Shared publicly  - 
Time for more Share and Re-Sharing... It's time for a letter writing campaign. Read the rest of this post for instructions and where to send the letters.

An old acquaintance of mine, and former Google employee , who has gone by the name Skud in real life since the 90s, has had their account suspended. This is despite this name apparently fitting Google's "Name people call you in day to day life" policy. And considering how well networked Skud is, this is a very very dumb PR move. Who next, +Xeni Jardin, +Wil Wheaton?

Everyone, I want you to write a short letter to the Board of Google (, telling them what you think of their actions over "Real ID" and requiring people to show their government ID, and generally being asses about it. You don't have to send one to all of them, just address it to the board, and perhaps send one direct to Larry Page or one of the individual board members. Of course, I do recommend being polite in your letters. Appropriate addresses to send your letters are here - - and remember to mark your envelope 'Confidential' at the top left to ensure it won't be read and discarded by the receptionist but will at least get to a PA.

Google+'s support staff and engineers are lying about their name policy, applying it incorrectly and accepting malicious 'reports' against people. Google are doing direct harm to people. Google don't care. Google are evil.

( I'd also sugest contemplation on this article - )
Infotropism. The personal blog of Kirrily "Skud" Robert, dilettante manquée and resident of San Francisco. An irregularly-updated assortment of articles, none of which represent the opinions...
Bernard “ben” Tremblay's profile photoPiers Meynell's profile photoDan Pagliarini's profile photoJay Blanc's profile photo
+Simon Laustsen The words that remain etched on my memory and established my view of how Google were handling this was when a Google engineer said "Victims of spousal abuse who need to hide their identity should not be using this social network."
+Matthew Musgrove Until very recently, Google actually advised people to maintain a pseudonym to protect their identity. And this advice was common to police forces and online safety authorities.

It's your hang up that you think someone going by a pseudonym is hiding some awful secret from you, and is thus unclean.
+Matthew Musgrove While you would cut them off from social networks, which can be a vital life line of support and information, because you have decided what is 'safe' for them; and because it fits in with your world view that pseudonyms are unclean.
I like how you think it's the end of the word that a service that is less than a month old has a few issues they need to work out. Google isn't evil, but you might be a little retarded...
+Dan Pagliarini

Google's collective corporate actions were without forethought, caused a lot of upset, scared people, did actually cause people to lose access to their gmail accounts and so on because of internal miscommunications about what should happen to people suspended... Yes, it was evil. Perhaps evil only through mis-attention and mistake, rather than callouss disregard, but they still acted in a way that was wrong and hurtful to their users. They can now rebuilt their trust, or... They can take your lead and call people retarded in public for disagreeing with them.

As someone who works in marketing, which do you think they should do?
Add a comment...