Shared publicly  - 
 
Nymwars update and poll

What do you think of Google's latest announcement? Please vote for the comments that reflect your views!

Please reshare and include the link to the original poll at http://goo.gl/m75xj ... thanks!

From a quick look it seems to me that Google will support nicknames, but still intends to keep policing names. The difference is that "proof of an established identity online with a meaningful following" is now treated as acceptable.

So how much does this address the underlying issues? Does it actually help people in abusive relationships, people with medical conditions who want to discuss them publicly without employers or insurance companies pointing out, whistleblowers, activists who aren't already established, LGBTQ teens, or the other groups who are harmed by real names policy? Please share your feedback by voting on which comment captures your feedback.
Bradley Horowitz originally shared:
 
Toward a more inclusive naming policy for Google+

With Google+, we aspire to make online sharing more like sharing in the real world. And during the Google+ signup process, we've asked users to select the name they commonly use in real life.

Since launch we've listened closely to community feedback on our names policy, as well as reviewed our own data regarding signup completion. The vast majority of users sail through our signup process -- in fact, only about 0.1% submit name appeals.

When we analyze the set of all name appeals on Google+, we find that they generally fall into three major categories:
- The majority (60%) of these users want to simply add nicknames.
- About 20% of appeals are actually businesses (who are inadvertently trying to set up their business as a Profile, rather than using Google+ Pages which were intended for this purpose.)
- And the remaining 20% would either prefer to use a pseudonym or another unconventional name.

Today we’re pleased to be launching features that will address and remedy the majority of these issues. To be clear - our work here isn’t done, but I’m really pleased to be shipping a milestone on our journey.

Nicknames and Names in Another Script

Over the next week, we’ll be adding support for alternate names – be they nicknames, maiden names, or names in another script – alongside your common name. This name will show up on your Google+ profile and in the hovercards which appear over your name. In the next few weeks, we’ll be displaying it more broadly as part of your name in other areas of Google+ as well. So if you’re Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Jane Doe (Smith), or Saurabh Sharma (सौरभ शर्मा), you can now communicate your identity the way you want to.

To add an alternate name, go to your Google+ profile, click Edit Profile, select your name and click on “More options.” (See attached photos)

It’s important to remember that when you change your name in Google+, you’re changing it across all services that require a Google Profile.

Other Established Identities

On Google+, we try to flag names which don’t represent individuals, such as businesses or abstract ideas which should be +Pages. Sometimes we get this wrong, so starting today we’re updating our policies and processes to broaden support for established pseudonyms, from +trench coat to +Madonna.

If we flag the name you intend to use, you can provide us with information to help confirm your established identity. This might include:

- References to an established identity offline in print media, news articles, etc
- Scanned official documentation, such as a driver’s license
- Proof of an established identity online with a meaningful following

We’ll review the information and typically get back to you within a few days. We may also ask for further information, such as proof that you control a website you reference. While a name change is under review, your old name will continue to be displayed. For new accounts without an old name, your profile will be in a non-public, read-only state during the review. Either way, you'll be able to see the status of your review by going to your profile.

For more details, check out the Google+ Names Policy: http://support.google.com/plus/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1228271

To reiterate, the features described herein will be rolling out over the next couple days.

Today is a small step towards improving the ways in which you can communicate your identity on Google+. We will be listening to feedback from the community and will continue to refine all aspects of how we handle names and identity over the coming weeks, months and beyond.

Thanks for your continuing feedback and support.

Bradley and Team G+

#googleplusupdate
3
5
Xeno Phrenia's profile photoMelissa Hall's profile photoRoxanne K's profile photoAdina Levin's profile photo
57 comments
 
This addresses my issues and I'm happy now!
Jon Pincus
+
19
20
19
 
It's progress but falls short of what I wanted.
 
It's not significant progress. Boo.
 
I'll need to see how it's implemented before I make up my mind.
 
I went with "falls short", but that's not quite right. I actually think this is somewhat orthogonal. All they've done is bring their enforcement of "common name" around to what they always claimed it meant. I'm very glad that they recognize the reputation isn't defined by the pop charts, but that doesn't help the people who most need pseudonyms. And the requirement is rather like the 18+ requirement…no newbies allowed.
 
+Jon Pincus It seems to me that they're making a distinction between anonymous and pseudonymous, and using the external validation of an ongoing name in blogs or other social networks to make that distinction.
 
Jon, can you add a vote option for "This is interesting but I really need to see how they implement it vs. how their lips are moving" so I can add my vote? :)
 
There is one issue I have with the 'verification' aspect ... it all points to a history already established ... what about those who want to establish? I am lucky - I have been Xenophrenia for over 10 years ... that has established me ... but what about my niece - who has not established a presence but wants to have that right?
 
+Xeno Phrenia It seems like they could establish a presence elsewhere and then use it to register a pseudonym with Google at that point. They've not been clear on what specific metrics they'll use. 100 Twitter followers, 1000, etc.?
 
After reading Brad's post a little more carefully: okay, it's progress, and probably does cover me. But it still largely misses the point, and does lots of social damage for no valid reason I can yet suss...
 
+Justin du coeur They specifically say that they may need verification of website ownership. So they are talking about online identities. They are deliberately (and understandably) being tight lipped about what it means to have a following. My issue with that is that I want to know if they approve my name before I start using it.
 
The concern that I raised on +Yonatan Zunger 's post is about the requirement for a new pseudonym to show established use and following. This doesn't address the need of an LGBT teen in a small prejudiced town, or an abuse victim, or other nonfamous person who has a legitimate need to use a pseudonym. You shouldn't need to be famous or even microfamous to be able to use a pseudonym.
 
Also, beyond +1ing Kee's point about people who need pseudonyms not being Madonna, but being the person fleeing abuse or organizing against tyranny, etc.? I'd like to re-iterate that this is not only "no newbie" but elitist. But, as Google will tell us all in a California minute, no one has to use the service.

It would be completely un-PC of me to pull the class/ethnicity card and call g+ policy a reflection of the starched shirt 1%-er brahmin SV $5M mansion-on-a-hill six-figure-mods-on-my-car of its VP, but it sure seems like it from the point of view of this progressive south/central Asian/euro mutt.

I'm sure he makes sure every person in G+'s segregated cafeteria wears a shirt. (No really, did you know? I understand the G+ group has its own cafeteria that the rest of Google staff can't go into. It's hilarious. I wonder if bitching about that is covered under the gag order too.) Vic Gundotra is the cuckoo's egg in Google's nest. He came in on the condition that he got his own rules in his own domain, and he's established a foreign nation within Google, and +Bradley Horowitz making announcements for him isn't going to make anything Vic dictates part of Google, as far as I'm concerned. He is operating a wholly owned subsidiary that shares office space.

It's a nice product Google owns, but my ultimate rationalization is that Google is just backing the wrong horse. It would be a nice product, design, socially, and by data/revenue, I suspect, without the fascistic aspects. That's a choice of leadership, and nothing more, and I've pretty much given up on persuasion; we've laid out the arguments. I suspect that Vic has good tight contracts in place and a loyal hermetically sealed team, and he has Google management scared to move him because they'd lose the team with them (that's probably a great deal of the point of the cultural isolation -- it's a great way to insure the safety of the top of a heirarchy).

I spent too much time in corporate and government politics to not find this stuff amazing. I'll pass out popcorn, but I'm not sure I'll consider myself more than an analyst on this fight any more. It's sewn up. It's fixed and it's broken. Use the tool for what it's set to do.

I wanted to get up with +Justin du coeur and do more proactive things, but I'm finding myself with a mom who is ill and now a fiance who's heading for serious neurosurgery (we're finding out how serious on Wednesday) so I'm a little sidetracked...and possibly mapping that stress into this and a bit more discouraged and frank in my thoughts than I might usually be.

Generally, I reserve stating a lot of my judgements because my father taught me that if things work out, in a nonviolent solution, you have to live with those folks later in a single "loving community," as Dr King used to put it. But sometimes, it's clear that there's a person like Gundotra or De Klerk who engineers a system so it can not be re-engineered into a loving community, and will not be part of the solution. My father taught me not to close doors until you have to. Well, let me close this one.

Vic Gundotra designed this system to keep the riff raff out. This service will not serve the people you want it to serve so long as he is paid by Google. So long as Vic Gundotra is allowed to keep his group hermetically sealed from Google culture, and protect himself and his group from Google and geek cultural influence, there will be no nymwar reform of any significance. So long as Vic's groups offices have separate keys from the rest of Google's staff, and there are gag orders within Google against talking about G+, there will be no reform of G+ policy that the nymwars advocates will find satisfactory.

And I don't think anything but a shareholder revolt or a major major media event is going to change any of that. Or, an engineering walk-out, and I don't think that's happening in this economy.

So, that's my analysis and opinion, and why you haven't seen me speaking out much on nymwars issues in some months. It's a pity and a shame, because I rather love a lot of things Google has done, and I hate to see the company take a wrong turn like this. I've seen them at DEC and Apple, both companies that I loved in many of the same ways (DEC faltered, Apple recovered but changed into a borg). It will be interesting to see what creature emerges from this at Google.
 
I agree that this doesn't fix all of the problems, but it's big huge step forward that should solve the issue for the majority of people who currently are impacted . . . those with established pseudonyms on other platforms. It seems to me that there's probably no urgent reason anyone needs to get on Google+, so there's no reason why the type of nube that +Shava Nerad mentions couldn't take a month or two and establish a pseudonym elsewhere, right?
 
+Kee Hinckley Yeah, I'm quite bothered by the fact that the policy change probably helps me, but sounds like it does nothing for anybody who really needs it. It's almost more annoying for the fact that it underlines how little they still get it.

And I agree with +Shava Nerad that I've mostly given up by this point: the degree of intentional cluelessness is by turns frustrating and depressing. I think it is ultimately going to have to get stomped. (Still need to draw up the architectural diagram of what's wrong with the way they are Facebook are doing this...)
 
+Scott Jordan It sure ain't a perfect solution, but I think it's a credible step in the right direction.
 
Note that in clarifications they are saying that pseudonyms do not require verification unless they are not "name-shaped", which seems to mean "doesn't look like a handle, and doesn't have a bunch of common words in it". So many pseudonyms should be fine…unfortunately there's no way to tell in advance, which is really a major flaw (and one that has been acknowledged as a flaw…so maybe we'll see a fix if they can figure out how to allow verification up-front without swamping their support and providing services to spammers).
 
+Botgirl Questi with their recent changes to "Personal Search" and search in general, I'm afraid not being on Google+ is a really really bad move for anyone that wants/relies on being search and clicked and visited. :/
 
+Roxanne K I agre with you and suspect that those who rely on clicks probably have an established pseudonym already somewhere, or can figure out how to get one up and running within a month or two.
 
It was enough for me to come back (and I missed you all)
It is still stupid but now it seems to be honest about the stupid, and that is all I really expect.
 
My problems:

- I started using my pseud in 1990. On dial-up BBSs. Which I verify how?
- Then I started using it on Usenet. Google now has some of the archives but a lot of my most active years disappeared into the ether.
- I've used it on LiveJournal since 2001 and have made thousands of posts and comments there. But I locked 99% of my posts down years ago to prevent clients from finding them. I have also intentionally kept my "friends list" small (around 150 people) because it was personal writing for the most part.
- I don't use it on Facebook because of their policies. So I mostly don't use Facebook. And I keep my list small there as well because I don't want a lot of noise or to inadvertently share something with people I can't trust.
- I don't use it on Twitter; I just use a version of my real name because the only Tweeting I do is for my work.
- And I sure as hell don't use it here, particularly now that Google has made it clear that if my pro page http://www.drsheilaaddison.com is ever going to get ranked appropriately in a search for my name, I've got to have a G+ account associated with it that links to it.

So I have a 21-year-old pseud, that at one point in my life was better known than my "birth name" to the majority of my friends, which almost certainly wouldn't pass the G+ test because I'm not famous and never wanted to be famous under it. (Oh, maybe I could scan in some old DJ flyers! Wait, I tossed those in a move years ago...) And which I don't want to publicly link to my real name. So thanks for nothing G+.
 
Fendor's comment raises an intersting sub point, the policy tacitly acknowleges that g+ is not a primary or exclusive social network ...
 
+Sheila Addison I recommend describing your use case on +Yonatan Zunger 's thread. Apparently Google is working now on setting the (fairly low) threshold of well-known-ness. This might help them set it at a good level for people who use a pseudonym among friends and are not famous like Madonna
 
+Adina Levin - thanks, I will try to. But it doesn't address my problem that now I can't use my pseud without it getting permanently intertwined with my real name thanks to search engine/social network bleed through. And the issues of social justice/safety are important to me as well, personally (I'm a therapist and grad school teacher - therapists and teachers and others are right now massively vulnerable to public and employer referenda on how we should lead our private lives) and professionally, since I work with a lot of vulnerable populations.

G+'s fix is no fix.
 
+Sheila Addison Why can't you use your pseudonym now? I've always assumed that pseudonyms would need a new account. As soon as you use your real name on a pseudonym account, you're going to be in the search history (of everyone, not just Google) forever.
 
+Fedor Pikus I highly recommend using Chrome's new multiple-account support. Different windows, different themes (to make the windows stand out), different plugins, different preferences. Or just use different browsers.

There are other leaks too that people may not think about. Like using the same link-shortening service account from both profiles. Or the same web-hosting account.
 
+Fedor Pikus I skipped some steps. A common name is very likely to be non unique enough to be of little value in establishing a strong internet presence (eg my name which is one of a dozen) so if one actually wants a pseudonym that is strong enough to serve as an internet idenity then the new naming rules make it clear that google plus is not the place for it. John Smith is acceptable but a really bad internet idenity. Dog Fart is probably far more findable, serachable, idenifyable and memorable... which seem like the working comptents of internet idenity to me. I am not sure that you could establish a new worthwhile pseudonym under these rules.
 
+Melissa Hall Good point. In fact, when I chose my pseudonym a few years ago, those factors directly went into my decision.
 
+Kee Hinckley and +Fedor Pikus - here's my problem. Tell me if I have any of this wrong - I'm trying to make sense of G+ and Google's new search same as everyone else, and this isn't my field.

Let's say my pseud is Little Bunny FooBar. I have 150 friends on LJ under that pseud.

I write a post on my pro blog that I want my LJ friends to know about. So under my Little Bunny FooBar account, I post "hey, look at this post I wrote!" A - Google's algorhythm doesn't care much. 150 people networked to an LJ account is barely a pip on their radar. B - my real name is nowhere on my LJ account, just embedded in the URL I posted. C - I've been able to tell search engines not to spider my public LJ material for most of the time it's existed. Not all engines respect that, but Google does. D - if people pass the link along, they might say "hey Little Bunny FooBar wrote this great post" or they might say "this is a great post on same-sex relationships that people should read." And if I really care, I can say "please pass it on but don't link to my LJ," which people might or might not respect, but they at least have the choice of.

So the odds are pretty poor that someone is going to put "Sheila Addison" into Google, and come up with Little Bunny FooBar.

Now we come to G+, and I use my primary email address to create Little Bunny FooBar, which by some miracle passes the pseud check.

I write a post on my pro blog that I want my G+ friends to know about. So I post "hey look at this post I wrote!" And even if I don't say "I wrote," I just say "look at this post!"... A - Google prioritizes anything shared through a G+ account in their algorhythm, sometimes (as we've already seen in various blogs about the new search) over the original site itself. B - Google knows my real name because I sign it to a lot of my emails, and I also have my second, pro email address that is my real name. I pick up mails for both in the same in-box and switch between my IDs when sending emails depending on who they go to. So Google knows it's me. C - I can't tell Google not to spider my G+ posts. D - if my friends pass the link along, G+ conveniently says "Little Bunny FooBar originally shared this post," pushing the association even higher.

So the odds start to get real good real fast that someone is going to put "Sheila Addison" into Google, and come up with posts by or linked from Little Bunny FooBar. Which they then put into Google, and find whatever remnants of LJ, Usenet, comment forum, etc. etc. activity I've done over the past 21 years under that pseud, plus any LJ pictures anyone ever labeled with that handle and didn't make friends-only, and on and on and on.

Tell me where I've got this wrong, please.

I'm actually already buried under a Google problem, thanks to... well, you can Google me. The situation wasn't created by social media, but in order to try to get justice, I had to expose the situation to the public, and right now I don't know how many job interviews I am losing out on because someone is prioritizing Google over my resume, but I'm sure it's happening. I'm doing my level best to use things like my pro Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and my pro blog to "convince" Google that the freshest and most relevant content is actually the stuff about my career, but it became clear when the new search was rolled out that I had to be linking them to a G+ account, and having other people pass things on via that G+ account, for their placement to improve. Reverting this account to my pseud would push me back in the other direction as far as I can tell, AND expose my LJ activity, Usenet activity, comment forums, etc. which at least right now is not an issue.
 
+Fedor Pikus - by allowing "leakage" between browser sessions, Google proves it does want me to link any pseuds to my real name. Its new touted policy still falls back on asking for real life ID in case of dispute, for that matter. And... well, read my previous comment. Google wants to connect everything to everything as deeply as it can. Short of buying another whole computer to use completely separately, and destroying one or the other of my long-standing Gmail accounts in order to start "fresh" with one of them, Google knows my name and my handle and knows they go together. What they choose to do with the info is the problem.

(And even then, I wouldn't trust them not to infer a link somehow - Facebook has three times offered me my father as "someone I might know," despite the fact that I have never allowed FB access to my email account, have never listed a hometown, have no one from my family or my pre-college life friended, and have no friends in common with my father's account. God only knows how they've plucked the connection out of the air but they have - and I've heard of plenty of people being FB-offered various ex-partners whom they also haven't had contact or connections with for decades.)
 
+Sheila Addison I had a similar issue with my LJ, but I fortunately shared those posts only privately. I'm up past my bedtime and a bit fuzzy, but at first pass, it doesn't sound like you have a good way out of the linkages already made. But if you assume they will eventually drop in priority, you can start a new Google+ account under the pseudonym and leave this one with your real name. I would definitely split your email accounts into two, because Google is playing all sorts of fun games with correlating who is in your address book, so you really want separate address books for each persona.
 
+Fedor Pikus Jane Smith might be safe, but she will also be lonely. I use a psuedo for connecting myself and so friends can find me without finding my professional life. Jane's friends from ralvery and the email list where she talks abou her abusive past and the gardening forums where she talks abou her azalleas will also not be able to find her. Safty without connection is solitary confinement.
 
+Kee Hinckley - I have two email accounts. I read them in one in-box because logging in and out of email all day long is a giant pain in the rear and extremely inefficient when I want to send an email.

I know that what I want is separateness. Google has made it clear I can't have it, not and work efficiently and effectively. Solution: I can't use G+ for anything truly personal at this point. Not if G+ is going to be required in order for my professional persona to function.

And the best part is that this account is based on my "personal" email address. So I'd have to actually delete this profile (or most parts of it, certainly all of the non-personal connections), lose most of my Google functionality, put the pseud on it (after the 30-day window for name changes expires...), hope it didn't get so caught up in a pseud battle that I lost TOTAL functionality including access to my primary email account for the past 8 years where I receive 50-100 messages per day including lots of mailing lists and activity for various online accounts, completely delete the professional email address that's on all my vitaes etc. and create a new similar one on... a separate computer?? (which I don't own), re-create all my non-personal connections here on G+, create a new contact list for my professional address that hopefully won't miss anything, and then start from scratch in creating content and hoping it will eventually claw its way up the algorhythm.

Sounds awesome.

Instead I just won't use a pseud on G+ and I won't use it for much of anything other than impersonal stuff, you know?

(Again, if I've got some part of this wrong, LMK. Also: get some sleep.)
 
No clear guidelines for those with established pseudonyms. No way to verify long-established pseudonyms that aren't in the spider zone. And worst: no provision for at-risk people, or even peopel who while not specifically at risk would like to mitigate their risk, who didn't happen to already have an established pseudonym. And now they're barring these people from even creating a gmail account, by forcing G+ account creation with new gmail accounts, and restricting names in those profiles even for people who never intend to use G+. Sure, they can go over and use yahoo... while it's still around... but it is a terrible precedent to bar the most disenfranchised people from social interactions. This is not a solution to the pseudonym issue. This is only another demonstration of completely not getting it.
 
+Fedor Pikus - you've got the wrong end of the stick. I don't want Little Bunny FooBar to be famous. (I'm like, the opposite of Rainyday Superstar - the stuff I want publicly findable is real name stuff.) My FooBar ID (or whatever it is) is for me and my friends. I want to be able to use it to connect with them and share content with them, without being outed. But if I share stuff with them here, and they re-share it, and it's my pro stuff, my pro stuff gets connected to FooBar. And if I only share my pro stuff on my real name account, then my friends all have to connect to two accounts, and in half a sec Google figures out "wait these accounts share a ton of connections" - FB already pulls this on me with my pro and personal accounts, and there are exactly 3 overlaps there. Meanwhile I have to actively ask my friends not to send me friend request on my pro account.

So it's clear G+ is useless to me for anything I'd want to be FooBar only.

When it's Google linking my two sessions with its cookies... I think that's down to Google.

And honey, I've already been outed. Google me. Google could choose to not use my PRIVATE EMAIL ACCOUNTS to make it worse but they choose to do so. Saying "you WILL be outed" is right up there with "well if you dress like that, you WILL get raped." How about we develop policies that support non-outing?
 
+Sheila Addison Spot on. Some of the technical bits might be a bit off, but not enough to quibble in this context.

Welcome to the identity network that no government has ever been allowed to create.
 
+Fedor Pikus and so if I WANT THEM to share it, because I want the ideas disseminated... and if I'd like to not be locked in a total closet of isolation.... Again, G+ is useless.

And it is different from LJ because Google prioritizes G+ reshares far more highly than peeftly little LJ posts off in the dusty corner of the Intertubes. And because Google knows my real name and will make the association for me even if I never poke my head out of the "private post" closet. They will take a colleague who has my professional email address in their address book, and offer them my Little Bunny FooBar G+ account, as "someone you might know."
 
Wait... I'm debating with one of those privilege denying dudes, aren't I? I recognize this feeling.
Norv N.
 
Just to note. Reading +Yonatan Zunger 's comments in the thread here:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/103389452828130864950/posts/YJbzDptWGQt
things sound very much okay, that is: he's dissociating between what name your name, and the name that looks roughly as a name. And clearly and distinctly states the policy is intended to allow the second, without any (other) requirement.
That is to say, in this understanding, that abuse-related first-time pseudonyms are perfectly okay, if chosen according to the rules of well-formedness of a human name. (that those have their tricky bits, we know, of course).
This sounds pretty much close to what we were discussing in the past, regarding acknowledging publicly the "no need to be legal names" aspect of any name that flies under the radar anyway.

It seems extremely important to me, to change the wording of the policy accordingly... The policy still says it has to be "your name", and not a certain G+ profile username, well-formed according to some rules.
Norv N.
 
+Shava Nerad : from the comments in the thread, from Yonathan Zunger, I get something different: that first-time/abuse-related chosen names can be used just fine, as long as the format of the name is "like a name". (you know, that entire story).
The good part seems to be that there is an acknowledgment that it doesn't have to be your name. (so not established, is fine, as long as it's a well-formed name). This acknowledgment is clear, in his comments, but not in the wording of the new policy.

Which means... we might be in the same confusion that we used to be before... depending on implementation.
 
Changed my. Ore to "we'll see". Secondary identities seem to be disallowed and I'm very worried about where the bar is for followers and "name shaped".
 
A recent expericance (I had my experise questioned for a seminar I am presenting under a psuedonym) made me realize that something I didn't even realize psuedonymiity does for me is to limit some of my privlage.
 
+Melissa Hall And vice versa. Sometimes you gain a reputation under your pseudonym that you can't carry over into real life. (I recently had something I wrote go viral. Hundreds of thousands of views. Front page of Reddit…and I can't mention it here. :/
 
Results so far, out of 40 votes:

1 This addresses my issues and I'm happy now!
8 It's progress but falls short of what I wanted.
19 It's not significant progress. Boo.
12 I'll need to see how it's implemented before I make up my mind.
 
+Norv N. - and we know what a stellar record of implementation they have ;-) ...
Sai
 
/sub
 
I felt forced to click the "it's progress" choice because it personally helped me a little - my nym is now punctuated here according to my preference, which I documented for them by supplying a link into their own group.google archive of newsgroups. But mostly I empathize with the "must wait & see" position.
 
It's progress for the famous or web-famous people with following. And apparently now it's official, only ugly nyms get busted. Like getting in to a club.
 
+Amy Redstone The question is "how big a following". So far I've only seen one example, and it was "runs a SecondLife interest group with 2000 people". I've also seen hints that 2000 twitter followers might be okay. If you follow the thread here:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/103389452828130864950/posts/YJbzDptWGQt there's some very interesting stuff towards the bottom by Yonatan as to why the did this, and why they made the tradeoffs. I have mixed feelings on it, but it certainly wasn't a casual decision (which the first pass definitely felt like). You'll note that there hasn't been a peep out of Vic about this stuff.
 
Yeah, that post going into both the statistics and the reasoning -- that is incredibly transparent, especially for Google, which is usually about as communicative as the monolith in 2001.
 
+Amy Redstone one thing that I find grating is that it's addressing the problem of the people with the loudest megaphones (anybody with a significant following online) but not helping the most marginalized people: lgbtq and questioning teens who don't have the 2000 twitter follower, domestic violence survivors who are just trying to connect with the world, targets of stalkers who have had to make their LJ account private and so don't have the history to share.

And agreed with +Kee Hinckley and +Gretchen S., that post is great reading, and Yonatan deserves a lot of credit for engaging.
Add a comment...