You know my name!
Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
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.
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.
Miscellany: Pseudonyms vs. Autonyms
Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy? - Geek Feminism Wiki
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). 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). However, their needs are often ignored by the relatively privileged designers and policy-makers who want people to use their real/legal names. Marginalised and endangered groups
Ok, that title is way over the top to get your attention.* BUT . I do want to talk about what the “no pseudonyms” policy adopted at G+ means for women, LGBT folk, and civil servants. There are many, many resources that can explain to Google why adopting this policy is a stupid idea (aside from the obvious business advantage of not alienating early adopters and potential G+ evangelists). One of the best can be found at the Geek Feminism Wiki : That page goes on to list, in detail, the various ways that these groups can be harmed.
Does Google+ hate women? « Bug Girl’s Blog
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog " is an adage which began as the caption of a cartoon by Peter Steiner published by The New Yorker on July 5, 1993. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] The cartoon features two dogs: one sitting on a chair in front of a computer, speaking the caption to a second dog sitting on the floor. [ 2 ] [ 3 ] As of 2000 [update] , the panel was the most reproduced cartoon from The New Yorker , and Steiner has earned over US $ 50,000 from its reprinting. [ 1 ] [ 4 ] [ edit ] History
azurelunatic: 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
Honestly, if Google’s support people tell me that’s what I need to do, I will do so. They have not yet told me that I need to do that. I’m playing dumb for now, and seeing how it plays out, because I’m interested in the review/appeal process. 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.
skud | More comments on Google+ and names
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. During the time I was at Google, Google was working on the project that would become Google+. I was not involved directly in that project, but I did try to keep myself informed of their planned policies regarding pseudonymity, and advocated strongly in favour of Google+ allowing it. Obviously, that advocacy wasn’t successful.
skud | I’ve been suspended from Google+
You get up tomorrow and log into GMail. You can't get in. Your account is locked. Your mail, calendar, documents — all gone.
reddragdiva | How to back up your Google stuff BEFORE they lock your account.
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. 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. (You can use punctuation, numbers, professional titles, etc.)À l’occasion de la sortie de Google Plus, on a beaucoup évoqué la question de l’identité numérique via le choix, imposé ou non, du pseudo ou du vrai nom (lire par exemple l’article d’Owni Google Plus, la dictature des vrais noms ). Dans l’article ci-dessous, traduit par Clochix [ 1 ] , l’influente Danah Boyd nous rappelle l’impact, souvent non prévisibles, des normes sociales dans la direction et les usages d’une plateforme Web communautaire telle qu’un réseau social [ 2 ] . Elle affirme ainsi : « Les normes sociales ne font pas partie du logiciel. Elles n’apparaissent pas en expliquant aux gens comment ils doivent se comporter. Les normes sociales apparaissent lorsque les utilisateurs comprennent comment une technologie a du sens et s’intègre dans leur vie.
Pseudo ou vrai nom ? De l'impact des normes sociales sur les réseaux sociaux - Framablog
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.