Shared publicly  - 
 
Identity and Reputation Circle

I think +Marc Canter has it right:

"G+ will be our open federated identity layer – which powers OUR participation in this new ballgame!"

It was always about identity and participation/influence/reputation.
Meg Tufano originally shared:
 
A very well-written article by +Marc Canter about how Google sees Facebook, G+ and the Internet. Most important idea that cleared things up for me is that Google has a big stake in keeping the internet open and creating ever richer points of view from which to understand our world. h/t to +Gideon Rosenblatt
It begins. My friends Joseph Smarr, Chris Messina, Brad Horowitz and Dave Glazer (among others) have finally let the other hand drop. The past few months have been warm up exercises, a simply tease as...
11
Gregory Esau's profile photoMarc Canter's profile photoJeff Jockisch's profile photoKingsley Idehen's profile photo
16 comments
 
"The Google + platform will enable inter-connected, federated networks of people – so that each “brand” (or circle) can have it’s own autonomous presence on the web and NOT have to pay poll tax, give up their info or privacy or do anything to benefit somebody ELSE (unless they WANT TO – of course!)"

Unless of course they want to use a pseudonym. I wonder why Marc and his friends Joseph, Chris, Brad, and David don't see any problems with Google basing their strategy on a policy that's so hostile to women?
 
+Jon Pincus Ooooo, hadn't thought of that! But as I wrote on a previous thread, what Google really wants is some way to know that WHATEVER name you are using, you are the same real person. Maybe we can have Google ID cards? So if I get married and change my name, I will still be the same person. So far, they've lived up to their motto! +Jeff Jockisch did YOU suggest that a while back? I forget, we have been going at warp speed it seems this week!!!!!!
 
+Meg Tufano No on the Google ID cards, though I should have brought it up as a great thought experiment if nothing else.
 
+Meg Tufano i know somebody who's getting divorced, and didn't want to use her soon-to-be-ex-husband's name on her account. so google suspended her.
 
+Jeff Jockisch I saw that other thread (and shared +Mathew Ingram's article on the Disqus study which I thought did a good job with context). Google's known all the issues since before they launched G+; and despite Vic saying months ago that pseudonyms would be supported they continue to suspend accounts. they keep saying "it's hard" but in fact it would be extremely easy to change the policy and stop suspending accounts. instead, they've implemented hundreds of new features and continued to expand G+'s scope while continuing their harmful-to-women, harmful-to-transgender people, harmful-to-dissidents (etc.) policy. when pundits like Mark compliment their pals at G+ about the brilliance of their vision, i think it's pretty shameful not to mention this aspect of it.
 
+Jon Pincus I have suggested elsewhere that Google just charge a dollar a year and they would have your credit information and so would know you are at least the person the CREDIT company thinks you are. Sure, there would be bad actors, but there are going to be bad actors anyway. REALLY grateful you brought up the issue for women. Cannot believe that I had not thought of that problem. But, to repeat, what we need is a Google ID. I think the reason that people who have offered me jobs have done so on Linked-In rather than G+ even though the content they were responding to was on G+ is that they can see my public c.v. there and so have a stronger assurance that I am who I say I am (also multiple recommendations from people who are at the top of their game, etc. also verifiable on Linked-In). I, personally, think of Linked-In as an identity service for my bona fides for jobs (sorry Google) and at least your public resume is searchable by Google, but we really do have to face this issue for women ASAP. MediaTapper or one of the other tech news should pick up on this. +Media Tapper
 
Marc is really not saying much we didn't know already. =) I'll be waiting for the details to follow.
Expected that the pseudo-name policy would be acceptable by now. As long as you're only using one ID, what matters the name, Google?
 
+Gary Tivey Agreed. +Marc Canter is proclaiming this as a 'federated identity layer.' So why haven't they solved identity, as they promised? I do not think anything is as easy as we might think, but it is certainly possible.
 
I think +Meg Tufano has a point with the Google issued ID cards. Right now it is being called Google Wallet. It only works with the right combination of smartphone hardware, payment card provider and merchants.
 
+Marc Canter - the system you envisage can't work if its identity layer is broken or none existence. The way you know the identity layer is fixed is the day the nymars are declared over. Until then, they have some more duck lining to do :-)

Facebook might be a Profile black hole, but we don't solve that with an Identity black hole, seriously now!


#Nymwars #WebID #NetID #LinkedData #SemanticWeb #SocialWeb
 
+Kingsley Idehen Nymwar, symwar - Each of us will hold multiple "personae" - and maintain these identities as separate worlds. But that has nothing to do with the real battle - which is over corporate brands - who (right now) have their collective testicles locked into a world - that hangs off of Facebook.com. That's untenable - can't last - and (hopefully) Google can solve this lock-in!
 
+Marc Canter Both are big problems. Not that I necessarily agree with your/Google's prioritization, but I can see how someone might come to that conclusion.

In a sense, pseudonyms might be solved at any point in the future. Waiting certainly has the danger of marginalizing the problem, and causes a lot of pain for several segments of the population, but it really isn't stopping the growth of Google+ at this point.

The corporate brand issue is certainly crucial for Google (and competition in the market place).
 
+Marc Canter -- yes, each of us will hold multiple identifiers associated with a plethora of personae. The issue is that you appear to pitch G+ as being the definitive identity provider rather than potentially a large one amongst many.

If, as I am sensing from your response, you are only pithing G+ as a large IdP amongst many, then fine, we don't disagree. At the end of the day, the specificity of nymwars subject matter could be the basis for ensuring the IdP game remains inherently federated at InterWeb scales :-)

#Nymwars #Identity #WebID #NetID #LinkedData #SemanticWeb
Add a comment...