Google Wants You to Use Your Real Name on YouTube

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Wants You to Use Your Real Name on YouTube

Posted by samzenpus on Monday July 23, 2012 @04:30AM from the what's-your-handle dept.

Google has launched a pop-up dialogue box on YouTube that urges you to use your real name when trying to make a comment. From the article: "When you try to comment on a YouTube video, a box will pop up that displays your username as it’s currently seen, along with a side-by-side comparison to what it will look like if you let YouTube pull your name from Google+. You can choose 'I don’t want to use my real name,' but that will lead to another dialogue box that basically guilts you into agreeing. If you still insist on remaining anonymous, you have to tell Google why: 'My channel is for a show or character' or 'My channel name is well-known for other reasons' are two options. 'I want to remain anonymous, is–unsurprisingly–not one."

43 of 602 comments (clear)

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?
1. 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.
2. 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."
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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!
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
9. 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.
10. 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"
11. 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"
12. 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.
13. 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
14. 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)
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.........
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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...
The names Coward... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Anonymous Coward
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.
1. 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.
2. 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!
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
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.
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: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
1. 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
2. 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: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: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...
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 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: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...
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.
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'
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?