Dear +Marcin Ciszewicz
I wish you hadn't broken your resolution. I realize you insistently want to redefine the definition of fascism, you want to misconstrue the definition of fascism
regarding my application of the word to Google's user name policy, but I will not allow your mistakes to go unchallenged even though it is extremely wearying replying to your false allegations.
It's pure idiocy to champion the defeatist attitude of saying: “Control over our identities is not very good thus I will relinquish all control.” If you live in a high crime area maybe you will want to relinquish all control regarding your home security? Leave your door unlocked if you want to, but I prefer to lock my door because if gives me an added layer of security.
Some people say: "If you want something kept secret then don't put it on the internet."... but that notion is silly. To highlight the silliness of that notion I could say: "If you don't want your car being stolen or your home being broken into then don't own a car or live in a home."
While it is true nothing is 100% private and we cannot create 100% protection from thefts regarding our homes and cars, we can ensure reasonable privacy and reasonable home security.
Some people are happy with big risks and some people want to minimize their risks, and yes maybe some people will not go on the internet. The solution is freedom; we need freedom of choice and diversity. Diversity should be encouraged therefore people are free to choose their own level of security.
A determined criminal will steal your car and break into your home; but with good security you can make the thefts very difficult indeed. Take identity theft for example, it is more likely to happen if you have poor internet security: no anti-virus software, no firewall etc. The best firewall in the world cannot protect you from internet threats therefore what would you advise: don't go on the internet? No, that would be idiotic; you simply make sure you are using a level of security you are happy with. Putting aside issues of privacy and security,
the main reason why the freedom to define our identities should NOT be curtailed is because creativity is a valuable aspect of who we are. Identity-freedom and creativity should be encouraged. I opt for self-determination instead of enforced-naming. Freedom instead of fascism. Creativity instead of uniformity, conformity, regimentation.
Describing Google's policies as fascism does not cheapen any other example of fascism you can name. Fascism is oppression, intolerance of differing views. We are dealing with the mildest case of oppression here, we are dealing with mild censorship only. Thankfully the fascist censorship policies of Google
show no sign of degenerating into mass murder. The definition of fascism is NOT mass murder; the definition is authoritarian repressiveness, intolerance of diversity, it is censorship. The ultimate fascist censorship is murder due to the intolerance of the victim's differing opinions. An example of minor fascist censorship is Google+ suspending accounts due to usual names. Extreme fascism results in mass murder. I repeat, the Google+ issue is an example of minor fascism but nonetheless it is
fascism.Enforced naming is undemocratic, it is anti-freedom, it stifles creativity thus the next George Orwell would probably be suspended from Google+.
If people have the freedom to choose their identities then this creativity will make it easier for future George Orwells to arise. Was George Orwell being anti-social by using an alternate identity? Was George Orwell guilty of sending spam? No, he was simply exercising his democratic freedoms (self-expression, freedom of expression, freedom of thought). His alternate identity did not create a withdrawal of social norms for George, he was actually very moral and respectful of society. Creativity should not be censored. The reason we should avoid censoring creativity is because the minor fascism of identity-censorship could easily lead to the extreme fascism feared by George Orwell. We need identity-freedom not identity-oppression. We need to have creativity regarding our names instead of obedience, conformity, and uniformity regarding enforced naming. Fascists like to control language, which George Orwell highlighted in 1984. Google wants to control the language regarding how we define our identities. Google's control of our identities is fascist.
Accountability already exists because our IP addresses are logged. Even when people try to conceal their IP address they can be located, which the recent LulzSec arrests prove. Enforced-naming is NOT an issue of accountability, it's purely an issue of fascist intolerance, it is curtailment of creativity.
I have described Google as being a little-Hitler but the definition of a little-Hitler is very far from the definition of Nazism. Someone can be a fascist without being a Nazi or a mass murderer.
Finally on the issue of democracy. In some aspects democracy is all about majority rule, but the values of democracy also offer strong protections for minorities
therefore diversity is encouraged; tolerance of differing opinions or lifestyle choices is permissible even if the majority objects to innocuous or controversial life-choices. Democracy protects minorities. The emphasis is on fairness, diversity, equality, and tolerance; via leaders elected by majority vote.
Nobody elected Google but Google must abide by democratic privacy, equality, and human rights laws.