Analysts say Google+ could succeed wildly -- if they change the idiotic "Weird Names Policy"
46 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 18 previous comments
- you could be rightAug 18, 2011
- haha, yeah, that's the one! But seriously...that gift horse has bruises already.Aug 18, 2011
- Me, on July 27, in "Why it Matters":
So especially since the business case is pretty powerful as well, and employee bonuses are tied to success in social networking, I’m actually relatively optimistic that a sensible solution will emerge on the naming front.
If so, it’ll be a great victory for all the feminists, LGBTQs, sex bloggers, privacy advocates, human rights activists, Second Lifers, usenet old-timers, people with disabilities, security experts, and everybody else speaking up. And if Google then builds on this by actively all these groups they haven’t been paying a lot of attention to so far, my money’s on them to dethrone Facebook and Twitter. We shall see….
http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=2918Aug 18, 2011
- real names ftw.Aug 18, 2011
- I think Uncle Samuel may be behind several Social Network Services simultaneously deciding that they wanted to change, or enforce, real names policies. Otherwise the coincidence is quite remarkable !Aug 18, 2011
- - while entirely possible, I doubt that's the cause. Many governments (including the US) have bemoaned the anonymous nature of the Internet for decades. Any noise in that corner is consistent with previously voiced concerns. What would change is if there's publically stated policy or laws. Patriot act implies that the current state of affairs is sufficient for three-letter agency requirements. After all, Google is not requiring stringent proof of identity.
The name policy is a liability for Google. It is an untenable policy. The policy is sporadically enforced and ultimately, trivial to game. It potentially exposes Google to additional legal and illegal activity. Bad actors will increasingly impose on Google with legal or illegal means once the perception is established that Google is actively linking personally identifying information. And it serves as a distraction from Google's technology. This issue part of the G+ story when Google really needs G+ to out-shine established competitors. Furthermore, it throws a dark shadow over Google's meta-data collection and other services outside G+. And it highlights another Google's weakness which has been customer service when the G+ story could be putting Google's strength in technology in the forefront.
The advantage to the G+ names policy is that some of the user-base can lie to themselves and tell them that everyone is "real" (for their definition of reality). Having been involved within infosec for numerous years, I understand that the emperor's new cloths can be surprisingly motivational.Aug 19, 2011
Add a comment...