Profile

Cover photo
Audrey Penven
Attended Rutgers University
Lives in San Francisco
684 followers|10,736 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Audrey Penven

Shared publicly  - 
 
Yes, yes, let's just get this one out of the way now. I hadn't been paying much attention to the Google "Real Names" clusterfuck, because it was so obvious to me that they were going to lose this one ...
2
Add a comment...

Audrey Penven

Shared publicly  - 
 
Lee Dotson originally shared:
 
Also worth checking out. I love how subtle yet nightmarish these pillars are.

http://acidolatte.blogspot.com/2011/07/yoan-capote.html
Yoan Capote. Stress (particular), 2010. Yoan Capote is a Cuban sculptor who was born in 1977 in Pinar del Río. Yoan Capote lives and works in Havana where he studied arts at the Superior Institute of ...
1 comment on original post
1
Add a comment...

Audrey Penven

Shared publicly  - 
 
Visualizing communities. Published by Jonathan Stray at 2:54 pm. Tags: belief, community, knowledge, visualization. There are in fact no masses; there are only ways of seeing people as masses. –Raymon...
1
Jan Larsen's profile photo
 
Visualising Communities on the web.How we live!)))))
Add a comment...
In their circles
229 people
Have them in circles
684 people
Mobi Techhub's profile photo
Roy Crisman's profile photo
Vanessa Naylon's profile photo
Nyah Rios's profile photo
ceren ercen's profile photo
GOR BEZZ's profile photo
shamika baker's profile photo
allegra lundy's profile photo
Johannes Grenzfurthner's profile photo

Audrey Penven

Shared publicly  - 
 
Autumn Tyr-Salvia originally shared:
 
#nymwars Professionally, I work in email antiabuse and deliverability for a marketing automation company. I attend antispam conferences, and spend much of my day explaining to marketers why and how not to be a spammer.

That's a big part of why the real name policy bothers me.

In the spam world, it has become considered a truism that content filtering alone does not work. Filtering out every instance of the word "anal" just causes you to block every time someone sends the word "analysis" - and the spammers will spell it 4nal or ana! or ana| anyways. Sure, it will block the dumb ones, but those weren't the ones you really had to worry about anyways.

Most antispam systems these days use multiple tactics to block email abusers. These systems use honeypot trap accounts, traffic analysis, reputation systems built around domain/IP ownership and sending patterns, user response, and some (light, and evolving) content filtering. Using content filtering alone is easy to evade, and is widely regarded to be an antiquated technique for dealing with email abuse.

When I worked at my last employer, an antispam service provider, every false positive was considered a black mark on our reputation. Pure content filtering has an extremely high rate of false positives. We used all these various systems to block abuse and - equally important - to keep our false positive rate as low as possible. Every email that someone wanted that was blocked made us look like jerks, so we tried to keep those as few as possible.

If pure content filtering is not very good at blocking abuse and has a high false positive rate when dealing with email abuse, why would Google think it is a good strategy to deal with social networking abuse?

A real name policy amounts to a pure content filtering strategy in that it a) makes a determination on what terminology is acceptable or not, and b) defines abuse through use of unacceptable terminology rather than unacceptable behavior.

In the case of a name, it's very difficult to even make a determination about what is "real" or not. For more on that, see this article:

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/

In the course of my work, I have frequently had to deal with customers who have issues delivering email that users have signed up for because their company name contains the word Analytics ("anal"), or they talk about money in the course of discussing the financial services their customers signed up for. Content filtering alone is dumb. It makes no exceptions, takes no clues from context, does not respond to what is or is not wanted.

Filtering users by their names is an equally poor strategy. We have recently seen a huge number of cases of false positives from this strategy - see the legally mononymed +Sai . or the unfortunate Blake Ross for examples. It's also a poor way of stopping abuse. An old friend of mine has a highly motivated insane internet stalker who has already made his way here with more than one account that are not under his real name. This policy punishes innocent users and misses abusers.

Abuse in a social network should be identified with multiple strategies. Names may be one vector of abuse, but a real name policy has too many false positives to be used alone. Additionally, it implies that once the pseudonyms are gone, we're all safe and cozy - a clear falsehood, given the numerous examples of abusive behavior from individuals who use their real names.

In the interests of ending this rant, I'll stop myself from going into the other, more social reasons I dislike this policy. I could write another rant about the right to self-define or the plight of the oppressed, but I'll spare you. I wanted to post this here because I feel like this point isn't hammered home hard enough:

The "real names" policy on Google+ has an extremely high false positive rate, and is a poor means of stopping abuse. This is too high a cost for too little benefit.
25 comments on original post
6
1
Hygieneboy's profile photo
Add a comment...

Audrey Penven

Shared publicly  - 
 
Eva Galperin originally shared:
 
One common rebuttal I have heard to activism around Google+'s real names policy is that if we don't like the service we shouldn't use it. I have also heard that the real names policy couldn't possibly be such a big deal, because it has not caused a massive exodus from Google+.

So, why are pro-pseudonym activists making such a big deal about the policies of a private service that we don't have to use? Because Google+ is in a limited Beta. For a relatively brief time, Google has made this service available to some users, asked us to kick the tires, and actively solicited our opinions about how the service can be improved. Unlike Facebook, there is a possibility that Google is not wed to the real names policy. Activism on this topic right now may actually change their minds, resulting in a social networking site that is safer and more comfortable for the many classes of people who are silenced by a real names policy.

No one is seriously disputing that Google has the right to set their own policies on Google+, but they have explicitly chosen to involve Beta users in the process of deciding how this service is going to work. We would be missing an enormous opportunity right now if we simply voted with our feet.
View original post
4
1
Cole Sarar's profile photo
Add a comment...

Audrey Penven has a new profile photo.

Shared publicly  - 
 
Audrey Penven has a new profile photo.
5
verdiahn koilblast's profile photoothmane baghdad's profile photoArmand Buchs's profile photo
3 comments
 
chouette !!!
Add a comment...
People
In their circles
229 people
Have them in circles
684 people
Mobi Techhub's profile photo
Roy Crisman's profile photo
Vanessa Naylon's profile photo
Nyah Rios's profile photo
ceren ercen's profile photo
GOR BEZZ's profile photo
shamika baker's profile photo
allegra lundy's profile photo
Johannes Grenzfurthner's profile photo
Education
  • Rutgers University
    Visual Art, 2001 - 2004
Basic Information
Gender
Decline to State
Other names
Yerdua
Work
Occupation
Photographer, Geek, Artist
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
San Francisco
Previously
Mount Laurel, NJ - Vienna - New Brunswick, NJ - Oakland, CA - Santa Cruz, CA