Shared publicly  - 
Analysts say Google+ could succeed wildly -- if they change the idiotic "Weird Names Policy"
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Facebook finally has a serious competitor. At least, that's what social-media investor Sergio Monsalve thinks.Venture capitalists such as Monsalve see early signs that Google...
Jon Pincus's profile photoAndrij “Andrew” Harasewych's profile photoSnow Andrews's profile photoPaul Hosking's profile photo
All I can say is my cat has a Facebook page that's hilarious.... and he's been dying to get on Google+.
How does one become an Analyst?
real name use, for those interested, is cool in a culture- or trust- building sense. As a term of use it sucks and cannot be implemented in a meaningful way.
If the names policy were reversed, I could easily see another "expert" write an article about how G+ could be wildly successful if they just enforced a names policy. Seems like both sides have support.
The difference between the two sides is that the Google side is pretending they get security, and the pseudonym side is revealing they are not secure with fake security.
+Paul Spoerry I think your cat would need a non-user page and will probably be able to get one once Google launches that phase. The question is about use of pseudonyms for users who either use one in day to day interaction online or off (Lady Gaga or Madonna, let's say) or need one for personal protection (from harassment or for whistle blowing activity).

I hope Google+'s Non-User Page is flexible enough to allow non-business brands similar to how Facebook does it.
Real names simply won't work, this is something that should not be pursued. What stops me from joining Google+ (or Facebook et. al) and saying my name is Mike Elgan, Michael Jackson or anything else? Nothing. So let me put Mickey Mouse, or whatever I want (barring perhaps slander, liable and/or crude names perhaps), and get over it.
+John Frost I hope so too. There are plenty of organizations, from local book clubs to hiking clubs, 4H clubs, all sorts of things that do not have a company, do not have a non-profit, have no official organization of any sort, that would still like to have a communication front of this sort.
That's us, "the free-wheeling cyberspace crowd." ;)
A policy is a policy. It does not mean it has to be enforced. Google should keep the policy but take a casual stance about it. When someone comes up with something really disgusting, then Google have the right to kick them out. It is good that this policy is well publicized now, so there will be no surprises when someone got kicked.
Apparently "succeeding wildly" is defined as quantity (incl. spam) over quality.
Sean L
another post about Google + on Google +? Shocker!!!
Sean, looking at the people you've circled - im not surprised you are overloaded with google info. Use the circles to get a better range of information. If you have all these people who post about google - chances are all you will see are posts about google. Stop misusing circles and blaming the writer.

Although I was also complaining about the fact that the real name argument is still really going on - complaining about an article simply because it is Google news, is kind of ridiculous...
Sean L
+Andrij Harasewych you are absolutely correct. I circled many of the google+ team early on for updates and whatnot. Plus I think Mike likes to stir things up a bit.
oh he does....its been getting annoying - but letting it slide for now ;)

Its like hes smacking around the gift horse, or however that wierd phrase goes...
Sean L
I let myself get sucked in.
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….
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 !
+Snow Andrews - 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.
Add a comment...