting in a way that implies you can't tie your own shoelaces, for starters.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by causality · 2012-07-23 13:56 · Score: 1

Whatever happened to the concept of "it's just not your business?" .....
I mean sure, Google can do what they like with their properties.
You answered your own question.
I'm sorry but I hope you are not this shallow when it comes to anything significant. I really do, for your sake.

You see, the first statement is a matter of whether they *should*. The second is a matter of whether they *could*.

I mean, you could take a sledgehammer to your perfectly functioning computer. It's your property. You are both legally and morally entitled to do that. But why the hell should you do that? See the difference?

So no, to anyone who understands the distinction, I did not answer my own question. That was neither what I said nor was it my intended meaning. I left it open-ended quite deliberately.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Pentium100 · 2012-07-23 13:56 · Score: 1

I would like a Firefox extension that allows me to (optionally) keep multiple cookie-domains. That is, I open a new tab and it has its own cookies (none at the beginning) so that I could, for example, keep multiple gmail accounts open on the same browser.
Basically cookies should be divided by groups and each tab cold either be a part of the default group or one of the other groups (existing ones or I can create a new group for the tab).
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by causality · 2012-07-23 13:58 · Score: 1

Have you considered that Google doesn't care if you use your real name or not? But chances are, if you use your real name you're not going to troll with racist, inane, idiotic, offensive, inflammatory, poorly spelled, quasi-literate trash which describes 99.9% of youtube posts.
You can still do it, but you have to be determined. If you care, and you want to remain anonymous and post, you can still do it. Chances are you are not one of those filling the place up with bullshit.
IANAL. Having said that, do you know that in many states, you can make up an alias on the spot and sign a contract, and it's legally valid? You're legit so long as you honestly answer questions like "is this your signature".

If you could do that to sign a mortgage, why wouldn't you do that to sign a throwaway Youtube post?

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by psiclops · 2012-07-23 15:30 · Score: 1

Caycee Dee?

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-23 16:22 · Score: 1

Not necessarily. Do anything your boss may find objectionable (anything), and they have the potential to fire you. The same with potential employers. Some bosses seem to believe that human beings should act like complete robots and be 'professional' 100% of the time.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by justforgetme · 2012-07-23 18:04 · Score: 1

I'm not adamant about the following but I think I wouldn't want to get employed by a company that runs an hr department that fails to comprehend that people occasionally can have lives.

--
-- no sig today
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by infinitelink · 2012-07-23 18:05 · Score: 1

No it's not: one produces an immediate situation that is able to produce harm (from the stampede), or loss of enjoyment and deprivation of enjoying something that was paid for. In the other we get to see who the loonies and hateful are--if indeed they are saying something like "it didn't happen" (whereas other things that questiong an "official" version of something might not be bad at all: historical revisionism, perhaps trying to point-out some new fact, another consideration, maybe arguing "in light of these other atrocities the holocaust wasn't as bad as considered, but still really really heinous, tragic, and something never to be forgotten!!!"--no, I don't actually assert that to anyone, know anyone who does, and don't know enough about it, but do know that if someone said something like that I wouldn't be thinking, "OMG a denier", either); outlawing such speech only means we can't see who the ill informed are, and have a dangerous precedent for other forms of censure and, though control of the past by making any history "official", control of thought and the present, and therefore the future.

--
Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by justforgetme · 2012-07-23 18:11 · Score: 1

Well yes. But, on the other side, shouldn't humanity already be aware of this kind of "effect" and adjust their perception of certain input regarding it's age?

--
-- no sig today
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-23 18:53 · Score: 1

In the other we get to see who the loonies and hateful are
Sure, but then what? Just keep watching on as they organize and openly salute? I'm not saying banning some things makes the problem go away. But it surely cramps their style. You say there is no immediate danger to allowing Nazis to come out in the open? I disagree so much, I don't even know where to begin.
Keep them separate, keep them on shitty underground concerts, let them drink themselves to death while ranting in pubs.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by infinitelink · 2012-07-23 19:16 · Score: 1

I didn't say "let Nazis organize": actually, round them up as terrorists and put them away. Rather, I said "don't ban criticism" (I don't mean cynicism, denial, skepticism, I mean pondering, questioning, even improving upon the understanding of the holocaust: which requires that no set history as a totality be established as ultimately official, though some general tenets and some specific formulas might be). e.g. some get huffy at hearing "Hitler was awful, but Stalin and Mao made him seem lovable after the fact": not altogether untrue (some other names might also be added). Since this questions what, at least in America, would be considered the official version of things--that the holocaust perpetrated against Jews (and homosexuals, retards, and the physically deformed or handicapped, among others) by that megalomaniacal murderer "Hitler" is the single most awful and tragic thing ever to happen, as terrible and badly it feels to compare evils by magnitudes, numbers, methods, how sinister things are/were (after all, they are all evils, with many victims, and heart wrenching fruits), should I be put away? Called an anti-Semite? Etc? Will Israeli Jews and their organizations here (despite my support for the right of Israel to exist, defend itself--even with extreme reactions) in my country oppose me simply because these other mass murderers were progressives/Marxists, while so also were (some are?) the founders (and current leadership?--I really don't know now) of the modern nation-state of Israel?

Those are serious questions, with serious answers and potentially terrible ramifications, especially if the answer is "no you can't say that". I'm of that old liberal view, "I'll defend your right to say [whatever]", and also of the view "but reserve my right to question, criticize, challenge, counter, and revoke it", and even my wonderful American right, "and back-up my asseverations with a gun [i.e. effective weapon] if you attempt to silence me". Does that make me a radical, or a sane man protecting himself, btw? Again, another kind of question with mortal consequences (either way), as my nation is now being overrun with people who care not for the law, only what they get away with: and would, in fact, label someone like me a "right wing kook" just for insisting on the defense part. Take a look at how they're using the recent Aurora shootings (my old stamping grounds--that very mall, in fact: a place we all knew, as kids, was dangerous) to argue to remove our ability to have weapons, despite that such would only disarm the populace against criminals like that: a buddy of mine a few miles away from there is armed at all times and, when the guy walked-in and fired a shotgun into the ceiling, he would have immediately fired on that guy (with high-powered armor-piercing rounds). And why am I saying all this? Because it's questioning an "official narrative" created in the minds of my country's "left", that guns kill people--or that disarming them, such as by requiring they be registered, and then in times of crisis declaring martial law and going to take the guns away from all the lawful people--while the thugs never registered them so don't get them confiscated, is somehow going to make us "safer". And note, I was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit the U.S. Gulf Coast, and that's exactly what happened: the army was sent-in by a leftist mayor and governor, and went to every registered gun-owners house and they took the weapons at gunpoint, and guess what happened? Criminals had a hayday--over thirty in under a month, at one point--shooting people who were defenseless, all in the name of "order". So did the mafia-like police force: they treated us like cattle to order around, e.g. "get off the street"; "is there a problem officer?"; "yeah, I don't like you and I'll kick the shit out of you if you ask any more questions": and they did even when people weren't asking questions, they'd just walk-up and beat the living snot out of anyone they pleased.

--
Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Tom · 2012-07-23 19:17 · Score: 1

Yes, I know. But the conception mentioned wasn't murdered by Google, it was dead and buried when Google started acting this way.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Tom · 2012-07-23 19:19 · Score: 1

It depends on what you want to accomplish.
On the philosophical level, you are correct. However, it requires a conversation partner willing to engage in a philosophical discussion. I find that confronting them with a slightly off-center point that hits home works a lot better at getting their attention. From there, it is easier to move towards the philosophical points and differentiate between hiding and privacy, etc.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by hoggoth · 2012-07-24 02:53 · Score: 1

+1 insightful

--
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by causality · 2012-07-24 03:28 · Score: 1

And they don't trust you not to abuse the anonymity. Seems fair to me. Seriously.
Let's see. On the anonynimity side we have potential consequences like someone reading a comment and getting offended (oh noes!). A whole lot of this going on with no moderation system at all would harm the utility of the forum.

On the real-name side, we have potential consequences like facilitating identity theft, real-world harassment and intimidation, and lovely fun things like employers denying you a job for some throw-away comment you made and forgot about 15 years ago. Funny thing about that, if you knew every detail of their life you could most definitely find something nasty someone has said or done and use that to deny them almost anything. Humans are like that. Or there'd just be a constant chilling effect where you'd never say anything that could ever be twisted around in any possible way, by unknown parties at an unknown future time, which would also harm the utility of the forum.

Google is being selfish by choosing potential real-world harm to their users over the slight inconvenience of coming up with a moderation system. I find companies often make decisions like this, so long as it will not be they who bear the cost of it. If you're a fan of that kind of decision-making, then you'll have no problem paying my bills this month, right?

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by jfengel · 2012-07-24 03:52 · Score: 1

I find companies often make decisions like this, so long as it will not be they who bear the cost of it.
Yeah. That's what companies do.
Mostly, though, I find your description of the situation to be cherry-picking. The situation on YouTube isn't a "slight inconvenience"; the comments are unusable at present and they might as well be shut off entirely; the useless of YouTube comments are legendary. And conversely, the odds of somebody refusing you a job because you went "CAT VIDEO!! WOO!!!" are negligible.
Really, you're asking if ten billion comments are worth one poor unfortunate losing his job because he said the wrong thing at the wrong time on the web. My answer: yeah. Life is full of hazards, and it's never going to be fair. I can't prevent you from being hit by a bus, and I'm not going to ground every bus to preserve your right to cross the street whenever you feel like it.
In the end, of course it's a business decision. You don't like their web site, you don't use it. If you do like their web site, you take the personal responsibility to watch your mouth.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by AbeW · 2012-07-24 05:21 · Score: 1

Has this thread just been reverse-Godwin'd?
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by suutar · 2012-07-24 05:34 · Score: 1

as the existence of this level of 'memory' becomes more ingrained in society, either folks will learn to deemphasize stuff from long ago or folks will learn to avoid leaving trails. I expect the former, because the latter is looking less and less feasible. But one way or another, I think the current state (of taking old stuff as currently significant) is an artifact of folks not being used to ever seeing stuff that old.
of course, I may be overly optimistic in assuming that this situation will even last that many generations. But if it does, there will be some adaptation.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by EWAdams · 2012-07-24 06:17 · Score: 1

Remind me again where the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. :-)

--
I piss off bigots.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by EWAdams · 2012-07-24 06:19 · Score: 1

I'm my own employer, and I am and always have been careful about what I say, because I was raised to be civil. I also have the backbone to stand behind my words like a man, not hide behind a bedsheet and lob insults like a Klansman.

--
I piss off bigots.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by EWAdams · 2012-07-24 06:21 · Score: 1

The authors of the Federalist papers were dissidents.
If they contain a ringing endorsement of anonymous hate speech, I missed it.

--
I piss off bigots.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by MaskedSlacker · 2012-07-24 06:55 · Score: 1

Because Federal law trumps state law, and Federal makes it a crime to do that on the internet (unless the site allows it).
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by charlesbakerharris · 2012-07-24 07:48 · Score: 1

Oh, fine. You and your technicalities ;)
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Chrontius · 2012-07-24 13:03 · Score: 1

For an anonymous comment, this is really good. Bumping for karma.

For the record, I've chosen to do without intimacy.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by markimusk · 2012-07-24 14:20 · Score: 1

What? And miss out on the sock puppets arguing with the shills? Never!
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Chrontius · 2012-07-24 14:58 · Score: 1

That would be great, but by the time they get around to doing that, my hypothetical career would be irreparably destroyed.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Chrontius · 2012-07-24 15:03 · Score: 1

I'd have modded him "+5, Someone Had To Say It"
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by MaskedSlacker · 2012-07-24 16:23 · Score: 1

Corporate HR, bosses, and police should be reasonable? BWHAHAHAHAHA! Next you'll be saying some ridiculous shit like copyrights should expire, or congressmen should listen to their constituents.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Requiem18th · 2012-07-27 08:44 · Score: 1

Sorry. Damn it, why do my reading skills fail me a the worst possible moments...

--
But... the future refused to change.
Re:Just like a slashdot poll by Compaqt · 2012-07-30 01:21 · Score: 1

I think reverse Godwinning would be if you talked about the need of Nazis living in Argentina to not use their real name.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-23 04:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The names Coward... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Anonymous Coward

Re:The names Coward... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:44 · Score: 1

Google: No, Mr Coward, I expect you to die!
Re:The names Coward... by argStyopa · 2012-07-23 06:27 · Score: 1

I hear he's a longtime poster on Slashdot. Probably the karma king, in fact.

--
-Styopa
Re:The names Coward... by ignavus · 2012-07-23 12:24 · Score: 1

Anonymous Coward
Ah, you're Noel's little brother. Has he written any more plays lately?

--
I am anarch of all I survey.

You HAVE to tell them why? Uh..... by P-niiice · 2012-07-23 04:33 · Score: 2

No, you don't have to tell them why. you can choose to choose later if you ....choose to, hehe.

Good move on Google's part... by MitchDev · 2012-07-23 04:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Take one of the biggest, most popular sites in the world and start driving people away from it.

Re:Good move on Google's part... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:53 · Score: 4, Funny

An AC saying other people don't need anonymity when posting. Either excellent trolling or someone's irony meter exploded.
Re:Good move on Google's part... by hcs_$reboot · 2012-07-23 04:56 · Score: 2

Take one of the biggest, most popular sites in the world and start driving people away from it
...and Google+ people along with them

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Re:Good move on Google's part... by slashmydots · 2012-07-23 04:56 · Score: 1

It worked for Facebook (myspace) but then again it's about to not work for Facebook...(Facebook lol)
Re:Good move on Google's part... by broggyr · 2012-07-23 05:13 · Score: 1

Aww, you could have just said you didn't want to undo your mods...

--
Irony? Yea, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
Re:Good move on Google's part... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:35 · Score: 1

They already done that with the many changes they have made recently and it is getting worse by the month.
This is just another in the long list of:
New user interface, enjoy your even more useless profiles! Hope you enjoy those many useless pages we added that basically means more clicks for the end user!
Also hope you like those useless profile backgrounds that don't even work right since we are too lazy to give a damn about you anyway.
Subscriber counters going down to reflect real viewership and not bot accounts, we can't have you cheating now, can we?
What's that? You don't like your subscriber count going down? Okay then we will only show users the things they watch the most often
What's that? You don't like this either? Oh wait, we haven't even replied yet to the many thousands of people who have complained about their subscriptions not showing everything even when they select everything and being forced to use external services to RSS (which is hidden away now) all videos.
Now you want me to use my real name? No, fuck YOU Google. Suck my penis instead. After all the bullshit we have to put up with on a daily basis because of you, now you want this?
Want to know what the worst, most annoying part is of the recent changes?
They added a lightweight Youtube, the Youtube Feather beta.
It has alert boxes. it is already an awful terrible idea, I don't even need to go on, alert boxes are the worst most horrible thing to have ever come out of anything. Especially in a TABBED WEB BROWSER THAT HOLDS DIFFERENT SESSIONS, stop making the damn things modal to the entire browser you worthless excuse of developers! ALL OF YOU. Can't count how many arguments I have had with these dense people over why it is a horrible idea
It doesn't do delayed-loading of useful features of Youtube. Hell, it doesn't even do event-loading so it never loads unless you actually want it. No, it just isn't there period. You can't favorite anything, you can't go to next videos, you can't go to most of your user account without a hundred clicks as usual.
Yet their source code is still filled with useless bloat, countless pointless IDs and classes on uniquely identifiable entities in the DOM and so on. (not to mention <wbr>s everywhere in descriptions)
You can't even get to the comments page unless someone else comments first.
Seriously? You might as well just delete the entire project. Not as if they will listen to any feedback. More like deefback, deef as in a common pronunciation of deaf in Scotland in various parts.
I miss when Youtube was just so simple, elegant and nice to look at.
The new interface does look nice, the theme that is. But it just feels so sterile and cold. The fact that there is no user customization of pages at all is just awful.
And why aren't they taking advantage of the fact that some people have JavaScript?
I dunno about you, but I despise paging, I despise pages in general and there is simply no need for them now. Access to them should still be there, but the content should be accessible from scripts on the client side so we don't need to use userscripts to re-arrange their crapfast of a page in to something dynamic.
It isn't hard to deal with memory leaks either. Especially now we don't need to deal with those morons who still used IE6. Everything else above that deals quite well with memory if you don't abuse JS and actually write proper code. Not crap like Facebook writes, not crap like that at all! I had a tab hitting a gig after that being open for a long period, what the actual hell are those devs doing on there? Did they let their PHP devs touch JS again?
Re:Good move on Google's part... by Chemisor · 2012-07-23 05:40 · Score: 1

People are not being driven away, they are just being discouraged from posting comments. Considering their current quality, I'd say that's a good thing.
Re:Good move on Google's part... by Hatta · 2012-07-23 05:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

ACs do from time to time post insightful comments. /. would be poorer for the lack of them.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Good move on Google's part... by Joce640k · 2012-07-23 06:10 · Score: 2

Take one of the biggest, most popular sites in the world and start driving people away from it.
These are the people who don't mind clicking to dismiss an advert for every single video. If those adverts didn't make them go away, nothing will.
(PS: Get NoScript if you want rid of them...)

--
No sig today...
Re:Good move on Google's part... by Shikaku · 2012-07-23 07:00 · Score: 2

In reply on how to "subscribe" to channels by RSS, this link is an RSS feed:
http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/users/CHANNELNAME/uploads
Replace CHANNELNAME with channel name obviously.

Screw YouTube by __aavqan3009 · 2012-07-23 04:35 · Score: 1

My name is Nunya Bidness.

Not quite accurate. by O('_')O_Bush · 2012-07-23 04:35 · Score: 1

I chose the option, paraphrased as, "This is a personal account and needs to remain anonymous".

I have a feeling this option will be removed once lawsuits over defamation start flying.

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);

Benefits to not having a Google+ account growing by SuperKendall · 2012-07-23 04:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

So if you don't have a Google+ account, would it bring up any warning?

At first I didn't join Google+ because Google literally would not let me - I had a paid Google Apps account and giving them money meant you were dirt as far as they were concerned, they wouldn't let you join Google+ for months (I guess they figured they were already collecting the personal information they wanted from you through your account so strip mining your Google+ data was irrelevant).

After paid accounts could join, I thought - why should I if they didn't want me at the start?

Turns out to have been a great choice, getting better by the day.

Really makes you think twice about having a Google account for anything, although there's really no great replacement for some of the services they offer...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Exactly what it says on the label. by JustAnotherIdiot · 2012-07-23 04:37 · Score: 1

I'm just another idiot, so fuck off google.
Stop making fun of me because I forgot my name again.

--
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?

Re:Exactly what it says on the label. by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-07-23 11:27 · Score: 1

My grandfather was named Sam. My mother (his daughter) knew him as Sam. AFTER HE DIED we found out his real name was Harry, but he hated that so he never used it. Even his own children didn't know his legal name.
I have a friend called Jack who's real name is apparently John. He never goes by John, and I only learned that was his name when we were comparing bad driver's license pictures.
I have a friend I know IRL that I initially met online, though some of my other IRL friends have known him for years. His name is Llama. I'm not sure what his real name is, since I've never heard it even when we meet IRL.
Likewise to my friends I am Sai. Sure, my driver's license says otherwise, but that's not the name I go by, it's not the name they know me by, and it's not a good identifier for me since only my family uses my "real" name. If I were to use that name it would only serve to confuse people.

--
Not a sentence!

Time for a new king of the Hill. by theNetImp · 2012-07-23 04:38 · Score: 1

Well, too bad google's turning to shit, who wants to start something new?

Re:Time for a new king of the Hill. by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-07-23 05:25 · Score: 2

I tried to start Moogle, where all search items and images were redone in the style of the Final Fantasy series, but people attacked me and chased me into the hinterlands. I was not at all happy with that response.
Re:Time for a new king of the Hill. by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-07-23 05:29 · Score: 1

Duck duck go.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Skarecrow77 · 2012-07-23 04:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

I know I should be annoyed at the elimination of anonymous options, and in most any other setting I would be, but youtube? yeah I think I'd like to see this play out. just don't make a universal case out of it google.

Oh no. Please. Not Google+. by ZackSchil · 2012-07-23 04:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

Is Google seriously trying to use the power of Google+ to twist people's arms on a real name policy? Google, you can't do that until the service is actually popular! My Google+ profile is just some bullshit I made to check out the service. I can delete it or fill it with fake info any time I want. It means nothing to me. If you insist on linking it to services I don't want it linked to, I'll just stop using the service I like less. Which is gonna be Google+!

Re:Oh no. Please. Not Google+. by fractoid · 2012-07-23 04:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

My Google+ profile is just some bullshit I made to check out the service. I can delete it or fill it with fake info any time I want.
You sure? I think you mean you can ask them and hope they delete it, or you can fill it with fake info which is irrelevant because the contents of your gmail archive contains far more than enough to uniquely identify you. /tinfoil >.>

--
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Re:Oh no. Please. Not Google+. by gl4ss · 2012-07-23 05:04 · Score: 2

..but they have to or they'll miss their google+ usage targets and don't get so big bonuses..
on the other hand, there's a shitload of accounts like this: http://www.youtube.com/user/emi
and shitloads of takedown notices generated that don't have a real responsible person named for them.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Oh no. Please. Not Google+. by poofmeisterp · 2012-08-02 07:22 · Score: 1

Is Google seriously trying to use the power of Google+ to twist people's arms on a real name policy? Google, you can't do that until the service is actually popular! My Google+ profile is just some bullshit I made to check out the service. I can delete it or fill it with fake info any time I want. It means nothing to me. If you insist on linking it to services I don't want it linked to, I'll just stop using the service I like less. Which is gonna be Google+!
This is the first step into complete and a total Dissociative Identity Disorder of Human Kind. You know, back in the late 90s, I went from Kevin to a joking online name of "poofmeisterp" after a mild explosion of completely harmless but foul odor was put into a rap by a friend at the time.
Now, look forward. The kid known as "Alex Smith" down the street will have two real names of "Alex" and "DestroyCarBoy". Not too long after that, he will need more to cover his past mistakes online so he'll have a new one of "Foo89JimmyBob", followed by "blAnX20XbLing".
It's sad. I think I'm going to call my sister "Blinky Wonderful McBlankerton84" and talk to her about this. Wait, that was her real name last month. Ummm.. Crap, I forgot my sister's name. Better get on medication to work through these memory problems. What's the name of that doctor again?
OMG, and the police databases will overflow will AKAs...
I've made my point. :)
Sincerely,
poofmeisterNewWorldDisassociation
P.S. Google is redefining "What's In a Name?" and putting a service mark on it.

Why Google Why by magsk · 2012-07-23 04:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

I have historically been a believer in google, and thought they where one of the few companies who put principles like free information etc ahead of profit (my naivety). But moves like this are further cementing my belief that something is rotten at google, and it started to get real bad once Page became CEO. The one good thing about this is that it opens up the doors for competitors to take business from google imho, creating competition.

Re:Why Google Why by ShieldW0lf · 2012-07-23 04:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

I have historically been a believer in google, and thought they where one of the few companies who put principles like free information etc ahead of profit (my naivety).
But moves like this are further cementing my belief that something is rotten at google, and it started to get real bad once Page became CEO. The one good thing about this is that it opens up the doors for competitors to take business from google imho, creating competition.
I want the freedom to have access to the information about who is saying what, and this is a step in the right direction. Eventually, my slashdot pseudonym will disappear into my one identity for all to see, and that's ok too. If we're all going to have control over our political voice, we have to behave like politicians and be public figures... they go hand in hand. Anonymity is the tool of the disenfranchised... it's better NOT to be disenfranchised, and that requires the end of privacy.

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Re:Why Google Why by alen · 2012-07-23 05:15 · Score: 1

my personal nickname is death by thousands papercuts
google is a huge general company like MS. they do a lot of things but only one of them well. just like MS 10 years ago there are now lots of niche players offering one or two features of a google product, but better.
google's problem is that there is too much crap returned when you try to search for almost anything and G+ is just a way for real people to say that something is real and not SEO crap
Re:Why Google Why by WillAdams · 2012-07-23 05:22 · Score: 1

You mean like the Thomas Paine's pamphlet ``Common Sense'' which was originally published anonymously and which many people attributed to John Adams?
What's wrong w/ judging the speech based on its content, as opposed to who wrote it?

--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Re:Why Google Why by Petron · 2012-07-23 06:43 · Score: 2

You cannot force people to use their real name... Especially on a free service that has no requirements to sign up for.
-Yours Truly,
Abe Froman

--
if (it != oneThing) it = another;
Re:Why Google Why by thetoadwarrior · 2012-07-23 07:10 · Score: 1

They are an advertising company and their data is worth loads more if they can tie it to a real person. So it's no surprise they pushed real names on Google+ and are now trying to push them on Youtube. I'd fully expect to see this slow get pushed out more and more.

That's why I've refused to put my real name on my G+ account (not that use it anyway) and am moving away (admittedly slower than I was hoping) from using Google services. I rather pay a reasonable price for services than hand over my life to an advertising company.
Re:Why Google Why by thetoadwarrior · 2012-07-23 07:16 · Score: 2

You mean so people can't be honest out of fear of being labeled a communist, nazi, racist, freedom hater and whatever else people feel like calling them and holding everything they've said against them forever.

People can argue it will stop trolling and harassment but it won't. People do that shit on TV, in real life and they do it on facebook under their real name. The thing that will be hurt the most removing anonimity is freedom of expression against your government, corporations and anyone else that's happy to throw your ass in jail for no good reason.
Re:Why Google Why by bky1701 · 2012-07-23 08:23 · Score: 1

"Anonymity is the tool of the disenfranchised... it's better NOT to be disenfranchised, and that requires the end of privacy."

So your theory is that by removing the tool, they will cease to be so? Right....

--
Great Intellect...
Re:Why Google Why by Johann+Lau · 2012-07-23 16:27 · Score: 1

I kind of agree with the latter part of that. Do I really want to live in (and add value to) a world where being honest about who you are and what you think can turn out to be some kind of lethal mistake? No. So I'll either try and help changing that world, or die of that "mistake".
My youtube account actually is JohannLau, too, so I couldn't care less about this, personally (The comment function of youtube is a joke anyway). I'm not even exactly proud of a lot of what I post online, but still, I stand behind it... no wait, actually I don't, because anything that's older than a week hasn't got shit to do with me :P Unless I repeat it, that's water down the river, not the river. Others disagree, but others are fucking stupid, so that's fine.
But I still try to evaluate things based on their merit, not who says them. So I am fine with others being anonymous (though I am not a fan of AC's trying to get all creepy and personal towards people with accounts), and I wouldn't want to see that right gone. I mean, initially I used the internet with nicks and handles exclusively, that just seemed the normal thing to do, and helped me get to the point where I feel just as free posting under my real name. But I know that others might ALWAYS feel a bit shy, but still have genuinely something to say. Why take their voice away from them? I could never agree to it. I can't change it, but I can say fuck Google, once again.
I am dreaming of a world where we all voluntarily identify ourselves to each other, and share food grilled on the smoldering ruins of Google et al. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re:Why Google Why by ShieldW0lf · 2012-07-26 02:06 · Score: 1

You mean so people can't be honest out of fear of being labeled a communist, nazi, racist, freedom hater and whatever else people feel like calling them and holding everything they've said against them forever.
People can argue it will stop trolling and harassment but it won't. People do that shit on TV, in real life and they do it on facebook under their real name. The thing that will be hurt the most removing anonimity is freedom of expression against your government, corporations and anyone else that's happy to throw your ass in jail for no good reason.
No, I mean so people can't be dishonest, secretly hiding the fact that they're communist nazi racist freedom haters and pretending they're happy citizens "like the rest of us".

--
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Re:Why Google Why by thetoadwarrior · 2012-07-26 09:05 · Score: 1

They can just, in theory, not online.
Re:Why Google Why by poofmeisterp · 2012-08-02 07:26 · Score: 1

...and it started to get real bad once Page became CEO...
Google will be starting the new internet with a new protocol, called "Page's Web(tm)(r)(c)(sm)"
Before they even do it, they've filed a lawsuit to define the owner of "Web Pages" - stolen identity!

I tried this this morning... by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2012-07-23 04:41 · Score: 3, Informative

I tried this this morning...and still registered fine with a fake/temporary account to make comments on videos. I think all this means is that your posting aliases are more likely to be interrupted by a space than before.

On the other hand, when Google does mine, they'd probably wonder why I watch so much Dora the Explorer on my business account. (It's tied to my business cell phone, which I use most often to keep my daughter entertained.)

Re:I tried this this morning... by c · 2012-07-23 04:48 · Score: 5, Funny

> On the other hand, when Google does mine, they'd probably wonder why I watch
> so much Dora the Explorer on my business account. (It's tied to my business cell
> phone, which I use most often to keep my daughter entertained.)
Yes, we were kind of wondering about it. Thanks for clearing that up. It's been added to your file.
The Google, Inc. Team

--
Log in or piss off.
Re:I tried this this morning... by Inda · 2012-07-23 05:01 · Score: 1

hmmm. People commenting on YouTube.

Every video I've ever posted on YouTube has been met with abuse. I posted a radio interview once and I got abuse because the interviewee was a shithead. I knew he was a shithead, that's why I posted it!

Today, everyone embeds videos in forums and we comment there like all good adults should.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Re:I tried this this morning... by aevan · 2012-07-23 05:53 · Score: 2

I feel your pain..one of my computers at work has a history of Beiber and OneDirection for pretty much the same reason, Thankfully: headphones.

"Why are you signing out first?"
"Some shames you just cannot live with."

Amusingly though, even if you're not signed in youtube still knows what that computer has seen from which to draw recommendations.
Re:I tried this this morning... by Yakasha · 2012-07-23 07:22 · Score: 1

> On the other hand, when Google does mine, they'd probably wonder why I watch > so much Dora the Explorer on my business account. (It's tied to my business cell > phone, which I use most often to keep my daughter entertained.)
Yes, we were kind of wondering about it. Thanks for clearing that up. It's been added to your file.
The Google, Inc. Team
xxxJonBoyxxx, could you step into my office please? I have something to discuss with you.
- H.R.
P.S. Can you first fix our server? We can't seem to access the Google+ report we purchased the other day.
Re:I tried this this morning... by swillden · 2012-07-23 10:16 · Score: 1

> On the other hand, when Google does mine, they'd probably wonder why I watch > so much Dora the Explorer on my business account. (It's tied to my business cell > phone, which I use most often to keep my daughter entertained.)
Yes, we were kind of wondering about it. Thanks for clearing that up. It's been added to your file.
Which you can see by checking the privacy dashboard linked from google.com.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:I tried this this morning... by sociocapitalist · 2012-07-23 21:44 · Score: 1

...they'd probably wonder why I watch so much Dora the Explorer on my business account. (It's tied to my business cell phone, which I use most often to keep my daughter entertained.)
We have taken note of this and you'll be hearing from us shortly.
John Smith
IRS

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:I tried this this morning... by poofmeisterp · 2012-08-02 07:55 · Score: 1

> On the other hand, when Google does mine, they'd probably wonder why I watch
> so much Dora the Explorer on my business account. (It's tied to my business cell
> phone, which I use most often to keep my daughter entertained.)
Yes, we were kind of wondering about it. Thanks for clearing that up. It's been added to your file.
The Google, Inc. Team
You're fired. You did not capitalize and trademark File(tm), which is a breach of contract and a willful misrepresentation of Google Authority(r).
The Borg(r), a Not-Yet-Announced Google(r) Subsidiary(tm), purchased 8/2/2012@19:55:21 GMT :)

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by cellocgw · 2012-07-23 04:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh, I thought you were going to link to this http://xkcd.com/386/ .

But actually I was going to post: "What: real people actually post comments to YouTube?"

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by Eightbitgnosis · 2012-07-23 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative

I don't have a Google+ account, and do not see any prompt when commenting on youtube

It could be worse... by AliasMarlowe · 2012-07-23 04:42 · Score: 4, Funny

For instance, if redtube required you to use your real name...

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Re:It could be worse... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:52 · Score: 2

might want to include the NSFW tag there ... just to be safe
Re:It could be worse... by ichimunki · 2012-07-23 05:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

You must be new here. Slashdot links should *all* be considered NSFW until proven otherwise.

--
I do not have a signature
Re:It could be worse... by KhabaLox · 2012-07-23 05:20 · Score: 2

Hey this isn't 4cha.... oh, nevermind.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:It could be worse... by sarysa · 2012-07-23 05:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

I know you're joking, but I'm actually going to defend 4chan here. Yeah it's anonymous, and there's lots of things going on there that'd make a soldier who has done two tours in Iraq blush, but their culture of anonymity is surprisingly more mature than YouTube's. Everyone knows what's going on and why they're there, and that mutual understanding makes it somewhat civilized.

YouTube, on the other hand, is full of generally "normal" people with little to no internet savvy who spew bile from the heart. They're generally not trolling for shock value, they have hearts full of hate.

I'm starting to see why various powers rose up throughout history under the banner of controlling the populace. It never works, but I can see why...

--
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
Re:It could be worse... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-07-23 05:57 · Score: 1

NSFW? I'm offended.
In any case, I have legitimate reasons I don't want YouTube to know I'm doing legitimate research watching a legitimate vaginal exam with "shocker" technique.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:It could be worse... by Flere+Imsaho · 2012-07-23 09:03 · Score: 3, Funny

YouTube, on the other hand, is full of generally "normal" people with little to no internet savvy who spew bile from the heart.

That's not the organ I would have said they use...

--
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
Re:It could be worse... by Riddler+Sensei · 2012-07-23 10:08 · Score: 1

You know, I worked at a game publishing company for a time and we had one game in particular which featured regular full frontal nudity. It was a part of our job but it was always SUPER awkward to work on in the office.
Re:It could be worse... by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-07-23 10:34 · Score: 1

4chan is also composed of several largely separate communities. /b/, (random) is similar to youtube comments, but eg /an/ (animals and nature) is generally friendly and civil throughout.

--
Not a sentence!
Re:It could be worse... by feedayeen · 2012-07-23 11:43 · Score: 1

What's wrong with panda's?
Oh.... my
Re:It could be worse... by humanrev · 2012-07-23 13:31 · Score: 1

The sad fact though is that for most people, 4chan IS /b/ and only /b/, and that's about the limit of what they know of 4chan.

--
Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
Re:It could be worse... by bkcallahan · 2012-07-24 08:04 · Score: 1

They can use Brendan :)

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by ashridah · 2012-07-23 04:42 · Score: 1

p>Really makes you think twice about having a Google account for anything, although there's really no great replacement for some of the services they offer...

If someone were to build a third party website or tool that let me keep track of subscriptions for youtube, in a manner that doesn't wind up changing every 3 weeks (unlike youtube's front page), without needing a youtube account, I'd delete my youtube account in about 1 minute flat.

"My channel name is well-known for other reasons" by Gordonjcp · 2012-07-23 04:42 · Score: 1

Most likely because I've been using this nick for about 15 years or more - certainly since before I was on the Internet, back in the dialup BBS days.

subtle... by Niko. · 2012-07-23 04:43 · Score: 1

Google knows people dislike being nagged or guilt-tripped. this is an attempt simply to reduce the volume of comment idiocy by making it less convenient. my guess is, it'll not make the idiocy or hatefulness vanish entirely, but will reduce easy throwaway comments a fair bit.

Re:subtle... by SilverJets · 2012-07-23 04:51 · Score: 1

All the comments are throwaway comments. They should just turn off commenting altogether. 100 posts of "I like this vid" or "This is cool" is nothing but noise.
Re:subtle... by spire3661 · 2012-07-23 05:25 · Score: 1

So is yours...

--
Good-bye
Re:subtle... by SilverJets · 2012-07-23 07:16 · Score: 1

Yes, you are right. So is your comment.
So why even have commenting enabled when people abuse it and post meaningless fluff?
Re:subtle... by tbird81 · 2012-07-23 11:00 · Score: 1

I know right. I come to Slashdot to read the articles carefully picked and edited by the likes of Timothy and Soulskill, but they always have about 100-300 comments! Maybe Slashdot should turn off commenting too.
Re:subtle... by poofmeisterp · 2012-08-02 08:01 · Score: 1

I had to wait a whole 30 seconds to post this (god, it hurts), but:
"youz a hatah, you stooooopid idiyit *bonk belorgh you be video stupid thinks that junnnnk*
-makesnosenSeeeEeeeEEea)9iure"
I think that represents a good example. :)

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by ackthpt · 2012-07-23 04:45 · Score: 2

Obligatory:

http://xkcd.com/481/

The comments on YouTube videos are a plague of idiocy, racism, hate-mongering, astro-turfing...

Something has to be done, no?

Yeah, link them to your Google+ which requires a "real name"*

* my real name is Bob 4. Apples.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

You have got to be kidding by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-07-23 04:46 · Score: 1

I admire a lot of Google's technical innovations but man their business model and practices are something I could do without.

Re:simple solution by SilverJets · 2012-07-23 04:48 · Score: 1

Exactly this.

People can still post and share videos but turn off the comments. Most of the time the comments are just noise anyways.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by HarrySquatter · 2012-07-23 04:50 · Score: 2

Something has to be done, no?

Nothing has to be done. Just down vote the comments and you will no longer see them.

Internet, free marketplace of ideas anymore? by acidradio · 2012-07-23 04:50 · Score: 2

So much for the Internet staying this amazing free marketplace of discourse. Since we all have jobs and need to make a living we need the anonymity afforded by these sites to say what we truly want to say. I used to get into great discussions and debates with people on various news websites, until they all started requiring you to post under your Facebook account. Conveniently my full name, photo, job title and employer get tagged in with those posts. So basically now all of my posts have to be something my employer would approve of; they are a conservative Midwestern insurance company and probably wouldn't approve of many of my ideas. You will all tell me to remove my employment information from my Facebook page but why should I have to?

Re:Internet, free marketplace of ideas anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:28 · Score: 1

yup thats how we get people to shut up who arent scared of intelligence services monitoring them. it is one thing to tell nsa to tell the silently monitoring goverment to fuck off, its another ballgame entirely if your employer learns about your real attitudes. This is another way to quell free speech. Wait until the day they make all your google searches available as a prescreen option for employnent. It will be on the paper you sign for the background check.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Sancho · 2012-07-23 04:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

Insert obligatory "First they came for..." post here.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by w_dragon · 2012-07-23 04:52 · Score: 3, Funny

I'll see your xkcd and raise you a ctrl-alt-del

I'm pretty sure I'm sure by Jarmihi · 2012-07-23 04:53 · Score: 1

One of the options on the "Why aren't you giving your personal data away to the world dialogue box" is: I'm not sure, I'll decide later. I don't want to believe that the people in charge of YouTube completely forgot the concept of anonymity, but I never had faith in humanity, and I probably never will.

--
~Jarmihi

Re:I'm pretty sure I'm sure by 0123456 · 2012-07-23 05:38 · Score: 1

You think that employees of a company which wants to track everything you do anywhere on the web would support the concept of anonymity?
The odd part is that the last Youtube story I remember reading here was about how they were giving the option to block out faces in videos to provide anonymity for contentious uploads.
Re:I'm pretty sure I'm sure by poofmeisterp · 2012-08-02 08:09 · Score: 1

You think that employees of a company which wants to track everything you do anywhere on the web would support the concept of anonymity?
Well sure they do. As long as they don't get caught having morals at work, they cheat to remain anonymous the same as all ;)

A really interesting idea by SuperKendall · 2012-07-23 04:56 · Score: 1

If someone were to build a third party website or tool that let me keep track of subscriptions for youtube, in a manner that doesn't wind up changing every 3 weeks (unlike youtube's front page), without needing a youtube account, I'd delete my youtube account in about 1 minute flat.

I really like that idea too - I gave up subscribing to YouTube videos as I found the changes too annoying to keep track of.

You'd think people could develop a lot of meta services around more popular sites, of course when you do you are always in peril of the site correcting whatever flaw it was that led to people using your meta site and then you are done for.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:56 · Score: 5, Funny

First they came for my LOLCats, but I did not LOL...

YouTube comments are like sugar by Andrio · 2012-07-23 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

I love YouTube comments. They are * hilarious*. No matter what the video is of, you find that the comments always degenerate to the most bizarre, hate-filled arguments imaginable. It makes for some hilarious reading.

But, like sugar, you can't have too much of it. It quickly becomes nauseating. Best is to get a small taste and then take no more. Just like too much sugar will eventually destroy your pancreas, too many YouTube comments will eventually destroy your faith in humanity.

--
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.

Re:YouTube comments are like sugar by perryizgr8 · 2012-07-24 05:43 · Score: 1

I love YouTube comments. They are * hilarious*. No matter what the video is of, you find that the comments always degenerate to the most bizarre, hate-filled arguments imaginable. It makes for some hilarious reading.
But, like sugar, you can have too much of it. It quickly becomes nauseating. Best is to get a small taste and then take no more. Just like too much sugar will eventually destroy your pancreas, too many YouTube comments will eventually destroy your faith in humanity.
ftfy.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Skarecrow77 · 2012-07-23 04:59 · Score: 2

right, thus the "don't make it a universal case".

The problem with the slippery slope arguement is that people think it applies to everything. there are outlieing cases.

it's entirely possible to say "hey, you know what, maybe we don't let members of the public own thermonuclear weapons" without that meaning that everything else in the catagory of "weapon" from fully automatic assault rifles and flamethrowers down to potato guns and super soakers needs to be banned too.

Stupid move by trptrp · 2012-07-23 04:59 · Score: 1

Regarding the current situation this seems like a dumb move. A good deal of the fun part of youtube comes from the comments and a lot of people don't want to engange in some minor trolling or posting funny comments with their real name. Of course there are a lot of really offensive comments and stupid discussions also, but what I see as a result of anonymous names are especially the top rated funny comments you often come across.

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:00 · Score: 1

I agree with the above. I used to have a Google account for Adsense, but they kept spamming me (with physical mail) and any time I visited a Google site, it would automatically log me into my Adsense account (and out of my separate YouTube account). Now I block all Google certificates and no longer use them for advertising or search, just so I don't have to deal with their nagging. It's made my web browsing a good deal easier not dealing with Google.

I used to praise Google for their clean design and smooth function, now they've thrown all that out and made their collection of services a mess.

Google is on the dark side by allo · 2012-07-23 05:00 · Score: 1

Google had its chance to be better than facebook by not mirroring these realname bullshit. But they decided against it.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by HarrySquatter · 2012-07-23 05:01 · Score: 2

Spoken like a dictator. The benefits of anonymus speech far outweigh the fact that you might get inconveienced by some racist posts on Youtube. You have no freedom to not be offended.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by causality · 2012-07-23 05:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Obligatory:

http://xkcd.com/481/

The comments on YouTube videos are a plague of idiocy, racism, hate-mongering, astro-turfing...

Something has to be done, no?

What should be done is so easy, so simple, that its value is often overlooked.

What do do? Expect adult people to be able to handle speech they dislike. That means overlooking it, ignoring it, countering it with speech they consider better, or simply not viewing whatever it is they have a problem with.

I'm telling you, emphasizing that would make for a better world.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:03 · Score: 1

... except for racism, so is /.

Nothing has to be done. If the idiots account for most of your user base, the last thing you want to do is alienate them.

Also, based on Facebook comments, requiring a real name will not get rid of any of those.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Bomazi · 2012-07-23 05:03 · Score: 4, Funny

I I thought he was going to link to this one: http://xkcd.com/202/ . It is one of my favorites.

Re:Big Content Requirement? by Tridus · 2012-07-23 05:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, it's more likely a reaction to the pathetically low quality of Youtube comments.

Similar to how Rotten Tomatoes disabled commenting on Dark Knight Rises reviews entirely when the trolling shit to everything else ratio got so skewed that they couldn't ignore it anymore.

Too many people online think that "anonymous" = "license to be a complete fuckwad".

--
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates

Re:You HAVE to tell them why? Uh..... by NJRoadfan · 2012-07-23 05:07 · Score: 1

What happens if you choose one option over another? Is there a "wrong" or "right" option? Will the Google Overloads go after you if you choose the wrong answer?

Re:If you don't like Google's policies... by 0123456 · 2012-07-23 05:08 · Score: 2

Your whining is annoying to others.

I note you don't use your (full) real name to comment here.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by gbjbaanb · 2012-07-23 05:09 · Score: 1

what could go wrong? I mean, you can stand up at a press conference and say "mr president, you told the guard to kill civilian woman and children and say they were terrorists", and watch as you are never heard from again.

Or, in a more civilised democracy, say "mr president, you had the CIA install listening devices in the Democratic National Committee offices" and see how far that gets you.

Sometimes anonymity is a good thing. I know the argument that says "if you have nothing to hide", but its usually those in a position of power who have something to hide that you need to be anonymous from.

Ok, so I don't have any inside information about our political overlords, but I do want to keep some aspects of my private life secret from my boss or colleagues, which are none of their business, but wouldn't stop them from being critical. (and no, its not nice comments about Justin Bieber on his new video, but you can imagine what would happen at work if I did, and they found out!)

Re:Big Content Requirement? by 0123456 · 2012-07-23 05:09 · Score: 1

Is this a Big Content Requirement to prevent lawsuites?

Or so they can sue you when you post unauthorised content.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:13 · Score: 4, Funny

I'll see your xkcd and raise you a ctrl-alt-del

You said "raise you"... as if to say you were providing something more ... but... you linked to Ctrl-Alt-Del... error... error... ERROR... DOES NOT COMPUTE... DOES NOT COMPUTE... DOES NOT COMPUTE...

Privacy and aliases, how do they farkin' work? by bmo · 2012-07-23 05:13 · Score: 1

along with a side-by-side comparison to what it will look like if you let YouTube pull your name from Google+

It will be the same, except that the G+ name has no underscore.

In either case, they are not my real names, and people like ESR complaining about the "sexygirl69" problem (it's not) can pound sand.

I can call myself whatever I want in meatspace as long as I'm not committing fraud or attempting to defraud someone. Why should I not be allowed to do this online?

--
BMO

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by swillden · 2012-07-23 05:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

I had a paid Google Apps account and giving them money meant you were dirt as far as they were concerned, they wouldn't let you join Google+ for months (I guess they figured they were already collecting the personal information they wanted from you through your account so strip mining your Google+ data was irrelevant)

Actually, there were technical challenges with enabling Apps accounts. I don't know what they were exactly, but I think they had to do with ensuring that nothing broke for big enterprise users of Apps.

When Google+ came out there was huge internal demand for Apps-enabling it -- I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you to know that many Google employees have their personal domains hosted on Apps -- and if it could have been done any faster, it would have. For those intervening months the question was raised in virtually every TGIF (weekly company-wide meetings during which, among other things, employees have the opportunity to question management in front of the whole company) and the Google+ team was getting really apologetic by the time it finally rolled out.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Re:You HAVE to tell them why? Uh..... by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-07-23 05:21 · Score: 1

Something about a Gorge of Eternal Peril or something.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-23 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by cpu6502 · 2012-07-23 05:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

The part the summary left out: If you refuse to use your real name, then you can no longer reply to youtube comments. The option is disabled. AND the reason I don't want my realname is because I know how google & the internet operates. I can still find posts under my real name from 1988! The last thing I want is my youtube comments hanging around for 60 years for anybody (especially a future employer) to find and develop a profile about me. Or dig-up potentially embarrassing comments that I later regret saying (when I'm older/wiser).

I haven't used my realname online since 2002, because I don't want to have an online history that employers, governments, et cetera can use to develop a personality profile.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by modecx · 2012-07-23 05:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

As of today I found if you have a google+ account and opt to not use your real name in lieu of a username, you can't post replies to comments, even to your own videos. They didn't warn this would happen when you denied to use your real name, and it was immensely frustrating to not have a working reply button, and more so to not know why. Well, there it is.

While I have no habit of spewing vitriol, and write every comment as though I am accountable, I also have no want or desire to make it easy for any number of stalkers to come straight to my own front door; and without compromising their anonymity! Even if I were comfortable with putting my real name out there and associating it with my YouTube content, there's such a small handful of people in the world with my name that it's effectively unique. Talk about opening yourself up to ambush.

What did I do, you might ask? I deleted my G+ identity, and nothing of value was lost. I can now keep in touch with my subscribers. If they keep this up, I will have to abandon their services, and I won't feel the least bit of remorse.

--
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.

why you, I'll whip you with my bootstraps! by Thud457 · 2012-07-23 05:23 · Score: 1

Some poor bastard who is a liberal, and an atheist takes a job for Chick-A-Fillet because he has a family to feed and mortgage to pay. Then one day his previous pro-evolution and anti-fundamentalist-nutjob statements come out from behind their anonymous protections; one way or another he's gone. so now this poor fuck is out on the streets, still looking.

bah, he can always get another job a atheistBurger (tm)

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:why you, I'll whip you with my bootstraps! by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 05:39 · Score: 1

bah, he can always get another job a atheistBurger (tm)
or the hindi place down the street, "don't have a cow, man!"

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:Big Content Requirement? by sohmc · 2012-07-23 05:23 · Score: 1

Too many people online think that "anonymous" = "license to be a complete fuckwad".

So much +1.

I'm actually surprised people still comment on youtube. I hypothesize that an adblock plus element filter on the comments section would increase the quality of youtube.

Time to test it out...

For those that want to join me, here's the adblock element block code:

youtube.com##div#comments-view

--
We don't live in Shouldland.

Never got this anonymous argument by wisnoskij · 2012-07-23 05:23 · Score: 1

Never understood this username=anonymous argument.
I do not want to be anonymous on line.
And it is for this reason that I prefer to use my username and NOT my real name.
First off no real name comes with 1/100 of enough information to make someone using it known. You do not know age, country, state, town, address, and no more then a guess at race.
While if I use my username, which is unique, you can find out everything about me with Google searches.

say I tell you my name is John Smith, Mohammed, or Peter Pettigrew. How is this not being anonymous in every single case for every single name? While a moderate amount of people use the same username on multiple sites, and using it is far more UNanonymous then even using a real name in RL in many ways.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

Google Wants You to Stop Commenting on YouTube by Sir_Sri · 2012-07-23 05:23 · Score: 2

Google Wants You to Stop Commenting on YouTube

There, fixed the summary headline.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Blue+Stone · 2012-07-23 05:25 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but forcing peopl to use their real names would kill wonderful things, like Adam Buxton's BUG.

Google really has turned evil, I guess.

(or sutin)

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce

Re:If you don't like Google's policies... by Travelsonic · 2012-07-23 05:27 · Score: 1

yeah... All I hear is essentially "I don't like this for [reason]". That's not whining. Consult a dictionary next time, you'll look like kess of an ass.

--
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by interval1066 · 2012-07-23 05:28 · Score: 1

Something has to be done, no?

No. If you are at all curious why I say "no" I refer you to the concept of the secret ballot.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2012-07-23 05:28 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Post your real name, address, and phone number dick face. Lets see you do it.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Skarecrow77 · 2012-07-23 05:29 · Score: 1

I agree with you. I do the same thing. I don't post anything under my real name that I don't want linked back to me.
The thing is, all that stuff I'm not saying under my real name? most of it is some level of conversational bullshit. Even this.
99.9% of the time, whatever it is that I'm saying under the pseudonyms probably doesn't really need to be said.
I don't need to be saying this, right now. I could be doing work or eating my lunch instead.

while there are indeed valid uses for anonymity in the world, I fail to see too many cases where posting a comment on a youtube video is both socially and morally necessary, yet requires anonymity.

Perhaps in Syria or Iran, or China it does. In the free world, not so much. at least not yet anyway.

How about this... by freeze128 · 2012-07-23 05:29 · Score: 1

OK Google, I'll agree to use my real name in comments to YouTube videos, If you agree to PAY ME to do so.

Awaiting my payment....

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by 0123456 · 2012-07-23 05:30 · Score: 1

Yes, because trolling is NEVER done via proxy...

And everyone has a static IP.

IP blocking, other than mass-blocking of services/countries which exist primarily for spamming, is for retards.

Price of Doing Business by DrGamez · 2012-07-23 05:30 · Score: 1

I wonder how long it will be until not having a G+ or Facebook account just rules you out of "too many things" online?
I don't think it's something we'll see in the lifespan of G+/FB but I see a trend growing where in exchange for your "worthless" information they will provide you with a service/platform you enjoy.

Problem is I don't enjoy social networking websites, and they are slowly becoming the only identification on the web.

Re:Hahahahahahaha! by Mashiki · 2012-07-23 05:33 · Score: 1

Pretty much. It sure didn't work out for Blizzard, I don't know how Google thinks it's going to work out for them.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Bieeanda · 2012-07-23 05:33 · Score: 1

People make racist, idiotic, hate-mongering, and otherwise disgusting posts on Facebook all the time, and did so on Myspace when it was still a going concern. Anonymity isn't the issue, it's the perception that the Internet gives them a safe distance to hurl insults and spam from.

Re:This was planned at the last Bilderberg meeting by DrGamez · 2012-07-23 05:34 · Score: 1

I'm alright with Internet Anonymity going away, but I hope when it goes away I have the ability to still use different names. I don't mind having my internet history following my internet life around. As long as that internet life is named something like "FartSmash4000", I don't really want my employers to know I spend more time posting on message boards than working, and if I have to use my real name for both then that takes a lot of fun out of all this new technology we worked so hard in creating.

you've got to FIGHT for your RIGHT to trollolololo by Thud457 · 2012-07-23 05:35 · Score: 1

Interestingly, the July Wired has an article about Eugene Kaspersky pushing for and ITU takeover of the internet and an end to anonymity.

It's not paranoid if it's reality.
It's not a theory if it's documented.
And there's on conspiracy, it's just the usual TPTB grasping to regain some of the control that has slipped away from them of late.

Bradley Manning should be in an Allstate commercial.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 05:36 · Score: 2

simply, THIS.

if you force us to expose ourselves, many of us just won't. we'll go away from that site. I have stopped posting to anything google based, personally. I never reg'd on FB or T and never will.

its a shame that the internet is going down the Tubes (sorry..) but since it is, those parts of it that aren't worth it, just don't get my attention anymore.

the fact that employers and governments are so invasive and so insistent on 'checking you out' - that's enough of a chilling reason to avoid posting using real ID's online. and they wonder why people object to using real ID's. boggle...

in a way, its almost like an IQ test. if you don't use your real ID, you have 'passed the test'. not so good for those who have yet to learn about how things can (and will) be used against you.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

PIGS OPEN FIRE ON BABIES by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-07-23 05:36 · Score: 1, Offtopic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MST4RhWdlMQ

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:PIGS OPEN FIRE ON BABIES by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-07-23 06:27 · Score: 3, Funny

Why the hell would you bring your baby to an anti-violence protest?!?
Re:PIGS OPEN FIRE ON BABIES by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-07-23 07:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

Because it's on your sidewalk? Because it's a neighborhood, trying to show their dignity, civility and decency - in the face oppression?

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:PIGS OPEN FIRE ON BABIES by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-07-23 11:12 · Score: 1

Report closer:
"Residents report Police officers offering to buy cell phone footage no questions asked"
Dead white cops make Jesus smile.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:PIGS OPEN FIRE ON BABIES by Meski · 2012-07-24 15:01 · Score: 1

Because you wanted a headline/title like this one? /cynical

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:36 · Score: 1

When I'm on YouTube I'm always asking myself: Who the fuck has enough time to waste to post comments here?

So Mr. Eightbitgnosis, can you please describe yourself and your motivation to comment, and maybe an example of comments you write there?

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by SuperKendall · 2012-07-23 05:39 · Score: 1

I appreciate the candor and even can understand and sympathize with the technical challenges but you have to realize that for people paying real money for an Apps account, it was incredibly off-putting to be treated as a second class citizen exactly because I choose to give Google money.

The customers you should value first are the ones paying you for services. If there were technical reasons why Google+ could not be used with Apps account the service should never have launched until those were resolved.

I will not say I will never use Google services again as a result, because as I stated there are some Google services (like Google Docs) that I don't like other alternatives for, or that too many people use not to also use, and I am at heart a pragmatic person above all else. But I will say that the Google+ incident has me looking at any alternative when possible, for any online service whereas before if Google offered something I would have said "good enough" and just signed on. That includes data hosting, compute servers, mail hosts, etc.

You say "Google+ team was getting really apologetic by the time it finally rolled out.". To my mind they should have been really FIRED after a month had passed and paying customers could not use Google+.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by History's+Coming+To · 2012-07-23 05:39 · Score: 1

Healthy free speech is rational arguments which contradict the established beliefs, policies etc. The inane rambling of a damaged mind is not a healthy thing, even if it is allowed.

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.

Youtube comments are a terrible cesspool by dell623 · 2012-07-23 05:39 · Score: 1

Even by the standards of the average website or forum, Youtube comments are an absolute cesspool of racism, abuse, infantile arguments, and wanton stupidity. Thus, I see no big loss in this move. I have never commented on a Youtube video, and probably never will. Perhaps this means we'll run into some intelligent comments at thee bottom of Youtube videos, and I don't know if that's a bad thing. Nothing good was coming out of allowing anonymous comments on youtube. Absolutely nothing. If there were decent comments, they got pushed down by utter garbage. I have never ever read an interesting comment on a youtube video.

And I don't know why we're picking on Google here. Every single site these days that allows comments seems to want me to sign in using Facebook. Over my dead body.

Re:Youtube comments are a terrible cesspool by tbird81 · 2012-07-23 11:08 · Score: 1

So because you don't see the value in any youtube comments you think that others shouldn't be allowed to comment anonymously? How about just not reading them?
Often comments are funny, rarely they are helpful.
If you're looking for a tutorial for something (a level in a game, setting up at TV) you're often have comments that point out the problems the videos missed. This is incredibly helpful. But I might not feel like commenting about how to replace the orifices in your RealDoll, give home remedies for genital warts, or express my attraction in a nice pair of feet if my real name is associated with it.

that attitude doesn't work by circletimessquare · 2012-07-23 05:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

because, as a look at youtube posts, or slashdot browsing at -1 proves, it destroys the forum

a communication channel will be abandoned by serious people if there is no signal and just a lot of useless noise. tragedy of the commons. so you need to police the commons

perhaps youtube could embrace moderation instead, but either way, you WANT to squelch, aka, censor, useless anonymous speech

i would be posting anonymously if i were in syria

but in the usa, if i post anonymously, my intentions are not in the interest of a good forum, but just abusing the forum for some antisocial problem of mine

there's always 4chan. for everything else serious, you need moderation or integrity of word and speaker with real life ids

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:that attitude doesn't work by causality · 2012-07-23 14:11 · Score: 1

because, as a look at youtube posts, or slashdot browsing at -1 proves, it destroys the forum
a communication channel will be abandoned by serious people if there is no signal and just a lot of useless noise. tragedy of the commons. so you need to police the commons
perhaps youtube could embrace moderation instead, but either way, you WANT to squelch, aka, censor, useless anonymous speech
i would be posting anonymously if i were in syria
but in the usa, if i post anonymously, my intentions are not in the interest of a good forum, but just abusing the forum for some antisocial problem of mine
there's always 4chan. for everything else serious, you need moderation or integrity of word and speaker with real life ids
If you haven't noticed, there are heavily-moderated forums if that's what you like. Most are not like Slashdot's moderation system, where posts go as low as -1. Most simply delete unwanted posts. In fact, there are forums where posts cannot be viewed until they are first approved by a moderator. These are not difficult to find.

If that's the experience you want, feel free to visit those forums.

I don't want that kind of "managed' experience. I'm an adult. While there are things I like and things I dislike, I'm basically impossible to offend. I think getting on your high horse and crying about how offended you are is childish, low-class, and a thinly veiled excuse to control other people. Because I feel that way, I'm not remotely tempted to do it. I see how those people are and I don't want to become like them. If some troll wants to make an ass of himself, that's not my problem. So for me, I'll take the uncensored experience. It doesn't "destroy" anything for me. In fact a lot of the -1 posts are downright amusing, though some aren't at all.

You know what's great about the current Internet? We can both have what we want. That's why I disagree with you. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what you wrote above, but it sounds to me like you don't want such an option to exist. It sounds like you want ALL forums to be moderated. That's equivalent to saying that people should not be allowed to decide for themselves. There's no way I can support that. I mean, how would you feel if I told you what you should read?

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:that attitude doesn't work by circletimessquare · 2012-07-23 15:49 · Score: 1

Go. Read a thread on YouTube. That is worth your time?
Its not about being offended. Its about wasting your time on noise without signal.
Get off my high horse? Get off yours. You didnt even listen to what I said. You had some holier than thou response all picked out that doesn't even address my point.

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:that attitude doesn't work by Xanny · 2012-07-23 15:49 · Score: 1

So don't browse Reddit, Slashdot, etc at -1. The comment rating system has evolved to counter the signal to noise ratio and keep communities going. It is exactly why Reddit does so well (besides the power of hive mind circlejerk and percieved exclusivisty and hipsterdom posting on a site with 15 million daily pageviews... ). Youtube has it, it is how the two top rated comments are picked using an algorithm that considers time since post against upvote count.
If they made it a full blown Reddit style comment system, they wouldn't need bandages like this. But this is not a bandage, it is to try to attach a comment trail to people for advertisers to consume.
Re:that attitude doesn't work by glaucopis · 2012-07-23 17:14 · Score: 1

If you create something worthwhile and provide moderation tools, the anonymous community moderates itself. Works on slashdot, already works on youtube.
When I played in Goonfleet (Something Awful's Eve Online corp), I made a ridiculous little love song of a video and put it up on youtube. The corp is known for being really vile both to our enemies and to idiot members who try too hard, but the comments on the video are almost all positive/amusing. The few trolls who do post get quickly modded down by a handful of goons who like it enough to keep rewatching it and checking in years later.
By your and Google's reasoning, between my hard to please target audience and the anonymous commenting, I should've gotten a shitstorm. The fact that I didn't suggests that anonymity isn't youtube's problem, it's (1) a lack of a communal sense of ownership of most videos, probably due to (2) most videos being quickly produced one-off laughs, not being substantive enough to tap into or contribute to a community, and honestly deserving a lot of the the crap they get. But you put a hundred hours of effort into something and all the wonderful anonymous assholes on the Internet might surprise you.
Personally I will always choose anonymity online because I am a human being, not a consumer. I don't want to be marketed to every second of every day and I certainly don't want to help advertisers market to me better.
Re:that attitude doesn't work by bingoUV · 2012-07-23 18:15 · Score: 1

So don't read youtube comments. wow that was simple !

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:that attitude doesn't work by bingoUV · 2012-07-23 22:38 · Score: 1

Let me get this straight. One forum (youtube), which no one can read currently anyway by your own admission. No dearth of other forums to discuss. To make that one forum more readable, for no specified purpose, is more important than keeping alive the possibility that internet be anonymous for some purposes? Even though there are other forums that are readable in spite of not having such restrictions?
Is this serious? If yes, I have no more to discuss. If no, I have so far completely misundersood your point.

it's about a useful forum. or not
it? What it?

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:that attitude doesn't work by bingoUV · 2012-07-23 23:57 · Score: 1

" Even though there are other forums that are readable in spite of not having such restrictions?"
Where?!
Right here. Ohh, Good evening Mr. Circle Times Square. Or is that Mr. Circlet Imes Square? Whatever.

Any successful forum has moderation
This is not moderation. Moderation doesn't have the privacy implications being discussed, so what is the point of bringing it up here?

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:that attitude doesn't work by causality · 2012-07-24 03:16 · Score: 1

Go. Read a thread on YouTube. That is worth your time?
Its not about being offended. Its about wasting your time on noise without signal.
Get off my high horse? Get off yours. You didnt even listen to what I said. You had some holier than thou response all picked out that doesn't even address my point.
When I described the easily offended in the penultimate paragraph of my last post, I was describing the main reason so many people support some kind of censorship or moderation. I did not imagine that anything I said there applied to you. I was merely explaining my own preferences, just as you explained your preference for some kind of quality control (moderation or whatever system you think will work).

If you are in fact among the easily offended, well then you have cause to rejoice, for I just told you the truth of the matter. Now you can question the socially patterned, programmed response you've been taught to imitate. See for yourself that it makes no sense. Unless of course "random strangers controlling my emotional well-being" is something you consider a "feature".

I did in fact listen to what you said. I just don't value an ultra-high signal-to-noise ratio like you do. I mean, it sure does sound nice, but the price is too high. Maybe this is a big surprise to you, but some Youtube videos have intelligent comments. Many don't. I don't view Youtube for the comments. The videos are worth my time. The comments are just extra. In other words, Youtube is not Slashdot. It's not a comment-driven site. You know what would be a real waste of my time? That would be bitching about something I didn't have to view.

I did address your point. You just didn't like it, which is not my problem, you dense angry little man. I addressed your point by informing you that you can go to sites that provide the experience you claim to want. You're just upset that Youtube isn't one of them, suggesting a need for everything to conform to your wishes (or a failure to realize that viewing Youtube comments is not essential to life). Go. Where. You. Get. What. You. Want. It's amazing how little there is to complain about when you do it that way.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Re:that attitude doesn't work by icebraining · 2012-07-24 07:21 · Score: 1

So, where's the evidence that those murderous dumb zealous thugs wouldn't threaten her life even when using their real names?
Real names might prevent trolling, sometimes. But there's plenty of shitty behavior that people aren't ashamed of doing, and the lack of anonymity will do nothing to prevent that.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:that attitude doesn't work by glaucopis · 2012-07-24 14:42 · Score: 1

it only applies to the narrow way in which you use the web, and does not apply to the ways in which most other people do. this isn't about monetizing your internet existence, it is about establishing social standards of online discourse. not because of orwell, fascism, overcontrolling busybodies, censorship, etc., but to maintain simple decency and respect
Well, yes. My strategy for navigating online and my opinion of anonymity is obviously tailored to how I use the internet. But given that the article was about Google's new policy and that Google is solely about monetizing everyone's internet existence, I think my type of anonymity is relevant here.
To be honest, I don't care if youtube becomes a private little garden full of real names and politeness. I won't use it, but that's no loss. I was just pointing out that tools to accommodate both anonymity and moderation of trolls already exist on youtube and work well. If your video is meaningful to a number of people, you can open comments and trust them to moderate it. If your video is some fragment dissociated from context/community, you can manually approve comments, disable them, or rework your video so it makes a more lasting connection with its viewer-moderators. No one is entitled to universally positive responses, even the non-frivolous amongst us.
For what it's worth, I'm a pretty respectful person online and off. But I feel dehumanized by advertising, I see anonymity as the only defense against it, and I'd rather half the content on the internet be anonymous flame wars (minimized by moderation tools) than be required to post under my real name.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by 0123456 · 2012-07-23 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

so the "fire in a crowded" theater guy should retain his anonymity?

If they had, they wouldn't have ended up in court in a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

You do realise that the 'fire in a crowded theater' argument was an attempt to justify government censorship of political speech by anti-draft activists in WWI?

No, didn't think so.

And with no G+? by History's+Coming+To · 2012-07-23 05:42 · Score: 2

I don't have a Google+ account exactly because of this issue. I wasn't happy using my real name, and as I use a lot of Google's other services I deleted my G+ account to avoid impacting other services. So if I allow them to pull my G+ name, what happens?

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.

Re:And with no G+? by perryizgr8 · 2012-07-24 05:50 · Score: 1

they dont show the popup if you dont have a g+ profile.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.

any real name? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:42 · Score: 2, Funny

Is any "real name" ok, or does the "real name" have to be yours?

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by thereitis · 2012-07-23 05:42 · Score: 1

Yes, something has to be done. Unfortunately, many of the 'gutter' commenters probably don't care whether people know their name or not.

What happened to online reputation as a solution? It works, for the most part, on slashdot. I would have high hopes that investment by Google could make such a system even more effective.

YouTube is a smart vehicle to choose to make people more comfortable with using their real name online. This is likely an Internet-culture shift that Google wants, and it has the online presence needed to try and muscle it in.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by 0123456 · 2012-07-23 05:42 · Score: 1

The problem with the slippery slope arguement is that people think it applies to everything. there are outlieing cases.

Yes.

Very, very rarely, when a government starts banning something, they don't continue to ban everything else on that slope.

But 99% of the time, they're just boiling the frog.

Re:If you don't like Google's policies... by crakbone · 2012-07-23 05:43 · Score: 1

And if we don't like their service we should not provide them with feedback or discuss it with others to maybe change our/their viewpoint on the subject? Does it not seem a bit weird to you that your on an online forum and complaining about people commenting in a forum?

Re:Big Content Requirement? by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 05:45 · Score: 1

comments? they have comments there?

% youtube-dl 'url_goes_here'

grabs the file for me just fine.

what - there's more than that? really??

my copies never get taken down, have their formats change, etc. you mean people actually GO to the yt page, in a real browser?

wow.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Google really should turn this into a feature by joh · 2012-07-23 05:45 · Score: 1

I have long thought that Google should actually *add* something useful by requiring a real name. Like giving out free S/MIME certificates for these users. This way you could have encrypted email and authenticated identity. You know, sometimes not being anonymous and even being able that it *is* you who's talking is useful.

Google just requiring real names and not helping you to prove it is just worthless. It takes away the freedom to use an assumed name without adding the feature of authentication.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:49 · Score: 1

Banning nuclear weapons leads to banning other weapons of mass destruction, like weponized bacteria. Banning weponized bacteria leads to banning bacteria that could be weaponized. banning weponizable bacterial leads to banning all bacteria.

Banning nuclear weapons is clearly a slippery slope to banning yogurt (or the human digestive system).

They should put the option... by nighthawk243 · 2012-07-23 05:50 · Score: 1

They should put the option "Because I make stupid comments and I don't want my girlfriend/friends leaving me for being such a dipshit."

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Hatta · 2012-07-23 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

I haven't used my realname online since 2002, because I don't want to have an online history that employers, governments, et cetera can use to develop a personality profile.

That's exactly why Google wants you to use your real name. The more personal profiles Google has, the more valuable its ads are. The solution is, don't use Google products.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by steveg · 2012-07-23 05:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

My real name is probably more anonymous than my Google gmail address. I use the gmail username in a number of places, but it's relatively unique -- I don't think I've ever seen anyone else use it.

My real name, however is incredibly common -- no one would *ever* be able to tell it was *me* from the name. Which is one of the reasons I came up with the name I use for for gmail -- there's no way I could ever find a name relating to my real name to use on any service that has more than a few people on it. It's always taken. I got away with it on Slashdot, but that was on a much smaller Internet.

--
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Jiro · 2012-07-23 05:54 · Score: 1

How about an adult who posts about Pokemon and ends up considered a pedophile by an employer who isn't aware that some people above the age of 12 play Pokemon?

Repeat with conventional sources of discrimination, such as sexual orientation or religion.

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by Hatta · 2012-07-23 05:55 · Score: 1

How long do you think it will be until your Youtube account IS your G+ account?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Threre's something to be said about anon posts... by Petron · 2012-07-23 05:55 · Score: 2

“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”
-Oscar Wilde

--
if (it != oneThing) it = another;

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by dcw3 · 2012-07-23 06:01 · Score: 1

I can still find posts under my real name from 1988!

While I get your point, I'm still gonna call bullshit on the 1988 date.

--
Just another day in Paradise

That's alright.. by gallondr00nk · 2012-07-23 06:01 · Score: 1

It just means using another fake name, or a fake g+ / fb account if necessary. Your move, google.

I doubt this is about spam or astroturfing or trolls anyway. It'll be about making advertising space on YT worth more. That's mostly why Facebook et al. do it.

It's quite a condemnation of our times that the erosion of anonymity on the Internet hasn't been from from oppressive governments or vicious laws (both exist after all) but mainly instead fucking advertising.

That's fine... by Tarlus · 2012-07-23 06:03 · Score: 1

What Google believes to be my name isn't my real name, anyway.

--
/* No Comment */

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by gmuslera · 2012-07-23 06:06 · Score: 1

Would you draw the line from where an annoucement of something that somehow was misunderstood means prison? Don't confuse the message with the meaning behind it. And er.. Hanlon.

Yes, there are bad people out there, but that lines criminalizes a lot of innocent ones (and that without getting into social engineering)

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Joce640k · 2012-07-23 06:06 · Score: 1

What do do? Expect adult people to be able to handle speech they dislike. That means overlooking it, ignoring it, countering it with speech they consider better, or simply not viewing whatever it is they have a problem with.

And lets not forget the value to society of not letting future employers look at every stupid comment you posted when you were 15.

Some things are best not saved for posterity.

--
No sig today...

Re:Money, magsk, money by magsk · 2012-07-23 06:07 · Score: 1

yes I understand this, if you are not paying for something(the consumer) then you are the product. My belief was always that google took our general information such as a middle eastern male in 27-28 range lives in upper east side new york and likes fitness and wireless communication etc etc. But they did not associate that info to my personal name. That was what facebook tries to do, and is why i am vehemently against facebook. But now I think google in pursuit of higher profits is trying to force the same thing on its users.

Because you need your real name for some things by MaizeMan · 2012-07-23 06:09 · Score: 2

The difference is you can choose to not mention your username in, say, a job application, and there is no way to link your real name to your activity online (assuming you haven't done anything stupid that links the two). You are also under no obligation to provide your username on your drivers license, legal documents, or when checking into a hotel. Setting up a new username and account with no connection to your previous online presence is also much more simple and effective than trying to set up a new and unlinked real-world identity.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 06:10 · Score: 2, Informative

The part the summary left out: If you refuse to use your real name, then you can no longer reply to youtube comments. The option is disabled.

This is false, I've logged in, told it I don't want to use my real name, and am still able to comment.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by irwiss · 2012-07-23 06:12 · Score: 1

How can you be offended then?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-23 06:13 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by cpu6502 · 2012-07-23 06:14 · Score: 1

>>>The solution is, don't use Google products.

I noticed when I switched to the latest versions of Opera and non-google Chromium, they use http://www.duckduckgo.com/ so that's what I use now. No more google except youtube (since I like to watch).

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

I'm going to take a less than popular position.... by mark-t · 2012-07-23 06:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

... on this issue and say that I actually don't have a problem with Google doing this.

This is *NOT* because I believe the premise that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, because, in fact, that premise is wholly specious (anyone who claims to genuinely believe that statement is true must be either a liar or else a public nudist).

Rather, I don't have a problem with Google doing this simply because I firmly believe in the principle of personal resposibility, and if a person is not prepared to be held personally accountable for the things that they do, then I'm afraid I'm just going to have a hard time recognizing any alleged right that they might have to do it. That's not to say that I don't think that people are entitled to privacy... giving people privacy shows them respect, and I resolutely believe that every human being is entitled to that level of respect. There is, however, a distinct difference between privacy and public anonymity. I don't see how not giving people anonymity in public disrespects them as individuals, so I simply don't see the importance of it.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-23 06:15 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-23 06:16 · Score: 2

The fact that a few people may abuse their anonymity is not, to me, a justification to take it away from everyone. I don't care for TSA or Patriot Act mentalities where everyone is punished.

While I hope "bad guys" get caught (depending on what we're talking about), don't catch them at the expense of innocents.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-23 06:18 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-23 06:18 · Score: 1

don't pussyfoot around if you truly feel you're in the right.

Yes, because that will always work well. Actual change takes time, and facing a bigoted, illogical populace is no easy task (not one that many people will readily take up, especially for 'lesser' causes).

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-23 06:19 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by cpu6502 · 2012-07-23 06:25 · Score: 1

>>>While I get your point, I'm still gonna call bullshit on the 1988 date.

Next I suppose you'll say something stupid like, "The internet didn't exist in 1988." LOL. The messages are archived on googlenews.com. I would post a direct link to them but that would reveal my real name, so I will abstain. If you don't believe me, just look at googlenews sometime. They have messages archived back to 1985... possibly older.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by cheesybagel · 2012-07-23 06:27 · Score: 1

Well they can always make a law where everyone needs to have a static IP once we switch to IPv6...

Disabled Reply by muindaur · 2012-07-23 06:27 · Score: 1

I've noticed this myself after they made this change, and found others with the same problem. So it looks like they decided to punish you if you don't, unless you delete G+: making it even more senseless as people have deleted their G+ profiles to get around it. Good move on making a move that reduces users for a service you're trying to increase usage for.

http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/d7XKETauIH4

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Mister+Whirly · 2012-07-23 06:29 · Score: 1

Why? Before "the internet" was prevalent there were still BBS, Usenet, Compuserve, etc. that had areas you could post messages to. I have plenty of old posts going back farther than 1988 - luckily I have always been smart enough to not use my real name online.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Beyond_GoodandEvil · 2012-07-23 06:31 · Score: 1

The comments on YouTube videos are a plague of idiocy, racism, hate-mongering, astro-turfing... Something has to be done, no?
Do you have a modest proposal for a final solution?

--
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.

My choice is: by golfnomad · 2012-07-23 06:32 · Score: 1

how about NOYFB!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-23 06:32 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by snspdaarf · 2012-07-23 06:33 · Score: 2

I can still find posts under my real name from 1988!

While I get your point, I'm still gonna call bullshit on the 1988 date.

Well, I can find stuff I posted to usenet from May of 1983, so I guess your bullshit call is, well, bullshit.

--
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!

Unique names by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 06:34 · Score: 1, Insightful

A "real name" policy also tends to favor those with popular names (John Smith), who remain effectively anonymous, at the expense of those whose names are relatively unique.

You hit the nail on the head there for me. If I post something with my name, people could find me. Not ten people, one of which happened to be me. Just me. I have a relatively rare first name combined with a relatively rare last name. Combined, you get me. Whenever I have to put my real name on something in public, I pause to think 'this will be traceable to me forever'. Usually, I'm not saying anything important enough for someone to care, but it's still a sobering thought.

How about being linked to a mass murderer? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 06:35 · Score: 1

So between our two viewpoints, it comes down essentially to what your motivation is in posting. Any way you look at it, the only reason to wish to post anonymously is to avoid some form of repercussion (whether identity theft, stalking/harassment, or simply being outed as a douchetard.)

Jim Holmes used his real name on a Tea Party website, just so some careless reporter could link him to James Holmes, the Aurora movie theater mass murderer. You don't even have to be that person, you can just have the same name.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Lost+Race · 2012-07-23 06:40 · Score: 1

Never heard of Usenet, eh? Newb.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-23 06:44 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

We can only hope by rabtech · 2012-07-23 07:01 · Score: 1

We can only hope this stops most people from posting YouTube comments. People are idiots. Worse, they're often self-righteous delusional idiots.

In real life you can be shunned or punched in the face. Online? Not so much.

--
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)

Hmm kindof funny on that by RobertLTux · 2012-07-23 07:02 · Score: 2

You do know that Google really does not NEED for you to display your real name since THEY ALREADY KNOW YOUR REAL NAME (assuming your G+ account is correct). Im thinking this is more about enabling folks to google %John Doe% and see everything you have posted (assuming that there are small number of John Does online).

KIDS DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME
you could post somewhere even under a Nym that "I am going to Blow up %location% sometime next week" and i would bet that THIS WEEK you will have a No-Knock Entry at your house.

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by jfengel · 2012-07-23 07:08 · Score: 1

if you force us to expose ourselves, many of us just won't.

And I suspect that they're OK with that. The value of YouTube comments even on the best of days is negligible. It's not the Pentagon Papers.

The most valuable comments are just about community: people making inane chatter at each other to increase each other's enjoyment of an entertainment site. Most people don't mind having such comments associated with their names. The stakes are just too low.

There are ways it can come back to bite you, and the very paranoid will avoid them at all costs. Google's helping you out here: if you don't want something remembered, you don't say it on the Internet, with your name or without. It costs Google your participation, but the number of such people are small, and the benefits it brings to their community (raising the bar on trolls and spammers) may be worth it.

Re-read that with more comprehension by tlambert · 2012-07-23 07:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

The part the summary left out: If you refuse to use your real name, then you can no longer reply to youtube comments. The option is disabled.

This is false, I've logged in, told it I don't want to use my real name, and am still able to comment.

He's talking about replying to comments, not making initial comments. So for example, if you post a video, and someone makes an asshat comment on it, you can't call them on it by replying, it just sits there being an asshat comment until it bothers you so badly that you relent and give out your real name.

Basically, it's a form of emotional blackmail to get you to reveal your real name, which is what they wanted in the first place. ...now waiting for the conspiracy theorists to will claim Google hires people to make asshat comments on videos posted by people who refuse to use their real name...

Re:Re-read that with more comprehension by suutar · 2012-07-24 05:47 · Score: 1

Why hire someone? A robot to write asshat comments should be less than a day's work, especially when they can refer to previous asshat comments...

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by TheGratefulNet · 2012-07-23 07:25 · Score: 2

duckduckgo sucks. it sucks badly.

I gave it a chance. I wanted it to work.

its nothing but spam for the first few pages. "did you mean you wanted to BUY this?" no, I wanted tech info on it, or downloads of firmware or user comments or issues or known bugs or.

"YOU WANT TO BUY THIS?? here are places that grabbed the keyboard and mixed it in so it shows up in our hits:"

sheesh. its useless. it assumes the only reason you are online is 'for commerce'. how stupid!! how fucking stupid. and how fucking useless it all is, now.

google search also sucks. similarly, first few pages are either fake bullshit links or stores or something related to a sale. try to find real info and its increasingly impossible.

can we have internet2, now? please? and make it commercial-free, in every single way? maybe call it ORGnet since it would be a 'not dot com' place, in the original idea of what a .org was supposed to be.

I want the .org concept back. I'm sick of the ads, the store links and the faked SEO crap that is all you find on so-called search engines.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by gbjbaanb · 2012-07-23 07:26 · Score: 1

oh lord no, but gbjbaanb is an alias that doesn't completely reflect on me... in many respects it is my "online personality" that I've built up over the years and so doesn't actually give me anonymity - if you see a post by gbjbaanb online, chances are it's me (after all, who'd pinch this alias name... yeah, someone will now :) ).

but you don't know many things about my real life and who I am from that alias. Admittedly I don't know how much linkage from that to my other accounts there is, but TBH I don't care so much - this alias isn't designed to be anonymous, unlike a couple of I have for certain activities (eg posting to non-tech sites, or to sites with political commentary).

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by swillden · 2012-07-23 07:31 · Score: 1

I appreciate your perspective, but I don't think it's accurate to say that not providing paying customers with Google+ right out the gate is an indicator that they were valued less. On the contrary, I see it as an indication that the stability and reliability of their service were valued more. I'm not on that team, nor any team related to it, but I would be willing to bet money that Apps customers are always the last to see updates precisely so that the changes can be thoroughly tested and validated (using the general user population as testers, essentially) before they're deployed.

It's reasonable to argue that the Google+ team should have gotten closer to being able to enable Apps accounts prior to launching the public service. My opinion is that they simply underestimated the complexity of the task, but I don't have any data to support that -- and I likely couldn't state the opinion if I did have data because it would probably be confidential. Anyway, I think they acted in what they thought was the best interests of paying customers, even if their perspective of your interests didn't match your true preferences.

Disclaimer: I don't speak for Google and Google doesn't speak for me. The above represents only my own opinions. If you want to get Google's official position on this issue, I suggest you contact the Apps sales team or Google public relations.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

You can still have a fake name on G+ by Lavithas · 2012-07-23 07:32 · Score: 1

I use my pen name on Google+ and it's the same name on Youtube, just no space. So you can imagine what happens if I do accept it to use my Google+ name.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-23 07:40 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Big Content Requirement? by DaFallus · 2012-07-23 07:42 · Score: 1

Too many people online think that "anonymous" = "license to be a complete fuckwad".

Ah yes, John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory

--
No one cares what your captcha was

Houston TX, USA

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Mal-2 · 2012-07-23 07:43 · Score: 2

I'll see your xkcd and raise you a ctrl-alt-del

BZZZT! Sorry, that's a string raise. You'll have to take that comic back.

--
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Hentes · 2012-07-23 07:50 · Score: 2

First, Youtube is used by millions of people and there isn't a monolithic Youtube community. If you encounter lot's of morons on Youtube, you might want to try and change the parts of it you frequent. There are many parts with normal or even intelligent comment walls.
Second, the theory that improper behaviour on the internet is caused by anonymity has been disproved by Facebook long ago. Facebook showed us that people can be just as dumb without anonymity.

So why are conversations appear to be less intellectual than IRL ones? One cause I think is that not being face-to-face with the other person desensitises the netizens. It might also be just an appearance: the internet has given everyone a chance to express themselves, and as the average person is a moron, most comments we see are stupid.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by bman49er · 2012-07-23 07:52 · Score: 1

This to me would be the greatest case for keeping all anonymity in the internet. No one likes a troll, until they make you lol.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Pope · 2012-07-23 07:55 · Score: 1

I'm sure it could be narrowed down if they know what city you live in.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Skarecrow77 · 2012-07-23 07:55 · Score: 1

If this post is any indication, I can totally understand why you'd fear your loss of anonymity.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Pope · 2012-07-23 07:56 · Score: 1

Ever heard of Usenet?

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.

I wonder how many fake Larry Page will be created by BLToday · 2012-07-23 07:59 · Score: 1

I wonder how many fake Larry Page will be created. Or Eric Schmidt.

How on earth could stability be affected? by SuperKendall · 2012-07-23 07:59 · Score: 1

I don't think it's accurate to say that not providing paying customers with Google+ right out the gate is an indicator that they were valued less

I didn't say that's how it was inside, but I assure you from the outside that is EXACTLY what it felt like.

Something that Google wanted everyone in the universe to use - except those who had chosen to support Google through being a paying customer.

And although I can understand technical challenges around integration of Google Apps with other Google services, to me there is a terrible smell around the notion that simply allowing me access to Google+ would have any possibly of destabilizing some wholly different service. Perhaps Google+ would not have worked as well, but how is it possible gmail would have failed to work for me had they enabled Google+ for my account - especially when everyone with FREE gmail accounts had no issue at all using Google+?

Again, in the end, to external small business customers it felt not at all like Google valued us, and the notion it was for the sake of "stability" seems awfully white-washy.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:How on earth could stability be affected? by swillden · 2012-07-23 08:24 · Score: 1

How could stability have been affected? As I understand it, adding profiles to accounts was a necessary pre-requisite for enabling Google+, and I can easily see that Apps account handling must necessarily be different from non-Apps account handling -- and honestly it was probably more different than it needed to be. Code structure tends to grow to reflect organization structure, and we're talking about different teams.
Of course, Google's customers shouldn't really have to know or care about such things. I'm offering this by way of explanation (supposition of explanation, actually), not excuse. I agree that it was handled in a way that made Apps accounts feel like second-class citizens (I was annoyed by it!). But I can absolutely see how interactions between the different codebases could create complications, and how rushing into modifying Apps accounts to add profiles could create stability problems, and I can see why the relevant teams felt it was better to go slower and safer with the paying customers.
It's worth pointing out that Google corporate accounts (@google.com) still have not been Google+-enabled. In part that's probably to help prevent Google employees from inadvertently posting internal stuff to the public, but I think the bigger reason is that corporate accounts, while nominally in the same system, have even more special-case baggage than Apps accounts.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by dcw3 · 2012-07-23 08:10 · Score: 1

No, mostly I made a bad assumption (partially based on your high ID number) that you were exaggerating. My apologies, and just FWIW, I've been working on computers and since the early 70s.

--
Just another day in Paradise

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by dcw3 · 2012-07-23 08:12 · Score: 1

Yes, I have been corrected, and going back to my dark hole.

--
Just another day in Paradise

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by dcw3 · 2012-07-23 08:13 · Score: 1

Heard of it, posted on it, didn't think he had...bad assumption...shutting the F*** up.

--
Just another day in Paradise

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by dcw3 · 2012-07-23 08:14 · Score: 1

Yeah, yeah...posting my fourth mia culpa.

--
Just another day in Paradise

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-23 08:22 · Score: 2

Rather, I don't have a problem with Google doing this simply because I firmly believe in the principle of personal resposibility

Despite claiming to not support the "nothing to hide" argument, this reeks of exactly that. "If you're not going to abuse it, what do you have to fear? Step up and be a perfect example of my ideal 'responsible' citizen!"

Anonymity allows people to tell others things that they normally wouldn't say, allows people to avoid stalkers, allows people to speak out against perceived injustices when the enemy is perhaps an angry mob, and allows people to avoid getting fired for saying things 10, 20, or perhaps even 30 years ago that seem completely normal to them and other people. If ridding us of anonymity means getting rid of all those benefits, then I'll just accept the occasional troll (The horror!). Most people don't seem to be abusing the privilege in any significant way (that I see), anyway. I'd also not rather resort to censorship or punishing people for their anonymous speech (After all, what would happen to people who did not conform to the scheme?).

This is assuming you're not just advocating this to be done with Youtube, but your arguments could be applied in general. Since your definition of "responsibility" seems to be "needlessly putting yourself in danger," I'll have to disagree.

There is, however, a distinct difference between privacy and public anonymity.

Apparently not, since you do have the option to speak publicly and always remain anonymous. You always did, but the Internet just made this more simple. Like it or not, they definitely have privacy when they're anonymous.

so I simply don't see the importance of it.

Of course. You can't see the importance of it, so it shouldn't exist? I hope that's not the case.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Re:you've got to FIGHT for your RIGHT to trollolol by joh · 2012-07-23 08:32 · Score: 1

Interestingly, the July Wired has an article about Eugene Kaspersky pushing for and ITU takeover of the internet and an end to anonymity.

It's not paranoid if it's reality.

It's not a theory if it's documented.

Sometimes I think an complete end to anonymity and having total transparency instead would be an option. If someone abuses this, you look up his location and go sort it out with him.

Of course it wouldn't work this way because people of power who want to abuse this would still be able to hide. We would need a kind of communism in which everyone has the same power and access to the same data, with no exceptions. Wouldn't work that good probably.

Still, thinking that you actually can be truly anonymous without *huge* effort is wishful thinking. You're basically hiding successfully from your peers only. Following the trail at least to whoever pays for the net access you're using is trivial if you can get your hands at the data. The data is there anyway. It's just that only *them* can use it. What's good about that either?

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by lavaface · 2012-07-23 08:50 · Score: 1

The best thing to do is ignore the comments and just watch the fucking video...

--
harmonious design

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by mark-t · 2012-07-23 08:51 · Score: 1

Anonymity allows people to tell others things that they normally wouldn't say

Unless a person does not have a sense of integrity, I'm not sure why that would be. I don't sympathize with people who are afraid to be responsible for their own actions... and that includes speaking their mind.

allows people to avoid stalkers

The police can help with that too, when it is a problem.

allows people to speak out against perceived injustices when the enemy is perhaps an angry mob

If it's worth speaking out about, then why is it not also worth facing the possible consequences for?

and allows people to avoid getting fired for saying things

If that's an issue, then don't say those things... or find another job. In other cases, it may fall under unlawful dismissal if a person's been keeping their records straight.

Personally, I feel that if a person want's anonymity, then they should keep to themselves. Somebody who so desperately wants to speak out against whatever they might find improper and who is afraid, for whatever reason, to take ownership of saying those things because of the consequences, is, as far as I can see, afraid to take responsibility for their actions.

Anything that isn't worth taking ownership of or facing the consequences for is small stuff, and if you spend your entire life worrying about or picking apart the small stuff, then all you're going to do is give yourself high blood pressure and probably die a whole lot sooner. Life is short enough as it is. Enjoy it. You only get to do it once.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-23 09:01 · Score: 2

Unless a person does not have a sense of integrity, I'm not sure why that would be.

That's comical. Human beings typically have a desire to have some degree of privacy. You probably don't want other people to see everything you do. Another form of this is someone not wanting people to associate their real name with comments posted on the Internet. They self-censor and do all manner of things if they feel it could be connected to them. The fact that they don't want to say something does not imply that they are doing anything wrong.

The police can help with that too, when it is a problem.

It will quite possibly be too late.

If it's worth speaking out about, then why is it not also worth facing the possible consequences for?

Because you could be killed (by a criminal, organized criminals, or even by a government) or socially isolated. Not everything worth speaking out about is worth that to everyone.

Personally, I feel that if a person want's anonymity, then they should keep to themselves.

Personally, I feel that if a person doesn't want anonymity, they should just make that decision for themselves. Go ahead and give up all of your information if you wish.

But to advocate for censoring or the stifling of free speech (the result of someone not following this little scheme)? I think that's right up there with the TSA, the Patriot Act, and the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument. Collective punishment. All under a vague concept of "responsibility" for reasons unknown.

and if you spend your entire life worrying about or picking apart the small stuff, then all you're going to do is give yourself high blood pressure and probably die a whole lot sooner.

Then stop worrying so much about other people's anonymity.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

That's not why youtube comments suck by Requiem18th · 2012-07-23 09:03 · Score: 1

Youtube comments are almost engineered to be useless.

They are very short, urls, even between videos are prohibited cannot be edited, cannot be easily threaded, don't have subject lines or, for that matter, tags nor any other way to sort them. There is no way to conduct an argument on them, they are literally only enough for you to say "Cool video!" and that's it.

And don't get me started on how they let you disable comments and even RATINGS! This is clearly a measure to appeal to uploaders but it's a split in the face of users, who are by far their main income source.

Youtube comments would be 10,000% better if they had a "discussion" section and the regular comments limited to, say, 60 chrs or less. Anything else would redirect you to that video's specific discussion board.

But well, I'm not going to suggest that, because they'll surely try to tie that into G+ too.

--
But... the future refused to change.

100% the reason I didn't sign up for Google+ by AbRASiON · 2012-07-23 09:03 · Score: 2

Right here folks this is why. I don't mind my google services tied together /to an extent/ and I dont' care if google /internal/ can identify that I'm firstname.lastname@gmail.com and cowtipper69 on youtube. but I sure as shit don't want regular folk to be able to do it.

This applies across the board for googles services and is why I am easing back on using their stuff when possible.

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by DigitAl56K · 2012-07-23 09:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Rather, I don't have a problem with Google doing this simply because I firmly believe in the principle of personal resposibility, and if a person is not prepared to be held personally accountable for the things that they do, then I'm afraid I'm just going to have a hard time recognizing any alleged right that they might have to do it.

That is really naive. Personal responsibility to who? Society? Or the Government? And whatever happens to be the law/populist opinion at the time? What happens further down the road if the law becomes intolerant of your then opinions? What happens if your Government happens to be an oppressive regime? What happens if someone just really doesn't like something you say - even if it's not widely held as offensive, and decides to come track you down over it?

I suppose nothing you write is ever indefensible in the eyes of another?

VEVO Channel Change? by core_dump_0 · 2012-07-23 09:17 · Score: 2

If Google wants to force full names, they should start by changing LadyGagaVEVO to StefaniGermanottoVEVO, KatyPerryVEVO to KatyHudsonVEVO, and SnoopDoggVEVO to CalvinBroadusVEVO before bullying the rest of us.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by steveg · 2012-07-23 09:19 · Score: 1

Not by a lot. I frequently get emails and letters and phone calls for someone else with my name. And not just one particular someone else. My last name is in the top 10 last names in the US, and my first name is in the top 20.

--
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by gbjbaanb · 2012-07-23 09:24 · Score: 1

yes, the Vast Machine is a reality :(

Mind you, they still haven't really got to associating real names with real people yet - not if my names A N Mouse!

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by lgw · 2012-07-23 09:26 · Score: 1

It you imagine you still need to click on something to get new malware, you're about 5 years behind the curve. "Drive by" malware that self-installs from banner ads is old hat now. You can be safe by turning off javascript, of course, but too much of the internet becomes unavailable at that point.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Re:No thanks. I'd like to stay alive by Lemmy+Caution · 2012-07-23 09:29 · Score: 1

I think the real solution is going to be through Google+ - you already have the option to share a video on Google+, but the next step is that, by default, the comments you make on a video will only be seen by those in the Circle you shared it to, and the author of the video. "Public" comments would be invisible by default.

did everybody not notice something?? by RobertLTux · 2012-07-23 09:36 · Score: 1

One of the options is Private use I CAN NOT USE MY REAL NAME

as they don't specify what "can not use my real name" means maybe you could use that for "Google can KMA if they think im going to use my real name"

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by cffrost · 2012-07-23 09:38 · Score: 1

so the "fire in a crowded" theater guy should retain his anonymity?

How about a little fire, Skarecrow?

--
Thank you, Edward Snowden.

"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan

This kind of thing will kill them... by shaitand · 2012-07-23 09:41 · Score: 1

Yes this is evil. But it isn't the "do no evil" thing that actually made google a giant. It was providing a decent service with the clean non-intrusive user experience. This is an extremely annoying and intrusive feature. You actually have to stop using the app in order to answer a stupid survey over and over again. That is worse than a pop-up window. Put up a similar quality service that don't have this nag and I will switch in a heartbeat. The same is true of your search if you add a nag survey or other hard interrupt to usage.

Real name? by mpe · 2012-07-23 09:49 · Score: 1

In a great many cases it's unclear what someone's "real name" actually is. Plenty of people are known by something other than their "legal name" (which in many cultures can be a "variable", especially for women.) sometimes something very different.
There are also people who are known by different names in different contexts.
Even those who are not actors or musicians, who are often required to have globally unique names. It's also fairly common for authors to have "pen names" for reasons including avoiding confusion with other authors; distinguishing between different genres or having a name "inappropriate" to their writings (e.g. a man writing "romance").

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by lgw · 2012-07-23 10:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Where is it written that "freedom of speech" necessarily includes "freedom from responsibility"? Nowhere that I've ever seen.

The Founders were big on anonymous pamphleteering - the 18th century equivalent of Youtube comments (and every bit as nasty). Anonymous speech was understood as crucial to free speech from the beginning. Without freedom from repercussions, how much freedom can you really have to criticize those in power? Why do you think those in power want the ability to de-anonymize all speech (by forcing ISPs to keep IP logs indefinitely, and logging all Internet traffic data indefinitely)?

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-23 10:14 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

AdBlock Plus remedies this by FMtRIS · 2012-07-23 10:41 · Score: 2

I opted to not answer ANY questions or surveys and used AdBlock Plus for Firefox to bypass the entire process. Since it seems that with any corporate strategy these days, it is to keep asking and wear the user down, witness SOPA, PIPA and now CISPA. Granted, these are ALOT worse than a simple identity box but also there is alot of cross referencing in data mining between services and I opt out of the entire process where applicable.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-07-23 10:49 · Score: 1

There is an option of "My channel is personal, but I can't use my real name." which asks no further questions.

--
Not a sentence!

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-07-23 10:56 · Score: 1

So from your /. username you are probably one of the many, many people named "Steve Garcia" in the US.

--
Not a sentence!

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by cpu6502 · 2012-07-23 11:11 · Score: 1

>>> "did you mean you wanted to BUY this?" no, I wanted tech info on it, or downloads of firmware or user comments or issues or known bugs or. "YOU WANT TO BUY THIS?? here are places that grabbed the keyboard and mixed it in so it shows up in our hits:"
>>>
Sounds like you have Adware on your machine which is inserting text/ads to the HTML, because I've never seen duckduckgo produce results like you describe. There's usually a two-line ad that I barely even notice..... certainly less offensive than the GoogleShopping ads that take-up the first several slots.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-07-23 11:15 · Score: 1

My "real name" as seen on my scanned driver's license which hasn't been photoshopped in any way whatsoever happens to be identical to the name I use on G+ and several other sites/games/etc.

--
Not a sentence!

I just don't post comments on youtube by whois · 2012-07-23 11:27 · Score: 1

It's pointless to begin with, the threading system is so awful you'll need to fully quote another user for anyone to know what you're talking about, and this is years after they had a chance to fix it. Other than the annoying notification that you can't watch adult videos without being signed in, I can't imagine why staying signed into youtube would be useful, but then again I haven't uploaded any videos either so I guess I may have missed the entire point.

Guilting? by flimflammer · 2012-07-23 11:43 · Score: 1

Asking why you don't want to use your real name is in no way an attempt to "guilt" you into using it. They're asking a completely legitimate question to find out why aside from the obvious privacy reason people are not interested in using their real names.

I see absolutely no problem with this question.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by steveg · 2012-07-23 11:50 · Score: 1

Yup. So try to track me down from that. :)

--
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by tildex4 · 2012-07-23 11:59 · Score: 1

Use your favourite RSS client and:
With Thumbnails: https://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/base/users/minutephysics/uploads
Without Thumbnails: https://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/users/minutephysics/uploads

Done.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by GrahamCox · 2012-07-23 12:30 · Score: 1

Expect adult people to be able to handle speech they dislike.

You are so right. In fact I think it's time this was taught in schools at some point, along with general internet safety. Ignoring what an idiot says is always an option, but there's something in human nature that makes it hard to do. I think it's that when we see something written down we are conditioned to think of it as carrying some authority or weight, whereas in fact it's just a piece of garbage, written down. Other people reading it should see it for what it is, and a private thought of "what a jerk" or whatever is all it takes. An answer, especially one that escalates some sort of argument, is NOT required.

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by farble1670 · 2012-07-23 13:10 · Score: 1

i'd rather strive for a society that protects my rights than protects my privacy. e.g., i could care less who has my health records as long as they are prevented from discriminating against me because of them.

privacy is a losing battle anyhow. it takes a herculean effort to remain truly anonymous today. how will it be in 20 years?

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by mark-t · 2012-07-23 13:25 · Score: 1

Human beings typically have a desire to have some degree of privacy.

There is a difference between privacy and anonymity. Giving people privacy is respectful to that person. There is nothing disrespectful to an individual when they simply do not have anonymity in public. Note: public, which, I might add, is the *OPPOSITE* of private.

Then stop worrying so much about other people's anonymity.

I don't worry about people's anonymity, or even my own. I merely accept the premise that I don't really have any online. I feel I might have a right to privacy when I do things in private, but not in public.. It seems to me that YOU are the one who is expending energy worrying about anonymity... and for naught, since in the end, you might find you actually have far less control over it than you might like. You are perfectly welcome to spend your entire life trying to change that, if you are really so inclined to do so... I'd put odds on the unfairness of the world beating you, however.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by mark-t · 2012-07-23 13:36 · Score: 1

Why should people nearby that I am not interacting with in ANY way have any reason to know my name? Nonetheless, when in public, I know that the only anonymity I really have is only what exists by virtue of the level of indifference the general population has in me.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Remember back when... by Indigo · 2012-07-23 13:38 · Score: 1

..."don't be evil" wasn't ironic?

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by mark-t · 2012-07-23 13:41 · Score: 1

I never said that there was a "line".... I only said that giving a person privacy is something entirely different from expecting to always have the ability to be anonymous when one is in public. In the end, the only anonymity anyone *REALLY* has when they are in public is by virtue of whatever public's indifference exists towards that person. Nobody can really control what other people think (or don't think) of them, however... and it's only a waste of energy to even try.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Real reason? by Indigo · 2012-07-23 13:41 · Score: 1

Personally, I think it has a whole more to do with data mining than trolling.

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by mtmra70 · 2012-07-23 13:43 · Score: 1

This is not true. I declined using my real name then I posted a reply.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by causality · 2012-07-23 14:12 · Score: 1

What do do? Expect adult people to be able to handle speech they dislike. That means overlooking it, ignoring it, countering it with speech they consider better, or simply not viewing whatever it is they have a problem with.

And lets not forget the value to society of not letting future employers look at every stupid comment you posted when you were 15.

Some things are best not saved for posterity.

Besides, you really don't want a society where everybody has to be exactly like Ned Flanders. You would end up with a society of liars who are used to being phony and deceptive. It would select for people who are great at not getting caught and putting on a front. We already have enough of that going on.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Pentium100 · 2012-07-23 14:13 · Score: 2

In that case you can say that North Korea has free speech, as did the USSR under Stalin.

After all, you could call the leaders idiots, but you were also responsible for the consequences of your actions - a bullet or one way ticket to Siberia.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by causality · 2012-07-23 14:16 · Score: 1

How can you be offended then?

"You're an adult, grow up, deal with it!" "Nothing happens when you're offended!"

Hah. I appreciated this vid. This man is actually an adult. He's not a member of the majority which are overgrown children who can't deal with their emotions and think everyone should conform to their personal tastes and preferences and act so shocked and hurt when this doesn't happen. God damn, am I ever tired of that.

Thank you for sending me the link!

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by causality · 2012-07-23 14:18 · Score: 1

People make racist, idiotic, hate-mongering, and otherwise disgusting posts on Facebook all the time, and did so on Myspace when it was still a going concern. Anonymity isn't the issue, it's the perception that the Internet gives them a safe distance to hurl insults and spam from.

Some people are just assholes. It's really that simple and doesn't warrant all the debate and analysis that's expended on it. There have always been assholes.

If you allow the actions of those assholes to alter in any way the experience for everyone else, you have given them far more power than they deserve, and more than they likely dreamed of. It's a form of caving in. I for one think a minority of dumbshits already ruin too many things for the rest of us.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by Pentium100 · 2012-07-23 14:19 · Score: 1

Your anonymos post came from an IP, it was posted to a "comments.pl" identified page embeded with a "google-analytics.com/ga.js" beacon ...

If only there was a way to turn off that script... Oh, wait, there is NoScript. Also Ghostery was created for the purpose of making tracking harder.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by causality · 2012-07-23 14:21 · Score: 1

YouTube is a smart vehicle to choose to make people more comfortable with using their real name online. This is likely an Internet-culture shift that Google wants, and it has the online presence needed to try and muscle it in.

That's part of the problem I have with this. It's not a response to overwhelming demand by the users. Rather, it's something they are trying to force on users who didn't ask for it and may not even want it. It's only possible because Google has a huge presence and they can use that as a form of leverage.

As I take a look at the world around me, I realize that in a couple of ways I must be a very strange individual. For one, I don't care to be where I am not wanted and appreciated. Also, I don't want to look for leverage to make people do things they don't want to do. Apparently that makes me a fucking weirdo.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:Google - it's *good* for you by causality · 2012-07-23 14:24 · Score: 1

Is it possible that the whole move is more about music upload and "piracy"? Who will dare to upload copyrighted content if they have to use their real names.

Captcha "suspects"

Yes, because people who demonstrate a willingness to break the law are so well known for their strict adherence to rules and policies...

It's like the anti-gun nuts. They simply cannot (read: refuse to) understand that criminals who are willing to commit murder are not afraid of getting charged for a weapons violation.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-23 16:08 · Score: 1

There is nothing disrespectful to an individual when they simply do not have anonymity in public.

Nothing disrespectful according to you. But I'd call it very disrespectful to remove some of that person's privacy just because you disagree with anonymity.

No, privacy is very much involved with anonymity. That's the point. You want to keep your information private.

I merely accept the premise that I don't really have any online.

Then you must live in a very different world than I. You might not be unidentifiable to 100% of the population, but it's close enough that you do have plenty of anonymity (unless you're dealing with an extremely powerful, determined party and haven't taken proper measures to protect yourself).

It seems to me that YOU are the one who is expending energy worrying about anonymity

I don't need to; it already exists. I don't have to use my real name right now, for instance. It's as if you believe that because you don't have absolute anonymity that you don't have any at all! Many people are indeed sufficiently anonymous, and I would oppose any attempt of the government to take that away.

But why worry? There is no need for that.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-23 17:46 · Score: 1

Google's helping you out here:

How are they helping you out by trying to force you to expose your real name? Where no one knew who you were before, now they certainly will (if they had their way). That's not helping at all.

you don't say it on the Internet, with your name or without.

Saying it without has fewer consequences most of the time.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by ashridah · 2012-07-23 17:48 · Score: 1

You know, that'll probably work. Might see how that'll go.

Re:If you don't like Google's policies... by psiclops · 2012-07-23 17:59 · Score: 1

because it's not required.........

--
i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by Eightbitgnosis · 2012-07-23 19:06 · Score: 1

Sure. Usually after I've had my productive time for the day I find myself wandering youtube. Sometimes I comment to share a quick sentiment with other people about a video we both enjoy. Other times I like to let smaller artists know I like their material. Such as recently when I left an encouraging comment on the new music video of a South African Hip-hop artist, Jack Parrow, I enjoy.

It's may not always be the most thoughtful part of my day, but it's pleasant. After working on so many other things during the day something simple like that can give much need relaxation.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by epyT-R · 2012-07-23 20:58 · Score: 1

that was also during a time when the government and its corporate backers weren't quite so interested in building citizen dossiers.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by epyT-R · 2012-07-23 21:01 · Score: 1

..yet that is exactly how government bureaucracies work. the officials keep whittling away because it's the only way they can differentiate themselves enough to keep their jobs and/or because they want to grab as much power as they can. yesterday's apparition becomes tomorrows bogey man.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by epyT-R · 2012-07-23 21:07 · Score: 1

how's that 'helping'? that's like saying the police 'help' you out by writing a traffic ticket for jaywalking. if your real name is associated with a video, that is an easy way for anyone searching to make simpleminded assumptions about you based on the fact you watched it. it doesn't matter what other unseen contexts were present at the time. this is why seemingly innocuous actions on the internet, recorded for all time, are concerns. it's the unseen contexts coupled with changing cultural norms that makes this potentially dangerous for everyone.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by epyT-R · 2012-07-23 21:15 · Score: 1

speech is different from action. just because someone says something that pisses you off doesn't mean he is responsible for your actions. at least, it shouldn't be this way. certain political groups would love if it was though, mainly because they have thin skins and/or their political ideologies cannot stand up to criticism. basically society needs to relearn the old sticks and stones rhyme. if it doesn't, eventually, free speech will be whittled down into the 'fairness doctrine', where only the most benign, whitewashed expression will be tolerated.

That does it by Dragoniel · 2012-07-23 21:18 · Score: 1

Now I know for sure I will never use Google+.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by epyT-R · 2012-07-23 21:31 · Score: 1

maybe don't post about it on youtube? or on any other place that eschews anonymity?

not a real choice because if all anon posters did this, it would kill anonymity altogether, leaving only politically correct whitewashed rubbish. sometimes, you gotta push back til it gives.

or better yet, if the potential poster is truly worried about the topic and his inability to post on it, how about a well-thought-out blog entry on why there is such misunderstanding about people over the age of 12 who play pokemon?

that won't stop someone from judging based on some youtube post...and if the blog is signed with the real name... just the association itself with pokemon is enough to conjure negative stereotypes...

don't pussyfoot around if you truly feel you're in the right. If you think a topic is mischarecterized by society, take it head on. Force people to debate you on open ground. That's how opinions truly gets changed.

this depends on a sane society. it's not sane. anonymity is critical if the intent is to take on a taboo or shunned subject, otherwise no one would take the risk.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by sociocapitalist · 2012-07-23 21:36 · Score: 1

I know I should be annoyed at the elimination of anonymous options, and in most any other setting I would be, but youtube? yeah I think I'd like to see this play out. just don't make a universal case out of it google.

It's a change that only legitimate users will have pain from.

Anyone who wants to troll will create bullshit users and continue to post crap whereas people who post under their real name put themselves at risk when they may not wish to just by expressing their own opinions.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by sociocapitalist · 2012-07-23 21:47 · Score: 1

... on this issue and say that I actually don't have a problem with Google doing this.

This is *NOT* because I believe the premise that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, because, in fact, that premise is wholly specious (anyone who claims to genuinely believe that statement is true must be either a liar or else a public nudist).

Rather, I don't have a problem with Google doing this simply because I firmly believe in the principle of personal resposibility, and if a person is not prepared to be held personally accountable for the things that they do, then I'm afraid I'm just going to have a hard time recognizing any alleged right that they might have to do it. That's not to say that I don't think that people are entitled to privacy... giving people privacy shows them respect, and I resolutely believe that every human being is entitled to that level of respect. There is, however, a distinct difference between privacy and public anonymity. I don't see how not giving people anonymity in public disrespects them as individuals, so I simply don't see the importance of it.

I'm sure there's not a despotic government in the world that would disagree with you.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial

Anyone spot the hypocrisy? by crossmr · 2012-07-23 23:01 · Score: 1

Google made big waves a couple years ago when they stood up to South korea. south korea wanted google to collect real names for youtube. Google said screw you and disabled uploading and commenting "from" Korea. now, google is making big waves by insisting on youtube and google+ that people use their real names.

suddenly when you want it google, it's a good thing?

how's that whole not being evil thing working out for you?

My name is by gelfling · 2012-07-24 01:10 · Score: 1

Go Fuck Yourself Mr. Brin.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-07-24 02:17 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by mark-t · 2012-07-24 02:26 · Score: 1

I don't need to; it already exists.

No... it does not. In the end, the only *REAL* anonymity that people actually enjoy in public is achieved solely by whatever indifference that others might have towards them.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by jfengel · 2012-07-24 02:43 · Score: 1

They're not forcing you to do anything. You don't want to reveal your name, all you have to do is not post on their web site. Their house, their rules.

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by jfengel · 2012-07-24 02:45 · Score: 1

that's like saying the police 'help' you out by writing a traffic ticket for jaywalking.

Ordinarily, I make a general comment about how analogies are generally not helpful reasoning tools, since they either simplify out crucial elements of the issue or remain just as complicated as the original question and no easier to resolve.

But that is the worst analogy I've ever heard in an argument, so I'll just stand here and blink.

Re:Big Content Requirement? by loimprevisto · 2012-07-24 05:08 · Score: 1

Brilliant! Count me in.

--
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by perryizgr8 · 2012-07-24 05:16 · Score: 1

i believe that google guy himself said something like "google+ is not a social network, it is an identity service." its amazing people still use it after that :/

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.

Re:Benefits to not having a Google+ account growin by perryizgr8 · 2012-07-24 05:38 · Score: 1

weirdly, the same thing is happening to me. the reply button has simply stopped working. maybe only some people are seeing this behavior.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.

This is pushy???????? by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-07-24 05:48 · Score: 1

This is what users are presented with , cut n pasted from Google's own pop-up:

We realize that using your full name isnâ(TM)t for everyone. Maybe people know you by your YouTube username. Perhaps you donâ(TM)t want your name publicly associated with your channel. To continue using your YouTube username, just click âoeI donâ(TM)t want to use my full nameâ when you see the prompt.â

Damn.. thinn skinned ? Gotta find something to hate Google for? Paid FB / Apple / Amazon / M$ shill? I mean, come on.

Why they don't like it by josiebgoode · 2012-07-24 06:30 · Score: 1

This should be applied to people who just click the dislike button. I wander why there are always about 1% of viewers who don't like what they are watching... So why are they watching it? Poor things, they should have a life!

Re:Google - it's *good* for you by icebraining · 2012-07-24 07:18 · Score: 1

So Google asks (yes, because you can just say no) you to use your real name, and they're evil? That word has lost any meaning.

I don't like it either, but let's keep "evil" to actually evil stuff.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

i thought nick by KingBenny · 2012-07-24 11:42 · Score: 1

stopped being a male name right after the birth of the internet when it got its meaning as, well, nick, what's the big deal. If they're gonna push this i'll just have to close it down, like i did with facebook, and with twitter after i had about four accounts suspended in about six hours ... something about asking a jesuit if he did penance for all the rape his order committed during the 'christening' of africa and the south americas among other things ... telling some guy in syria he shouldnt count on help from the u.n. and stuff like that, you know : opinion. If i can't voice it then the channel is not for me. If i can't choose the nick i want then i don't want it. My last fb account had about 20% of people who used their given names, the other all used nicknames, turns out you werent really allowed to do that? No one seemed to care. Stuff like this might actually be beneficial for fledgling social networks. Maybe its part of the strategy where they just try to keep the ones who are least resistant to advertising and most likely to click on the average stuff presented, the stuff that tries to reach as big a chunk of ye olde bell curve as it can. Not for me i tells ya, not for me. I hope i can switch my email on xbl cos i use my google email for one of those accounts. I'll classify this in the nice try but fail shelf then

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?

Re:i thought nick by KingBenny · 2012-07-24 11:59 · Score: 1

slaps me for not using the preview button
i find myself more active on raptr lately, network dedicated solely to gaming, very friendly, and no one bothers if you use a gamertag instead of having yourself adressed as mister this or that (this is not my real name btw, altho i like the sound of it i'm so obscure i dont even check my hotmail without going through a vpn tunnel, and i like it that way ... maybe also cos i'm not the only one using this ip and i wouldnt want to be associated with some of the more nationalist themed visits some others make, maybe cos the router aint secured and i think its very nice to have all my paypal, ebay and other passwords sent through an encrypted tunnel, or maybe i'm just paranoid)

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-24 14:24 · Score: 1

No... it does not.

How so? It exists enough that the average person can't possibly find out who you are unless you've been an imbecile (these people used Google+, so...). Asking someone to reveal their real name just makes things far easier. Surely you agree with that, right? If someone (most likely the government for this example) really wanted to, I'm sure they could invade my privacy by installing surveillance cameras in my bedroom. The fact that that's possible doesn't mean I don't have any privacy at all right now. You're effectively anonymous until you give up your own details (just like you effectively have privacy unless you give it up).

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Re:Privacy Concerns Aside by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-24 14:26 · Score: 1

They're not forcing you to do anything.

Not the point at all. You said that they were helping you. How are they helping you by either forcing you to leave or give up your real name? I don't understand how that is at all helpful. The reason you gave that they're helpful made no sense. If you want to say something on the internet, saying it without giving up your real name is far less dangerous. How are they helping you by attempting to force you to give up your real name on their website?

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Glad I ditched Google+ by assertation · 2012-07-25 03:36 · Score: 1

I'm glad I ditched Google+, kept a separate account for youtube and only used my real first name to get the accounts. I'm also glad that I log out completely when I look at anything remotely sexual.

Given the comments I see on FB I can't say that forcing people to use their real names will improve the quality of comments on youtube.

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by mark-t · 2012-07-28 02:44 · Score: 1

My point is that as soon as you go into public, you've effectively revealed things about yourself that the *ONLY* reason you might remain anonymous (and there's much more to real anonymity than simply knowing your name or personal information) is because the people who might be around you do not have any particular interest in you.... you are, in effect, just a needle in a haystack. And just like any other implementation of security through obscurity, it is far from impregnable.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-28 10:31 · Score: 1

is because the people who might be around you do not have any particular interest in you

That's not necessarily true, either. Again, the only people who have the ability to find out anything about you (assuming you didn't willingly give up information) are people with a lot of resources. And then are plenty of ways to make it even more impossible for normal people to find out who you are (that force them to deal with more than just the ISP).

it is far from impregnable.

It does not need to be impregnable just like privacy doesn't.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by mark-t · 2012-07-29 03:31 · Score: 1

It doesn't take very much resources for somebody who happened to see you at two different places in the same day to go "hey, I saw that person at [X], and later at [Y]". The correlation between those events or locations alone can reveal information about you that you don't ordinarily disclose. Your only protection from this is other people's apathy - something you have *NO* control over, and something you cannot ever rely upon to give you all the anonymity you might want.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:I'm going to take a less than popular position. by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-29 03:49 · Score: 1

It doesn't take very much resources for somebody who happened to see you at two different places in the same day to go "hey, I saw that person at [X], and later at [Y]".

What does this have to do with anonymity on the Internet? No, I'd say normal people both don't have enough resources to find anything about you and are too ignorant to know where to start to begin with. It's simply not feasible for a normal person to be able to find anything out about you unless you've made it too easy for them. And again, this would just make it easy. You are effectively anonymous just like you're effectively private.

Your only protection from this is other people's apathy

Again, pretty much like with privacy. If they have the time and resources, they can get me. Fortunately, I still have privacy.

and something you cannot ever rely upon to give you all the anonymity you might want.

Not all I would want, no, but enough. Enough to know that it's not a good idea to hand out your name.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Re:Money, magsk, money by poofmeisterp · 2012-08-02 07:42 · Score: 1

yes I understand this, if you are not paying for something(the consumer) then you are the product.

My belief was always that google took our general information such as a middle eastern male in 27-28 range lives in upper east side new york and likes fitness and wireless communication etc etc. But they did not associate that info to my personal name. That was what facebook tries to do, and is why i am vehemently against facebook. But now I think google in pursuit of higher profits is trying to force the same thing on its users.

...Or duplicate Facebook's M.O. because hey, it's profitable.

Google is nothing but another company pushing as far as it can to own and control as much as it can (read: make tons of money by taking crap and defining the rules). They'll push and push until they piss some "top dawgs" off, get sued, and the federal government calls them a monopoly. Then they'll create alternate companies to break the monopoly and offshore 'em just for better safety. Then, one day, some new technology will come into being that replaces the excellence of Google's products without infringing on copyrights, patents, etc, and Google will start sliding downhill. The investors in Google will buy some of the new company as a safe measure but stay vested in Google, just in case.

Blah blah, you know the drill.

I'm just waiting for the day when this new technological advancement comes along (I'm thinking something like Watson on steroids) so I can play with it and watch it die. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Oh, and I also await the day Google gets slammed and I can issue the quote, "History repeats itself."

Re:Big Content Requirement? by poofmeisterp · 2012-08-02 08:02 · Score: 1

Too many people online think that "anonymous" = "license to be a complete fuckwad".

s/license/encouragement/

Re:Big Content Requirement? by poofmeisterp · 2012-08-02 08:06 · Score: 1

comments? they have comments there?

% youtube-dl 'url_goes_here'

grabs the file for me just fine.

what - there's more than that? really??

my copies never get taken down, have their formats change, etc. you mean people actually GO to the yt page, in a real browser?

wow.

Yeah, some people made a huge mistake and can't figure out how to get back to a shell prompt:

% exit

They just clicked on that picture thing that looks like a globe or something... Now look at all the trouble they're in.

Slashdot Mirror

Google Wants You to Use Your Real Name on YouTube

406 of 602 comments (clear)