Shared publicly  - 
 
Sigh. Yet another one of my friend's Google+ profiles has been shut down because it violates the real name policy. Just 404's until photo ID "proof" is reviewed.

Reminds me of when I visited China, and how everyone there has to provide a passport/identification card in order to do anything-get on the internet, ride the subway, exchange money.

Because, you know, that makes it safer for everyone.
125
24
Lucian Armasu's profile photoAndrew Norris's profile photoDon LaVange's profile photoEloy Sanchez's profile photo
82 comments
 
I thought that policy was fading away?
 
I thought they were ditching that... Judging from half the names I see it certainly seems that way...
 
It will be soon. Just not yet, I guess...
 
You'd think they'd stop enforcing a policy they've said is going away. It seems Google is getting too big and/or bureaucratic to actually get things done.
 
Because using two middle names is a sign of terror..
 
Sigh - China... I spent almost 6 hours in lock-up because I didn't renew my temporary residence :-) plus, I flew out the following day!
Yet, there are profiles flying with no Real Names... hmmmmm
 
If you don't provide your full name, the terrorists win?
G+ will eventually relax its rules or find a way for different personas around the same identity. I would need an excel spread sheet to know which real person I have in G+ is in GWJ. And I don't feel like losing my G+ page by posting as "Hobbes2099".
 
+Joe Helfrich I think you might be right, Joe. I have recently thought about why Google is so slow to act sometimes. I'm not buying that "Oh, we always think things out, blah blah blah." I mean how long will G+ be in beta? I've posted a few items I have an issue with on G+ already. There prob over 50 things they could have iterated on already with G+.
 
it perhaps was just a rogue routine running somewhere in the googleverse.
 
I'm not entirely certain that's a valid comparison...
 
I like driving fast and know that I am breaking the rules. Therefore when I get caught I understand why I am fined....thankfully I don't get caught often :-)

The rule here is "use your real name", so if you don't do that you know what you are risking. The majority of people I see not using a real name have absolutely no reason to do so.

The reason they were pulled up will be because someone reported them. The reason the Darth Vaders (+George Ito) have not been got is because nobody has reported them. I guess they had a row with someone on here and that person reported them in retaliation. I guess if you are going to use a pseudonym, use a realistic one :-)
 
Yet, some celebrities like +will.i.am have no problems, even though they have a user profile account and not a "Pages" account. This is ridiculous.
 
I'm not really sure how "unreal" "pseudonyms" are, anyway. That's always bugged me. When they relaxed it to "how you're best known" they didn't bother to define "best known".

They've just been sloppy all around with it.
 
Life would be simpler if we all wore rfid chips. :-)
 
Huh. Last I had heard of this, Google was no longer enforcing the real names policy. +Rainyday Superstar, you suffered Google's injustice... what's the latest for you?
 
In that case, it's good to see that Thomas Paine is still alive..
 
It's infuriating when your real name violates the policy.
 
Your comparing Nyms to China? You're that naive? Baned from a social network is a large leap to the Great Firewall of China.
 
Fine by me, we just fought a war with a fake name mudslinger yesterday, took my whole day to deal with it. No work, no profits, way behind to day. I applaud this Google. Now if you just acted on my flags from yesterday +Louis Gray I would be the normal happy guy I usually am.
 
..and I know that GINA TRAPANI made this status update. The red threat has been averted.
 
I was spoofed on Twitter. the spammer/troll was harassing my friends on my behalf.
Eddie K
 
Except, +Gina Trapani, in China there is an established system to... bribe expedite a request via favor/cash ( : where is that button on G+
 
+Warren Bobrow No fun is it? I can wait a long time to have another day online like yesterday.

And the profile still exists, we the honest guys, ate the BS yesterday. Back to work, the fact that fake names seem to go unnoticed has put me two day behind on top of the holiday.
 
As a trans woman who is not yet out to my employer and the world in general, this neither my legal first name (yet), nor my legal last name. Clearly I am just the kind of scofflaw G+ will be coming after any day now.

Oh wait, I'm white and have an Anglo-American-sounding name. Cool, I'm allowed!

Well, as long as none of you tell Google about me. So let's keep this on the down low.
 
I've had about enough of this BS from Google. Sickens me that +Bradley Horowitz was being all nonchalant a few weeks ago, acting like we were fools for not having heard that he (supposedly) said in July that the "Real" names policy was going away.

I feel like they truly have no clue as to how much momentum this debacle has truly cost them. #nymWars /cc +Sai .
 
People tend to forget Facebook has the exact same real name policy.
 
+Alex Schleber agreed but an analogy to China? Gina is as confused here as her opinion that iOS devices are only for rich, white folks, and Androids are not.
 
+José Leitão Facebook has the same policy but they don't really enforce it. Look at all of the profiles for peoples cats and dogs. Although arguably, they use the real names of the cats and dogs which makes it ok.
 
+José Leitão And Facebook doesn't just hide your profile from other people while they wait for I.D. They just delete it and all the content you had on it. I know a few people that have had their profiles deleted because they either used pseudonyms or have weird sounding names.
 
No one's asked for my ID. And there's a Zinc Potassium that circled me and I doubt that's his real name.
 
+José Leitão yes, and that is why we don't like the Faceborg. Google had one chance, ONE, to make a serious dent in Facebook as the "protector of user privacy" asf., and they blew it.
 
+Tessa Chandler Then create an account, make the personal profile private, and create a page for the moniker.
 
+Byron DL A comparison between gross features (potentially needing an "official" identity to get anything done, which is needed in China, sometimes in Google+, and increasingly in the US in general) is not the same as an equivalence across all features. (Google and China both sometimes require you to authenticate your identity, therefore Google must also have an abysmal human rights record!)
 
I guess I'll probably be next
 
+Byron DL not sure what this is supposed to have to do with iOS/Android, but I must say that I find Gina's analogy relatively fitting. Why? Because Google has been too arrogant to listen on this matter for over 4 months now, so I guess we're down to hoping that some stronger statements might wake them up.

No amount of sickly-sweet "community" posts from Louis Gray or anyone else affiliated with Google is pasting over this gaping wound to their credibility.
 
+Alex Schleber Like I said above, create a page, use your moniker there, problem solved.

If you don't want to participate using your real name, make the profile private. Again, problem solved.
 
And that's like China how? No issue with nym wars, I get it. The iOS/Android comment was the last time I disagreed with Gina was on her post about how Android was for everyone else. Not topical no, but contextual to points I disagree with her on. Also fittingly today G+ is promoting their Planet pages and Gina posted on that too. Planets are real entities, huh?
 
+Byron DL You have confused Personal Profiles with Pages. Pages can use monikers, Personal Profiles cannot.
 
It's sad that they feel like they have to do this. My G+ account has been suspended TWICE. Apparently they like the "real name" I use now.
 
+Chris Lang no no, we're not starting this debate over from scratch. The problem is definitely NOT solved.

And since you are a marketer, more important even than the larger philosophical question is the point that Google wasted massive amounts of launch momentum with the double-whammy of the brand-ban + nymWars. One could have been forgiven for thinking that Facebook had put them up to these missteps...

all of the good feeling went out of the launch in a matter of about 1 ill-considered week of "banning". The word "ban" should have NEVER been heard in connection with the G+ launch. Instant no fun, just when we had all come to think that Google had grown a soul somehow and was starting to get Social...
 
+Chris Lang Pages are missing most of the capabilities in terms of being allowed to follow/comment on non-Page accounts, so it's not a feasible replacement for a Social/Personal profile at all. Given that you are supposedly writing a book on this stuff, you should know...
 
+Byron DL it's not China, but it certainly is on the same continuum. Hence she used the word "reminded".
Sai
+
2
3
2
 
+Alex Schleber He said in an interview w/ O'Reilly that they were planning on changing it, in the same generic handwavy terms that Vic did more recently. People made a fuss of it when Vic said it, as if that was any different.

But yes. Bah.
 
Putting the actual point aside, at least there's consistency with it
 
No, +Byron DL You complained about Google Planets circles and wrong over fake names issues.

I said you are confusing the subject because the are all PAGES, not profiles.
 
I think people will have to use a offset of Pages of they want Nyms basically adding a "person" page option so it doesn't have that square but same restrictions
 
+Alex Schleber , thanks for explaining exactly why +Chris Lang's suggestion that I shift my identity to a "Page" is utterly unworkable.

Plus there's the whole thing where if I make a mistake as to how I post a comment somewhere (see: +Steve Yegge), I could accidentally out myself. Thanks but no thanks, +Chris Lang.
 
no way .. i see its important to show your self but my name is mine show it or never up to me
 
well it's just so much easier for the government, FBI and CIA when Google gladly hands over all your search history.
 
One would think that would be in direct violation of their "don't be evil" policy...
 
I'm torn on this.... I can see the reasoning for wanting everyone to be accountable and transparent (to a certain degree). I think part of our society's problem is that people, and leaders, have developed a lack of accountability. I can also see why some might want anonymity. Perhaps there need to be distinguished social communities providing each of these while ensuring members are fully aware of the implications relative to the community they are a part of.
 
So ridiculous, all this effort and yet I can create ten "John Smiths" and they wouldn't know the difference.
 
Its not about safety. They just want G+ to seem classy, professional, and funtional for contacts, like a phonebook.

People who can't understand this, who want to control or change the way another business chooses to run their policies, sound more like a chinese dictator to me.
 
If someone doesn't want to use their real name for whatever reason, as I'm sure there are plenty of valid ones, then they can just use another social network. As for anyone who may be trying to use their real name, but is still getting trouble from google, just be patient. It is a free service, nothing is perfect, and sometimes it takes time to get things done when you're trying to get them done right.
 
If Google+ wants to win the battle against Facebook it better drop this real name nonsense.
 
I understand that we "pay" with our information, but Google and Facebook have leverage on most uses who use their services. We all still use these services at no cost since we are an active participant in giving away our information. We don't see many tangible results in how they share our information with 3rd parties. Many of those results can potentially benefit us even more since we are now more prone to receive personalized advertising rather than mass advertising. At least now we get more advertisements that we may actually be interested in. In the end, people get to vote with their information. If they choose a social platform like facebook so be it. If they choose one like Google + so be it. We know th differences so there is not much use in being upset about policies when you can just use the other. They will all correct themselves eventually anyway.
 
If someone wants to be anonymous there are hundreds of different technologies for you to use if you feel so strongly about it or if you feel threatened in any way. Just don't use Google+ or Facebook for that matter if you don't agree with their policies.
 
Precisely. Not using Google+ doesn't exclude you from expressing your point of view. Google and Facebook are not the internet besides what some may want you to think. I haven't used my Facebook account in ages and I don't miss it at all. The reason I use Google+ is because if at some point I decide they no longer respond to my needs and interests I can easily shut it down, move and take my data with it. It sucks that they erase your account instead of putting it on hold until they sort everything out if that's what they do. I would rather complain about that instead of using my real name. I've made this argument before. It's simple, there are tools people use for different purposes and each has a place and a moment where they can be used. Google+ is designed to connect people and have them share. The quality and value of those connections rely on people knowing you are who you say you are. There are other places where privacy takes precedence over anything else. So my point is if you really have such a big need for privacy to the point, as some people have complained, that you think you can even be in danger then Google+ is not the service for you to use and you should then use a tool more suited to your specific privacy requirements. If you believe in quality connections and sharing with real people and are willing to be held accountable for your comments and what you share then Google+ is the service for you.
 
I find that policy really strange. I'm not fully aware of how it works and what type of validation they use, but when I created my first G+ profile, I used my real name, but I had no proof of ID associated with it. My profile photo was of a drawing; all that time my account was never shut down. Am I just lucky?
 
+Carlos S. Lebrón Jr. how do I know that you are who you say you are? Google doesn't validate anyone's profiles, except actually those with unusual sounding names. That's all that the "real names" fiasco is. Period: "Use a real sounding name. If you do, we don't give a dear. If you don't, all bets are off..."

And the problem with the #nymWars is that only the pro-"real"-names side is saying: and if you don't like it, you can leave (or Google banning people outright). Which, if you really thought about it, is a terrible, terrible way to approach speech rights on a service that was supposed to be better on privacy and other questions than Facebook.
 
+Christopher Klein To be fair, it is his real name, isn't it?
I believe the policy is about using real names, I don't think there are any limitations on species :-)
 
Ironic that you posted something previously about Apple curating their app store while simultaneously continuing to use Google+ even though Google is clearly curating this environment on a level that goes well beyond what Apple is doing. Think about it.
 
I think I'll trademark an alias and then register with G+ as a business.
 
+Thomas Paine re:"I don't think that Google cares too much about Facebook. I think they have a different target in mind. Google+ is just the candy to get people hooked in. Google Profiles is where rubber meets the road. The key goal is to be the official Identity Service to the Internet. Social is incidental."

See here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/112964117318166648677/posts/DAjTY4Ekamb "From destination social to dispersed social: why Google+ is the Trojan horse of the social web"
 
OMG! This is getting worse than Facebook! Google better come correct and stop this "Chinese data gathering".
Add a comment...