[tweetmeme source=”franscomputerservices” only_single=false]And other Google+ users who might soon be wondering where I went…
EDIT 9/6/2011: In the comments, I continue to add articles. I hope to have this be a pretty inclusive list of articles on this issue. If you know of one I have missed please feel free to leave a comment with the link. Thanks!
I have found that as much as I absolutely love Google+ the ‘social network’ — now known to be an ‘identity service’, I am leaving on 9/9 along with some others that have identified 9/9 as the day to leave. Hopefully it will have some impact even if it’s only a small overall number of users. But more than anything, I hope it will have a lasting impression regardless on how dangerous ‘identity services’ appearing to be ‘social networks’ can be.
Google has determined that Google+ aka Google Plus or G+ is to be an ‘identity service’ and that Google/Google+ require your real/common name not a pseudonym, pen name, stage name but only western style two name real/common names apparently.
Some may say so what. But others will know that this is a major issue and has been since Facebook started this trend. Here‘s my Google+ posting on this and this one reshared from Tom Anderson both which will be gone after 9/9.
Not to mention the fact that Google+ is linked to things like your GMail account, Google Search, Picasa, Youtube, Google maps/location data, Android apps purchases, and so much more — and even more of Google’s offerings as time goes on (and boy do they have a lot of social types of offerings or apps). And if you don’t like that and decide to leave G+, you are prompted to remove all, what they call connections to their ‘social apps’ linked to your G+ GMail account.
“Just go somewhere else” is a fallacy. The name policy stretches far beyond Google+, and here’s why. (Todd Vierling on Google+)
Here’s just a couple early articles the weekend when Google started arbitrarily disabling accounts:
Google+ and the loss of online anonymity by Matthew Ingram (GigaOm)
Update: Complaints mount over Google+ account deletions by Juan Carlos Perez (Computerworld)
Dutch researcher downloads 35 million Google Profiles (State of Search)
So what’s the big deal? First, it’s a great security risk for users. Especially normal/average users since many business users already have their ‘real’ name out there and it’s part of their branding. I actually am one who has done just that. Fran Parker is Fran’s Computer Services and this posting is on my Fran’s Computer Services blog. And technically Fran Parker is a common variation on my real name, but that is ‘allowable’ on G+ because it is how I am commonly known. Also, there is some arbitrariness about it all too. If disabled users can ‘prove’ who they are, or can ‘prove’ that they have a ‘valid’ reason for allowing the ‘pseudonym’ to those at Google/G+ who handle complaints or vetting of those who want to try to get reinstated, you can be back in their good graces.
However I am leaving Google+ — and don’t get me wrong — it would certainly benefit me to stay on G+ and let their new service benefit my business networking online. Instead, I am leaving Google+.
My name is Clo | My Name Is Me
My name is Albatross | My Name Is Me
Why? I am leaving because Google has decided to build G+ as an identity service — in some ways like Facebook, but not really since G+ is a public profile server — yes, you can hide nearly everything but your public posts or responses to public posts, your +1 (think: Facebook Like), AND you can’t hide your real/common name because they make that public — and Google has changed the rules on their services so they can now link you, by name, and even by what you put in the field for ‘also known as’, or ‘nicknames’ field, on every one of their services and boy do they have a lot of services. And if you don’t believe me, try this. Especially if you are a member of Google+, search on your name, particularly your Google+ profile name.
Will cyberthugs exploit Google Plus ‘identity service’ for spear phishing attacks? by Darlene Storm (Computerworld)
What’s the big deal, you say? Oh, nothing much accept that by doing this, they have made each and every one of us a bigger phishing, actually more like spear phishing, and/or unethical hacking/cracking target by linking everything we do or say online. For business users whose names are linked to their branding, they live with that day in and day out and it’s a major pain, but they made that decision to deal with that consciously at some point. But the average user? I don’t think the average or normal user needs or wants those types of hassles. OK, so maybe you say, So what? It’s a greater security risk for users. You can be targeted so much easier by linking so much about yourself online. And there is this to think about:
Google fined in Brazil for refusing to reveal bloggers’ identities (TheNextWeb)
OK, and if that wasn’t bad enough. By limiting the ability to use pseudonyms, stage names, pen names, non-English Western civilization name standards, etc., Google is cutting of their nose to spite their face. And some folks have been known by nothing else but a pseudonym, pen name or stage name online for as much as 20+ years, by the way. But that’s OK, they don’t really want to be everyone’s Google+ friend, they obviously just want to make more money.
Why do I say that? Because all of this linking is data they can market with, sell to others in corporations, governments, highest bidder, whatever — in aggregate form of course, like Facebook does. Facebook makes a bundle on this already and Google apparently wants a piece of that action…well a bigger piece. Besides they already know you. Now they are getting your permission to basically track you further, and use more of your data that you share with them….errr, enter on their services, like Google+.
Also, but many of us have been working against abuse of marketing crap since Steve Gibson created OptOut when he became aware of the crap that was going on in the early days of computing online on the Internet. Marketing which was more like spyware than benign advertising in the newspapers or magazines where they can’t track you!
OK, enough about that side of things. Now on to the other side. The discrimination, the arbitrary decisions to disable accounts and require proof of who they are or the changing of their ‘name’ to something more western or 1st world or whatever you want to call it … two name (first and last name) like western countries do. Which is not at all like real/common names in other parts of the world.
Also, some folks really do need to use a pseudonym, or alternative name, stage name, pen name …whatever you want to call it. And many people in this type of situation would rightfully feel this is a discrimination against women. Many women have been stalked, have had abusive spouses or coworkers/bosses or have spouses or jobs where it would be ‘inconvenient’ (like they could lose their job or their spouses job for them or their position), if they were not able to speak out anonymously through a pseudonym.
There are so many angles on this issue. It was wrong when Facebook did it and it’s even more wrong (if there is such a thing) for Google to do it. Why is it more wrong for Google? Because we have higher expectations of Google. They have always tried to ‘do no evil’ in the past and now they will be right in the middle of it. Was ‘do no evil’ only to get people to trust them? Like Apple with their ‘think different’ and revolution anti-big brother stance in their 1984 commercial? But all the time they had other plans?
If you are not familiar, and it would likely be easy not to be familiar if you are not on G+ aka Google Plus service or have friends that are. Since it is an invite only ‘field test’ at the moment anyway, many would be not involved. But many geeks, technicians, artists, artisans, journalists, etc. are on it to help improve it and try it out as the new kid on the block in social networking. I have been one of these folks for some time now. First with a pseudonym which was quickly squashed through either someone turning me in for having a pseudonym or their algorithm bot got me because the name was obviously not a real name, and after that was disabled, I decided to come back as my business name.
Here are some, and just a few really of the articles that address the issues better than I could ever do:
Understanding the Nym Wars (BoingBoing) with several links and some great commentary
A Case for Pseudonyms (EFF.org)
Google+ Identity Crisis: What’s at Stake With Real Names and Privacy (Wired.com)
Violet Blue: just one of her many postings about Pseudonyms on G+ and she has a legitimate gripe and one of her articles on ZDNet
“Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power (danah boyd blog)
Tracking the Nym Wars (G+ Insider’s Guide)
On Pseudonymity, Privacy and Responsibility on Google+ – Kee Hinkley
Why It’s Important To Turn the Tide on Google’s Real Name Policy (Botgirl’s Second Life Diary blog)
Who is harmed by a “Real Names” policy? (GeekFeminism – Wikia.com) (and related Pseudonymity article).
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).
This 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.
- actual physical danger of bullying, hate crime, etc.
- arrest, imprisonment, or execution in some jurisdictions
- economic harm such as job loss, loss of professional reputation, reduction of job opportunity, etc.
- social costs of not being able to interact with friends and colleagues
- possible (temporary) loss of access to their data if their account is suspended or terminated
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.
Nymwars – Wikipedia
The icing on the cake was Eric Schmidt the recent but former CEO of Google stating this (guess he can say anything now, eh?):
Eric Schmidt: Google+ Is An Identity Service; User Your Real Name Or Don’t Sign On (Huffington Post)
Schmidt: G+ ‘Identity Service,’ Not Social Network by David Gerard (slash dot or /.):
David Gerard writes
“Eric Schmidt has revealed that Google+ is an identity service, and the ‘social network’ bit is just bait. Schmidt says ‘G+ is completely optional,’ not mentioning that Google has admitted that deleting a G+ account will seriously downgrade your other Google services. As others have noted, Somewhere, there are two kids in a garage building a company whose motto will be ‘Don’t be Google.‘”
And here’s one I missed that I just saw over at Google+ on Nom DeB‘s profile posts:
Google+ Can Be A Social Network Or The Name Police – Not Both by Bob Blakley at Gartner Blogs
Really all you need to do to find out more about this is to search on Google or any other search engine for any number of combinations of words in this article.
Now we even have a place for Google Refuges to be able to link up after they leave Google+.
EDIT: grammer/clarity and to add Bob Blakley’s Gartner blog article. Also almost forgot my TWEETMEME link, and Added Todd Vierling’s “Just go somewhere else” is a fallacy. The name policy stretches far beyond Google+, and here’s why.”