It seems pretty unnecessary to call such people liars. Surely they know their own minds better than you.
Anyhow, it is not too difficult to understand the “write for yourself” aesthetic, if you are willing to make the effort. I think Jane Espenson describes it best: http://www.janeespenson.com/archives/00000619.php
This is very hard for non-nerds. Imagine simply not knowing what Github is, or why you would look there, or having no concept that "Java EE backed by Oracle" is a different beast than "Ruby/Rails in front of PostGres". Imagine if one of your golf buddies knows a guy who knows a guy who is really "good at computers" -- whatever that means -- after all, that guy completely turned around their dot-net application and the seven VB developers in his department.
You've heard of Oracle, right? Microsoft? They're big. You own their stock. You know Linux is hot! Should you take the chance? Ask your nerd friends, like that guy you know who is an MCSE at a "Certified Solutions Provider." He'll know.
Simply knowing who to ask is a matter of chance, I think.
I simply cannot understand how Google can be so short sighted about this. The simple questions: what about an in-the-closet gay teen? or what about a domestic violence survivor? should make their whole stack of cards fall down.
They should have thought these things themselves. In fact, they should have been so obvious that this conversation would be unimaginable.
"He also says they are working on ways to handle pseudonyms, but that will be a while before the team can turn on those features"
I don't understand. Wouldn't the implementation of this "feature" just boil down to not deleting or disabling people's accounts when they sign up with a pseudonym?
I just don't see why this would take so much effort to do. I really don't see why implementing this particular feature would take all of the effort and energy that they seem to be indicating.
Google wants data. That's the main benefit that they get out of having a social network, is getting access to a new data source with a different type of data than what they currently have. They want your real name so they can aggregate this data with other data sources, including external ones (think CRM).
When they say they want to handle pseudonyms, they don't mean letting you put a pseudonym into your name field. They still want your real name. What they mean is, the system will require your real name but let you display one (or more!) pseudonyms. In fact, advanced pseudonym management is probably on their roadmap. By letting you display different aliases to different users or circles, Google will be able to associate your various online identities.
Google is more sophisticated than that. They've been tracking your identity in searches for years. They know what you search for, what you read and what you buy. That's all the identity they need for their ad business. Name? Meh.
You nailed it. While promises are made, accounts get suspended (we read about the Firefox founder here, I don't quite dare to mention myself in that company..).
IF there'll be changes to the policy (and i hope that's the case), why would you alienate people today by suspending them for offenses (..) that might be okay tomorrow?
The anonymity goes both ways: people might avoid bullying, but they can also avoid accountability for bullying. Also, spam is probably a big deal already. And, since there are already hundreds of "Darth Vader" accounts, it doesn't seem like their automatic defenses are very effective.
people might avoid bullying, but they can also avoid accountability for bullying
This argument is nonsensical unless there is an actual, consequential penalty for violating the "real names" policy. (Which would, of course, be even more of a monumental disaster.)
Suppose you are a troll or a sockpuppet or a spammer and you want to screw around on a Google website. Well, the fact that you're not allowed to call yourself "LadyAda" or "Lady Gaga" or, for that matter, "mechanical_fish" is no problem. You can just call yourself "John Smith". Or "Steven P. Jobs" or "George W. Bush", for that matter. It's not hard to fake a real name. And there's no meaningful penalty for doing so, even if you get caught. Most likely Google will just delete your account. No big loss for a troll. New accounts are just a click away.
Now, if you are LadyAda or Lady Gaga or mechanical_fish, Google's policy is a problem, because you've spent a certain amount of time building up your pseudonym. It has a history and you're identified with it and you've bought the domain names and given the press interviews and written years worth of blogs and opened some businesses and built up a ten-million-strong international fan club who comes to all your concerts. Gaga doesn't want to sign up as "John Smith" or anything else, because it will literally cost her money not to sign up with her chosen name, "Lady Gaga".
This argument is nonsensical unless there is an actual, consequential penalty for violating the "real names" policy.
It need not be administered by Google. If Ivan Identity is being publicly belligerent, then social opprobrium is the likely result. Use of his real identity gives him an incentive to uphold his own reputation. This does not guarantee that he will respond to such an incentive, but does make it easier for people to respond to his misbehavior when he acts badly.
I'm entirely familiar with the value of a pseudonym, having used this one for well over a decade now. But if you want to leverage it as a brand, then do so on commercial terms, is my feeling.
Strange that Facebook didn't think of that, either, no? But I think Google should allow it anyway, because it would be a strategic advantage over Facebook. The more "privacy" related benefits Google+ has over Facebook, the better.
Mention one time to your boss that you believe you're very underpaid. Then, don't say it again. If a raise doesn't come, start looking for a better paying job. When you find one, put in your notice, be professional, but don't take the counter offer. It seldom works out.
I dunno. I was out of work for a year once and then settled for a few years of staggering underemployment. I even came to believe that I would never again be hired as a developer, that no company would look at me, that my resume was too weak and I'd never get past human resources. It got really depressing.
Then I met a guy who knew a guy, and they got me back on track. Now I have a very nice job with a very nice company where I do amazing work (if I may say so). So anyhow, there are eight million stories in the naked city. This guy's story sounds like my story. I wish him luck.
Anyhow, it is not too difficult to understand the “write for yourself” aesthetic, if you are willing to make the effort. I think Jane Espenson describes it best: http://www.janeespenson.com/archives/00000619.php