Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: Google+ is an identity service (pseudonym vs real name)

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Beans
    0

    Re: Google+ is an identity service (pseudonym vs real name)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grenage View Post
    It's a free service, you don't have to use it. The people who demand that kind of pseudonymity should probably go back to IRC; I have no doubt that's where they came from.
    More than just Google+ is involved in this naming policy -- and more is on the way: http://goo.gl/JCKa9

    So you're saying "just don't use Google at all" rather than criticize its policies?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Beans
    1,406

    Re: Google+ is an identity service (pseudonym vs real name)

    I think they should allow psuedonyms, there isn't any real reason to enforce a "real" name.
    Do not be afraid to joust a giant just because some people insist on believing in windmills.
    Free Moonbase Commander remake @ http://code.google.com/p/tether

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot

    Re: Google+ is an identity service (pseudonym vs real name)

    Quote Originally Posted by tvierling View Post
    More than just Google+ is involved in this naming policy -- and more is on the way: http://goo.gl/JCKa9

    So you're saying "just don't use Google at all" rather than criticize its policies?
    Constructive criticism isn't a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's an entirely optional service. I really don't understand why so many people believe that the internet grants them the right to anonymity (or pseudonyms), it's a service-based option.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Beans
    1,406

    Re: Google+ is an identity service (pseudonym vs real name)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grenage View Post
    Constructive criticism isn't a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's an entirely optional service. I really don't understand why so many people believe that the internet grants them the right to anonymity (or pseudonyms), it's a service-based option.
    As a private company google can do anything they want in regards to allowing/disallowing psuedonyms, likewise since it's an optional service we can choose whether we want to accept their terms to use it. However that doesn't mean people aren't going to have their own opinions on whether or not pseudonyms should be allowed or not, which is what this thread is really talking about.
    Do not be afraid to joust a giant just because some people insist on believing in windmills.
    Free Moonbase Commander remake @ http://code.google.com/p/tether

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot

    Re: Google+ is an identity service (pseudonym vs real name)

    In which case, I am pro 'Real Name'; It's refreshing to have a contact list full of actual people, and not anime characters. I see nothing particularly positive about pseudo-naming.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Beans
    0

    Lightbulb Re: Google+ is an identity service (pseudonym vs real name)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grenage View Post
    In which case, I am pro 'Real Name'; It's refreshing to have a contact list full of actual people, and not anime characters. I see nothing particularly positive about pseudo-naming.
    Your experience doesn't necessarily reflect the experience of others. I did post a link to a list of classes of people affected by the policy (and their reasons why pseudonymity is important to them). http://goo.gl/jAjue

    And to debunk the myth that real names are actually important to increasing the quality of conversation: http://goo.gl/HVtoZ

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot

    Re: Google+ is an identity service (pseudonym vs real name)

    Quote Originally Posted by tvierling View Post
    Your experience doesn't necessarily reflect the experience of others. I did post a link to a list of classes of people affected by the policy (and their reasons why pseudonymity is important to them). http://goo.gl/jAjue

    And to debunk the myth that real names are actually important to increasing the quality of conversation: http://goo.gl/HVtoZ
    Naturally, and I am fully aware of these points. It's entirely a matter of opinion, and this is mine; I prefer real names to pseudo-names.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Beans
    868
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Google+ is an identity service (pseudonym vs real name)

    Quote Originally Posted by MasterNetra View Post
    While normally true, but their are controversial topics you may wish to discuss that could cause issues for rl. Also being anonymous can allow you to make "friends" with other people and discuss controversial topics. The option of anonymity should still be available, there are things that can hurt you irl, what depends on where you are at. Teens for example who may of became atheists and live in a strict or crazy christian home would want to be able to socialize and discuss various topics that would cause trouble at home. Facebook is a large medium. It should still be available for those who need or want it.

    Facebook for a while didn't have much in terms of filtering posts. Even at what it has its a pain in the nuts, they need it so that you can select for your friend list and prehaps have it to where you can select friend Groups.
    This makes complete sense. Thing is Facebook and most social networks are not designed for that purpose. Facebook is not a means for Atheists to find eachother. Social networks is like a dating service. The whole point is so people get to know you. If you're using Facebook, you are talking to friends, family and meeting new people around your area to socialize with. There are plenty of other places where Atheists can get together, or other particular groups can get together. Other more secure place.

    Quote Originally Posted by tvierling View Post
    Riiiight. Because if a topic is sensitive, we shouldn't seek out others who sympathize with that topic; we should instead bury our heads in the sand and be alone.

    Sounds awfully anti-"social" to me.

    While we're at it, feel free to have a bunch of my personal information (as more examples of the type of info that could hurt people if attached to their real names). http://goo.gl/sJOIV
    That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you shouldn't do that on Facebook or other similar social networks that have the same means. As I've already described. Facebook is not designed for that, neither is Google+ or other social networks. If you want to talk about sensitive topics and find people who sympathize about the topic, if you live in a place where you are monitored or are not allowed to talk about those topics in the open (like social networks) then there are plenty of other places to talk about those as I mention below. Facebook and social networks wouldn't even be as easy to find people who sympathize with you in comparison to other places which may be more specific on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grenage View Post
    It's a free service, you don't have to use it. The people who demand that kind of pseudonymity should probably go back to IRC; I have no doubt that's where they came from.
    Like this; is a good point. There are other forums, social areas, IRC you can join if you want anonymity. These specific social things are not designed to interact as your real self and real name. Matter of fact you're required an alias in most of them. Facebook is not the place and this is a good point, if you want that type of anonymity, you shouldn't be on Facebook.


    So basically what I'm saying is, to sum it up. Social networks are designed to interact and share things with people as yourself. You can avoid any trouble if you're in a place where it's valid to be paranoid by not posting anything you don't want everyone to be able to see, and not accept people as friends that you don't trust with your information. If you wish to do either of those two things, without people knowing who you are, there are other services that exist on the internet that are much stronger, or actually designed for that. I'm sure some people may have made separate anonymous accounts on Facebook and managed to find/make groups to talk about things without disclosing who they are. That's fine. But that's because although Facebook doesn't intend it, it doesn't block it either. Google+ on the other hand, does block it. Because they want it used for that specific purpose. Eric Scmidt said it himself. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. It's designed for a purpose and people seem to be crying about the fact that they can't use it for other purposes.
    Intel Core i7 970 6/12 (Cores/Threads) 3.2GHz 12MB Cache
    6GB DDR3
    1866MHz RAM | ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB GDDR5
    60GB SSD
    (/) | 1TB 64MB Cache HDD (/home)
    Ubuntu Oneiric
    Ocelot 11.10 x64

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Beans
    0

    Re: Google+ is an identity service (pseudonym vs real name)

    Quote Originally Posted by akand074 View Post
    So basically what I'm saying is, to sum it up. Social networks are designed to interact and share things with people as yourself.
    This is the root of the fallacy. People are defined by their actions, not their names.* So what is "social networking" if it prevents people from socializing freely?

    The professional networking market is where real names are most apropos. But then, people don't go to professional networks to socialize.

    (* ObCheesyMovieReference: http://goo.gl/HPwTM )

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Beans
    868
    Distro
    Ubuntu Development Release

    Re: Google+ is an identity service (pseudonym vs real name)

    Quote Originally Posted by tvierling View Post
    This is the root of the fallacy. People are defined by their actions, not their names.* So what is "social networking" if it prevents people from socializing freely?

    The professional networking market is where real names are most apropos. But then, people don't go to professional networks to socialize.

    (* ObCheesyMovieReference: http://goo.gl/HPwTM )
    Your missing the point. It doesn't prevent people from socializing freely. Discussing things you need anonymity for isn't "socializing". Every single person on my facebook account is either a friend, a family member, or someone I went to school or work with. Why would I put a fake name to talk to those people? They know who I am. And the point is to share things, like pictures and things about my life with them. It's not about having debates and discussions over things. I talk through an IM over that. The worst thing is when people are filling up walls and pictures having needless discussions. It's not the place for it. There's nothing not free about that. Even with your arguments as to why anonymity (or pseudonymity) can be necessary is for such a small minority. Especially in free, developed worlds. Those arguments are not strong because those are not specific to the online social networking world. They are problems that exist within that establishment universally and all you're trying to do is circumvent them in one place, which by all means, is not even very effective. A pseudonym won't hide you from anyone who is actually going out of their way to find out who you are.
    Intel Core i7 970 6/12 (Cores/Threads) 3.2GHz 12MB Cache
    6GB DDR3
    1866MHz RAM | ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB GDDR5
    60GB SSD
    (/) | 1TB 64MB Cache HDD (/home)
    Ubuntu Oneiric
    Ocelot 11.10 x64

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •