Slashdot Mirror
Pseudonyms Now Allowed On Google+
An anonymous reader writes When Google+ launched, it received criticism across the internet for requiring that users register with their real names. Now, Google has finally relented and removed all restrictions on what usernames people are allowed to use. The company said, "We know you've been calling for this change for a while. We know that our names policy has been unclear, and this has led to some unnecessarily difficult experiences for some of our users. For this we apologize, and we hope that today's change is a step toward making Google+ the welcoming and inclusive place that we want it to be."
I see the only major impact of this being that people can now leave pseudonymous comments on Youtube again.
"Now that our pseudonym to single user identity resolution algorithm is reasonably accurate, go right ahead and make up a fake name."
Now Google+ is sure to become the popular destination it's always been destined to be! I'm going to go on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and Reddit and Tumblr and a site with Disqus and tell everyone it's time for Google+! Then I'll pull down my pants and tell all my friends on SnapChat!
The number of stalkers, kidnappers, and identity thefts just got slashed by them allowing fake names. It's about damn time. Jesus, Abraham Lincoln, and Hitler posted a comment on my Google+ page that they're very happy with the change as well.
I spent more time than I care to admit going through the list of "People You May Know" and removing variations of "Thor Odinson", "Loki Laufeyson", "Kili Oakenshield", etc. What exactly will this decision change?
That'll fix'em.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
- The news Story = " removed all restrictions on what usernames people are allowed to use"
- So i clicked "Edit your name:"
- I enter "4D", in the name field
Result = "Please fill in the name fields."
Garbage news for a garbage product. Did any of the devs even think to "test it"?
Yes,
Unnecessarily difficult, because google either already knows who you are (via some other registered service(s) i.e. Adwords etc) or will link in a relationship to your choosen "Pseudonym" to your real name, web history and other online events later on anyway.
So yeah google, what a stupid idea.
I knew if I told google to fuck off, they would listen to me!
Doesn't mean I want to be on G+ any more now than I did a year ago when I was "banned".
I haven't even noticed that pseudonyms were ever banned. Are you telling me the guy I talked with the other day wasn't the *actual* Adolf Hitler!?
Ezekiel 23:20
nice gesture, but its too late now.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
When all is said and done, what difference does it make? All you had to do before was make up a name that looked real, such as Rufus T. Firefly.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Yo!
Actually, "Anonymous Coward for the WIN!" should be the headline of this story.
having to use real names has made it far less trollish then other places.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Google+ allows a custom URL.
When I registered my business for Google Places (now part of Google My Business) it had an "easy" way to get on Google+, so I set it up as part of my profile.
Then a few weeks later, they sent me an email saying I was preapproved for a custom G+ URL. It was not editable, and included the city of my business in it. So it ended up being around 40-45 characters long.
I tried to change it, but it seems it is not possible. The one I want appears to be available. Its 11 characters long, and the same as my business' twitter handle, and FB URL.
Why can't we change the custom URL!?
Whistleblowing, witness protection, for example. For most other cases anonymity degenerates into a cesspool of behavior that is not accepted in normal society. See every unmoderated anonymous internet forum ever.
Using real identities can vastly improve internet behavior. For example, a forum I frequent recently switched from anonymous posting to Facebook accounts. Overnoght the forum changed from endless spam and trolling to respectful discourse between actual people.
Miles O'Toole, Mike Hawke, Man-hung Long, Hubicha Kokov and Hugh G. Rection join me in applauding this long-overdue initiative.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Restore the glory of the Internet? You mean to go back to a time when most people posted on Usenet with their real name and email address as their signature? The time when even political discussions were civilized?
From my point of view, anonymity was the worst thing that happened to the Internet.
When I attempt to go to Plus, it still says my account is flagged for name violation...apparently, it's not fixed for those already so-flagged.
The Digital Sorceress
Maybe next they can begin allowing you to post reviews anonymously again from your main account. I use google+ quite a bit and post using my full name but I don't want a restaurant I frequent or my tire change place to see my full name in my reviews. I haven't posted a review since the removal of public facing anonymity.
I have a google account and a youtube account(which got "upgraded" to google+ at some point). I didn't see any reason to link those together.
Then a some point I clicked on the wrong button when logging on to youtube and I got another google+ account.
When I realized what had happened, I removed the association to the google+ account again.
Some time later I tried to associate the youtube account to my original google account but that isn't possible anymore and because of my attempts, I ended up with another 2 google+ accounts.
I tried to follow different guides and videos on how to associate youtube with my original google account but that isn't possible anymore. By reading different guides, it seems like that might have been possible at some point.
I can understand why they are trying to get rid of all the idiotic anonymous comments, but it has not helped. :)
I can now finally get a Google+ account and do ratings on Android apps...
Too bad it's a few years too late... Had google offered this when they launched Google+ they might have actually become a decent competitor to facebook. Now it's too late.
"Google+ is still around??" - everyone on slashdot
az0
How horrible it is when people can say controversial things without people and employers holding it against them for all time. Privacy and anonymity are awful!
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Google+ is still requiring me to use a first last name so I don't know if this is something coming down the pipeline or what.
You want, of course, to block all email from pseudonyms.
Where Google can wear their ass hats and kiss mine goodbye.
Everyone is chatting about it on Twitter and Facebook!
#DeleteChrome
How do you know whether those were their "real name"? I knew a guy who once got interviewed for a newspaper, and they reported his name exactly as written; Tsu Dho Nimh.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
The real name policy had rules that excluded people's real names. Now that the rules for what constitutes a real name don't matter everyone can be sure that their real names won't be excluded.
With "say controversial things" you mean trolling?
Is that seriously the only thing you can think of? Take controversial topics like child porn, pedophilia, etc. Get on the 'wrong' side of an argument and you may find yourself the target of an angry mob - perhaps literally.
Don't you think life would be better for you if you could assume who you are and what you think instead of having to hide and having to be a hypocrite?
Don't you think life would be better if the world was perfect? Well, it isn't. You risk not being hired, being fired, losing many opportunities, and being harassed by the government. You also chase away people who don't want any of the things I just listed to happen to them. Maybe you expect people to just ignore all that, but the fact is, people don't. Some people change and convince themselves that they're being themselves, even when they're not. I don't want to hang out with fake people.
Besides, I like my privacy. I like knowing that it's difficult to tie many things to me.
Do you like it when people lie to you in order to obtain some kind of friendship from you?
No, that's why I like anonymity.
But my guess is you never posted anything which could justify it.
You base this on nothing. And since when is this just about me? I'm more afraid of others ceasing to produce insightful and thought provoking content, all in the name of stopping "trolling," something that only thin-skinned people have trouble dealing with anyway.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
From my point of view, anonymity was the worst thing that happened to the Internet.
no. it was massification, sadly. it's a bitter irony and it doesn't look like universal access (duh) will make us globally smarter anytime soon as it should have done, and we thought it would do.
i've been on the "net" since even before internet, and never ever used my real name, anywhere, nor did most of the people i met. some did. i also never saw a reason to put my personal email address on usenet for everyone to collect. what for? i just shared it with people i wanted to exchange email with.
There was much rejoicing among the Google+ users! All 6 of them!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I disagree.
I think what needs to happen is forums need to charge for people to post. A penny a post.
I think that will remove a lot of trolls right there.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"For this we apologize, and we hope that today's change is a step toward making Google+ the welcoming and inclusive place..."
Neither here nor there, but this is the kind of language companies usually use just after being spanked for discriminatory-like* practices.
* "Can't have my name attached to a post about controversial topic X in the current political climate whilst keeping my day job -> excluded from the service -> more controversial ideological groups more excluded -> discrimination!" ...I wonder if someone's trying to scratch up a case to this effect...
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Just a heads up; it does indeed display the period. So mono-names are still second class citizens...
i think one of two things happened, here. first is that it might have finally sunk in to google that even just *claiming* to have properly verified user identities leaves them open to lawsuits should they fail to have properly carried out the verification checks that other users *believe* they have carried out. every other service people *know* that you don't trust the username: for a service to claim that they have truly verified the identity of the individual behind the username is reprehensibly irresponsible.
second is that they simply weren't getting enough people, so have quotes opened up the doors quotes.
Google+ was trying to be a social network, and one of Google's execs (I think Eric?) also described it as an "identity service", which is something advertisers may want but slightly fewer than zero readers and writers actually wanted. No Facebook kill here, even if it does stick around longer than Orkut (which mainly took off because John Perry Barlow gave a bunch of invites to friends in Brazil, and Brazilians thought it was a great service for gossip.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Me FTW!
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Damn, I wish I'd thought of that.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
...says the Anonymous Coward.
(No, the irony is not lost on me, either.)
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Almost everywhere online, I use a pseudonym. (Slashdot is an exception because I set up this account so long ago.) I don't want my Twitter/blog/etc accounts associated with my real name so I refused to use Google+. (I set up a Google+ Page with my pseudonym, but that's a pain because you can only follow people who first follow you.) I know some people had switched to pseudonyms, but I didn't want to risk losing my entire Google account over it. Now that they are allowing pseudonyms, I might start using Google+ again.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I have a unique name IRL, but I never thought using it was a problem because while I did have discussions online, I made a point to not say anything controversial or trollish. If only my own intentions were what mattered, right? A woman on Buzzfeed didn't think so. She disagreed with me, but disagreeing wasn't enough. She looked up where I worked and sent messages to my company saying that I was saying disgusting things on the internet. I got called into the HR to notify me about this. I didn't get in trouble, of course, because I never said anything "disgusting".
But it did get me thinking about who would be so petty as to pull real life and real reputations into an online discussion where my arguement should be my words and not whether I'd stake my job on it.
I don't know about you, but I don't go around my office discussing politics, sex, religion, or any polarizing topics. My opinions on those are something I try to keep separate from my professional relationships. My personality isn't defined by my opinions on topical subjects; I don't find myself to be hypocritical for not announcing my views to everyone I know. The aforementioned type of person, is someone who doesn't understand this. Someone who can't comprehend that not sharing does not mean lying. Someone who believes this so deeply that they take it upon themselves to "expose the truth" as a selfless act to save others.
This actually sounds a lot like you. I make a point to stay away from people like you.
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
Pretty much that. I can understand the ACs position but I guess I consider youtube to be a less formal environment. I like the idea of certain settings linking to my true identity and others allowing me a little anonymity. Pushing me into the spotlight for all my interactions in google owned properties just got to feel too intrusive and uncomfortable to me... especially as those properties expand and continue to make up more and more of my online life.
My problem with the real name policy wasn't using my real name on Google+. When I had a Facebook account, I used my real name there.
My problem with the real name policy was that if you used Google+, it would retroactively change all your OTHER Google services to use your real name. Half of the people I use my GMail account to communicate with don't actually know my real name. Now, of course, I could get a Google+ account and continue using the same name I've been using on my GMail account for years.
Except that I don't actually use GMail anymore.
At the time, Google+ was sucking up other Google services and forcibly integrating them. I didn't see why GMail would be an exception to that in the long run and I wanted nothing to do with it.
So it's great that they've removed the real name policy and are no longer agressively integrating their other services into it, but...
Too little, too late. I've already left.
I held off on selecting a custom user name as I knew this day would come. That said, is this active for all accounts? The post didn't say it was being rolled out over the coming days/weeks. When you go to Profit - About - Get URL you cannot select any name. Am I missing something here?
FAQ still has old details: https://support.google.com/plus/answer/2676340?hl=en&topic=2400106
Eric S. Raymond is crying in his beer about his "hotgirl69" problem.
Fuck'em.
--
BMO
This does not really make any difference if you use any other google services like gmail.
I want my real name to show up as my gmail "from" address. But I want to use a pseudonym on the G+ profile. This pseudonym is one given to me by my friends but It does not make sense to have it on gmail or anywhere other than G+.
In a way its a win for facebook. Since they are a different service and I don't use that account for any other services I can use whatever name over there.
I guess I can always create a separate account for G+ vs Gmail. But that's too much hassle.
And it still wants a date of birth and a gender (to create an account). If I am using an alias I am not going to provide either of those (the persona that I just created doesn't have a DOB or a gender).
So, it is still useless and I won't be signing up.
"What names are allowed on Facebook? [...] The name you use should be your real name as it would be listed on your credit card, driver's license or student ID" https://www.facebook.com/help/...
It's easy to say that when you're not at risk for harassment. Internet can and does spill over into real life, and many people in marginalized groups or politically-oppressive areas do not feel safe posting under their real names.
Implementing a real name policy, therefore, has the effect of silencing many voices of women, minorities, and people in politically-oppressive regimes.
I don't believe for a moment that it has a significant impact on trollish behavior.
People were using them anyhow, regardless of the policy. Welcome to the real world...
That wasn't actually what I was referring to.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Restore the glory of the Internet? You mean to go back to a time when most people posted on Usenet with their real name and email address as their signature? The time when even political discussions were civilized?
What time was this? Because flamewars are as old as Usenet. I agree there's more garbage with anonymity, but let's not pretend it was some kind of utopia.