Google+, the pseudonym banstick, and the netizen cultural schism. « point7. As we all know by now, Google+ has a policy of only using real names (real world identities) in profiles. And they’re enforcing that policy with a big lumpy banstick. This is causing much angst, a lot of gnashing of teeth. However it seems that the technorati, as well as the Googlers (and Facebook before them) are unmoved by the arguments, and sincerely puzzled by the outcry. What’s the big deal? Just create another profile, for crying out loud. The big deal is that we are having an identity related clash of values, I think, between two very different kinds of heavily engaged online people: Integrated Identity: These are people who live online and offline with the same personality (including the Technorati because in fact their unified identity is their bread and butter), andSeparate Identities: people who keep their online and offline worlds quite separate, not for duplicitous reasons but because they are in many ways two people; the online person and the offline person.
Like this: Miscellany: Pseudonyms vs. Autonyms. Recently there's been a controversy concerning Google's "Google+" social network. It seems that Google is actively enforcing a policy of using "real names" on the service. To quote from the published justification: Google services support three different types of use when it comes to your identity: unidentified, pseudonymous, identified. Google Profiles is a product that works best in the identified state. This way you can be certain you’re connecting with the right person, and others will have confidence knowing that there is someone real behind the profile they’re checking out.
Google says they support three types of identities, but for Google Profiles "identified" ones (shown to be the same as on state-issued documents) work best. This rationale is clearly very weak. The use of the word "pseudonym" by both Google and the (innocent) victims of their policy to describe the name they are using, is, I believe revelatory of the source of the problem and needs to be cleared up.
Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy? This page lists groups of people who are disadvantaged by any policy which bans Pseudonymity and requires so-called "Real names" (more properly, legal names). Often theses policies attempt to reduce or eliminate the veil behind which online bullying, harrassment, and stalking can occur. However, there are unintended consequences to anti-pseudonymity policies. This article is an attempt to create a comprehensive list of groups of people who are affected by such policies. The cost to these people can be vast, including: harassment, both online and offline discrimination in employment, provision of services, etc.
The groups of people who use pseudonyms, or want to use pseudonyms, are not a small minority (some of the classes of people who can benefit from pseudonyms constitute up to 50% of the total population, and many of the others are classes of people that almost everyone knows). Marginalised and endangered groups Edit People with direct identity concerns Subject-related considerations. Does Google+ hate women? « Bug Girl’s Blog. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Peter Steiner's cartoon, as published in The New Yorker History[edit] In response to the comic's popularity, he stated, "I can't quite fathom that it's that widely known and recognized".[1] Context[edit] The cartoon marks a notable moment in the history of the Internet.
Once the exclusive domain of government engineers and academics, the Internet was now a subject of discussion in general interest magazines like The New Yorker. The cartoon symbolizes an understanding of Internet privacy that stresses the ability of users to send and receive messages in general anonymity. Influences[edit] The Apple Internet suite Cyberdog was named after this cartoon.[14] See also[edit] References[edit] ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Fleishman, Glenn (December 14, 2000).
Further reading[edit] Jones, Christopher R. (2004). External links[edit] Google Plus: Deleted, not suspended. Google Plus accounts are supposed to be under an identifiable name, so people who know you know who they're talking to. It doesn't necessarily have to be the name on your ID -- there are examples like someone whose ID says Thomas going by Tom instead -- but it should be the name that family, friends, co-workers, know you by.
Since 2001, I've been azurelunatic on the internet. It's the name I use with everyone I'm approaching with the intent of friendship (as opposed to co-workers, who I have to work with whether or not I actually become friends with them, so I'm rather more careful there), and the name I most often use when I don't need to produce ID to say who I am. I'm not as uncomplicated as people like skud (who links legal name and common name, and answers to Skud from friends and co-workers alike) and rising (who is Rowan Thunder just about everywhere but on his ID). I started hearing tell of people with non-standard names getting suspended. rising. metaphorge. skud. cz_unit. Skud | More comments on Google+ and names. Mirrored from Infotropism. You can comment there or here. I’ve been seeing a lot of the same things get asked/said repeatedly so I thought I’d cover a few of them here.
“Why not just change your Google+ name to Kirrily Robert? That would get your account reinstated.” Honestly, if Google’s support people tell me that’s what I need to do, I will do so. If I do change my Google+ name to Kirrily Robert, I will (presumably) get my account back, but I won’t use it much any more. “You knowingly violated the TOS, what did you expect?” Sort of. So yeah, I knew I would probably have my account suspended. My goals were, firstly, to help highlight the problems with the policy, and secondly, to test out and document the processes around it. “People are losing access to all their Google services when their account is suspended!” A lot of people are talking about this so I wanted to address it. Some other considerations: The last point is an important one. “Their service, their rules.” Skud | I’ve been suspended from Google+ Mirrored from Infotropism. You can comment there or here. So, just to backtrack and fill everyone in on the details: I’ve been a strong advocate of pseudonymity for a considerable time.
Hacker News and pseudonymity is a good example of my writing on the subject, from June last year. The startup I worked for was acquired by Google in July 2010. I left Google last Friday, July 15th, one year after the acquisition. Viral shows off his home-made "I know Skud" button, on my second-last day at Google So today, I got off a plane this afternoon to find a pile of tweets, emails, and blog comments asking whether it was true that my Google+ account had been suspended. I know there’s a lot of people wondering what happens when you get suspended, so here is my experience so far. Gmail works fine, I can check my email.
When I click on “+Skud” in my Google toolbar (top left), it takes me to Google+, and I can see my stream, and that 16 new people are following me. Your profile is suspended. Suspended Google+ Accounts. Reddragdiva | How to back up your Google stuff BEFORE they lock your account. You get up tomorrow and log into GMail. You can't get in. Your account is locked. Your mail, calendar, documents — all gone. What do you do now? Remember that Google has no customer service, even for paying customers. I keep a regular backup of my GMail. Ideological_cuddle for the tipoff). Using it on Ubuntu or Debian is absurdly simple: sudo apt-get install offlineimapSet up a ~/.offlineimaprc file cut'n'pasted from this one, with your own username and password. offlineimap This will create a folder with all your mail in it, in maildir format (plain text, one message per file). GMail's IMAP interface is subtly broken, to the point where it can crash offlineimap. GMail is still the best email interface I've ever used, and I wish Thunderbird would just get the hint and clone it to the last detail.
I haven't tried this on a Mac or Windows. For other Google services, you can get your data from Google Takeout. Firecat | Community Standards: A Comparison of Dreamwidth and Google+ I know that Google+ and Dreamwidth are very different services, and that there's no particular need for people to choose only one of them. But when I saw this post I was inspired to do a similar comparison. Standards: A Comparison of Facebook vs. Google+" Identification Dreamwidth:You need to choose a username to use the service, but it needs bear no relationship to any other name you might use.
You are required to provide a Display Name, but there are no restrictions on what is in the Display Name field, other than the general restrictions mentioned in the Terms of Service. This quote is from the FAQ about changing your journal's username. our username restrictions: 25 or fewer characters with letters, numbers, and hyphens (-) only, with the first and last characters of the username being letters and numbers only. You can create an account that is a community, which can be posted to by more than one person.
Community Policing. Pseudo ou vrai nom ? De l'impact des normes sociales sur les réseaux sociaux. Designing for Social Norms (or How Not to Create Angry Mobs) In his seminal book “Code”, Larry Lessig argued that social systems are regulated by four forces: 1) the market; 2) the law; 3) social norms; and 4) architecture or code. In thinking about social media systems, plenty of folks think about monetization. Likewise, as issues like privacy pop up, we regularly see legal regulation become a factor. And, of course, folks are always thinking about what the code enables or not. But it’s depressing to me how few people think about the power of social norms. In fact, social norms are usually only thought of as a regulatory process when things go terribly wrong.
And then they’re out of control and reactionary and confusing to everyone around. We’ve seen this with privacy issues and we’re seeing this with the “real name” policy debates. Good UX designers know that they have the power to shape certain kinds of social practices by how they design systems. How a new social media system rolls out is of critical importance. Le Droit au Pseudonyme.