Shared publicly  - 
 
Our friends Bug Girl https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000637485019
and Tree Lobsters https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tree-Lobsters/53297023898
(amongst others) just had their profiles deleted, because of the "Real Names" policy.

Please submit feedback to Google, indicating that this is silly and unhelpful;
because the current policy will keep good people with nicks from using Google Plus,
and yet allow other people to register realistic-looking aliases.

Some discussion here, courtesy of Bug:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/no_pseudonyms_allowed_is_google_pluss_real_name_po.php
6
7
Tony Heskett's profile photoDyNama Norman's profile photoMichelle Taksey's profile photoScylla Kat's profile photo
37 comments
 
Oh no! I quite enjoy following Bug Girl on here. :(
 
So get yersel' down to that bottom right hand corner, and write something not-too-vitriolic? :-)
 
I don't think it's silly and unhelpful. I do hope there's a solution that includes people like Bug Girl, but it should be separate, like the plans for business presence here.
 
As a woman on the Internet, I feel less exposed not using my Exact Real Name. Anyone who knows me IRL knows that I use both these names as "real names" and am known by them both online and off. One of the things that I liked about Google+ was the opportunity to mildly mask my legal name. This is the Internet, not the DMV!
 
So, I've commented. Now, if I get cut off, you'll know why.
 
I made a very polite request. I don't think anyone will get cut off. They've been pretty open to comments so far.
 
I meant, cut off cuz it's not my legal name, not because I objected.
 
Oh, duh. I hope not. It's a very silly policy and I really like your name, legal or no.
 
Darrin, it's silly and unhelpful because I could register as Darrin Chandler without it being my real name
But I'd be deleted for registering a nick.
That state of affairs is stupid.
 
Tony, that's true but doesn't pertain. The fix for abuse of a policy isn't the abolishment of that policy. You have a valid concern, but that isn't it.
 
The abuse-of-a-policy isn't relevant.
The policy is "no nicks"; my point is that this is stupid, and that Google should get a better policy.

Also being just the type of comment that we as users should make in the feedback box, during the trial period.
 
The current policy is also no business names. Note that they're working on adding businesses, rather than trying to accommodate them within "people." This seems sensible to me, and I think something analogous could be done for pseudonyms. There's value to me in differentiating between people speaking as themselves and people speaking from behind a pseudonym. Both are valuable, but they're not the same thing.
 
Yes, I'm aware of the business policy. That isn't especially relevant, so you didn't need to mention it.

Meanwhile, considering that you do not know almost all of the 20M people on G+, whether they're pseudonyms or not is entirely irrelevant.
A Google Plus account is no proof of identity, and I can adjust the privacy settings sufficient that you can't find me, if I wish.

Yet alternatively, and despite logging in with a pseudonym, I can present enough information to be deserving of trust.

Hence it's stupid to require a different procedure for nicks than for regular names. Parsimony ftw.
 
But then they often can't speak freely, so you lose.
 
You do appreciate what "can't speak freely" means, right?
Are there no subjects on which you might like to speak, but can't speak freely?
That prevents us from gaining from your experience (although I get the impression you're quite candid... ;-)
 
You're unusual in that regard (and a few others... :-)
 
there are a lot of topics i wouldn't speak freely about on the web if it were attributed to my real-life identity, common subjects that come up with internet strangers all the time. like my sex life, possible crimes i may have committed, my opinion of people who i still consider friends (nobody's perfect), &c. some people don't know i'm an atheist! i've been using this nickname since the mid-90s and i want to be known by that name.
 
My online presence is entirely under my real name, and I like it that way. But there are very good reasons why women especially might want to have an online pseudonym. As BiochemBelle rightly points out there is a big difference between established online pseud identities, like Bug Girl, and random anonymous pseudonyms used to mask "ignoble intent," for lack of a better word. It's possible to support the first, while winnowing out the latter. Hope Google+ catches on.
 
Actually, clarification: I have an alter ego Jen-Luc Piquant, but am clearly identified as the person behind her. :)
 
I just realized my internet presence behind my real name has increased x40 since I used my real name on fb.
 
it's said that facebook is where you lie to friends and twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers. i attribute that to more anonymity on the latter. some people do hide behind screen names to be mean and nasty, but some just use a nom de plume to compartmentalize their online life and their offline life.
 
+terri mitchell i don't want my mom to know how much porn i watch (she doesn't want to know either), i don't want copyright police to know how much i download illegally, and i wouldn't call my neighbor a control freak to her face. those subjects are therefore off-limits on fb, and even on twitter to the people who associate my nym with my offline life.
 
Why lie? I don't think of it as lying. My business/legal persona is different from my roleplaying persona is different from my blogging persona. I don't want every detail of my life involved In a job search or what my mom knows etc. And I'm a regular person. Imagine other people with controversial alliances, physical or mental challenges, or unconventional beliefs and aliases are obvious. 
 
There's some significant bullshit going on somewhere. If one is only collecting information for "demographic purposes," our specific names don't matter. If you just want to know what we like so you can give us a tailored ad, our specific names don't matter. I do not understand.
 
I don't know what I'm going to do. Maybe I'll leave the damned social networking altogether.
 
Scylla: Please leave me a forwarding address.
And at least this stupidity is helping to expose the idiots and authoritarians :-)
 
It just makes me so SAD. The world I loved is dying.
 
Nooo noo no; not dying, dudette; evolving. Good times, you just gotta find 'em :-)
 
Well, I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet. I'm sure I'll feel better later. (And anyone who calls me "dudette" makes me feel better... my generation!)
 
+Scylla Kat Your comment about collecting information for "demographic purposes" is spot on. Of course google wants us to use our real names so they can pass that on to appropriate agencies. Anyone who is so naive to not "get it" is missing the point of both FB and G+ trying to fob real names off as any other excuse.
Add a comment...