Shared publicly  - 
Well, looks like Google PR now has officially commented:

Q: Just to make sure I understand, are you saying that pseudonymous Google+ profiles that are not associated in any way with a real name, but just use a game/online community/avatar account name, are not allowed?

A: Yes, we do ask for people to include the name they are commonly referred to in their Google profile. But we do have a field for them to enter a different name they are known as.

A: Again, Google Profiles are designed to be public pages on the web, which are used to help connect and find real people in the real world. By providing your common name, you will be assisting all people you know - friends, family members, classmates, co-workers, and other acquaintances - in finding and creating a connection with the the right person online.

Q: OK, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that anyone with a pseudonymous Google profile should instead create one with their real name, and add their pseudonym(s) in the alternate field. Otherwise, they risk suspension. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding that.
A: Here is our Help Center article [], which is best to reference.

Q: This link doesn't specifically answer my question. How does Google define "the name that you commonly go by in daily life"? Does that mean people who use an Internet community username in their daily life (in a social network, a forum, an online game, etc.) can use that name? For example, can someone who is well-known by their account name on YouTube use that?
A: Unfortunately, I cannot go into more detail aside from what's included on this site.
Joe Provo's profile photoNicole Ickes's profile photoRowan Thunder's profile photoPaul Armstrong's profile photo
Officially, but not clearly in any way.
"Daily life" probably means non-internet, as the idea of social networks is often to bridge the non-internet to the internet.
"Non-internet daily life"? I guess that clinches the target audience is actually not netizens.
Web sharing isn't real sharing? Someone should tell Reddit about that.
^The point was more, "Yes, we know about this and are not ignoring that this is an issue within the community", rather than actual info. I don't think they have a solid idea of what they want/can do yet, hence the vagueness.
It's a wobbly tightrope to walk: say something and let people know they're on it, but having to be vague; or don't say anything, and people get mad simply because you're not saying anything. Those who get mad tend to start the flame wars, and then misinformation spreads. People outside are watching too. Often, keeping the conversation going prevents distortion from happening, which keeps misinformation down.
True, the Googlers themselves care and want people to know what's going on. I think the PR was more for the journalists/bloggers/etc and people watching outside, as well as the people who are more than two steps removed from Googlers. Not all of us are privileged enough to know them ourselves, lol. :D
Gives new meaning to "in the heartland", heh. They got crippled when invites flooded their system, so I think it's much wider than they anticipated. Google, not knowing all on the internet....uhoh.
On using a chosen name, vs legally convincing the government to use that name for you:
Consensus seems to be it could be violating the law to not allow people to call themselves whatever they want, bar that it's not impersonation.

I don't think that Google can actually require people to use their "legal" name without having people send in legal documents, ie drivers license and etc. Messy.
Whether or not it fools the nonhuman system, the problem really comes is that the human system makes mistakes and such. The humans who check the 'reports' see things, assume 'not real name' and it may in fact well be a real name nonetheless.
That's officially crap.

Given how much people are screaming about this, you'd think they'd get a clue by 4 in the G+ management team
Add a comment...