on the internet, you may have valid reasons for hiding that you're a dog.

[acroyear]

Google's gormless 'no pseudonym' policy | GrrlScientist | Science | guardian.co.uk:

It might surprise the white men employed by Google to learn that people use pseudonyms for a variety of legitimate reasons -- reasons that may not be mutually exclusive. They may be trying to evade a stalker or harasser; they might wish to keep their social life separate from their professional life; they may be seeking help about a medical condition that they wish to keep private; they might be a political activist or dissident, or they may have lost a job because they write a blog, for example. Perhaps they've used a pseudonym throughout most of their lives and are not well known by their real life name; they might use a pseudonym to distinguish themselves from the other two dozen people sharing the same name and city; or maybe their real name is too long, unpronounceable for most English-speakers or doesn't use Latinised letters. Or maybe they just plain hate their real name. I am sure there are plenty of other non-criminal reasons for using a pseudonym that I've not mentioned here, but regardless of the reason(s), these are personal.

GrrlScientist was one of those who did lose access to their entire Google profile (gmail and all) because of the pseudonym issue in Google+.

Comments

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

I dont think it *surprises* those white men employed by google.

I think they actively do not give a nickel plated fuck. There's a difference.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

The issue is that one particular problem of anonymity got public attention that effectively had companies like Google and Facebook HAVE to change their policies in order to not be eaten alive by the "won't you protect the children" media whores that flood the morning TV talk shows every week.

The excuse for not permitting online anonymity is that it enables cyberbullying, and given the high-profile suicides that have happened, the media outcry made FB and Google fear there would be a wall street outcry or a legal outcry, so they changed their policies before the Laws changed to MAKE them change.

Nevermind that the Law changes would have been blatantly unconstitutional as GrrlScientist pointed out. The expense of fighting a battle in court that the bobble heads in the media will use to humiliate you (and your stock price) on a daily basis throughout the entire trial is just not important enough.

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

Except they consistently conflate anonymity and pseudonymity. They're not the same thing, at all. In addition, that argument simply doesn't hold water. If it did, no one would be an asshole on Facebook.

Except... There's plenty of assholes on Facebook. It simply is a false premise.

Also, as GrrlScientist pointed out (and Will Burns did long before she got there), they cannot legally deny pseudonyms as unless you are using them for fraudulent purposes they are as legal as any wallet name in the US. All it's going to take is a stern legal challenge.

Besides, Google doesnt CARE about "real" names. They care about real SOUNDING names. It's a distinction that's important.

If you use your wallet name, or you use "Joe Shields", unless they're going to actually check against a government ID (and they're not) how do they know? Answer? They don't know. It has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with appearances. It's a sham from beginning to end and actually puts *real* people in danger- the VERY SAME KIDS they're purporting to protect.

Hell you're not even putting your own child's name on the internet. Your reasons for not doing so are good and sound and completely valid.

Why do these companies not get that putting your wallet ID out there isn't *safe*?

[uncle-possum.livejournal.com]

Well, in part they just don't think much. But there is also the problem of marketing to a pseudonym or anonym as opposed to the official ID: how can you link purchases on other sites, or other similar data when the name you have is, say, Oggbad the Annoying.

[bronxelf-ag001.livejournal.com]

It's not hard to market to a persistent pseudonym or anonym. I've used bronxelf near on exclusively since the winter of 1995. No matter what name I use, I still buy the same kinds of things.

If I log in to ebay, for example, I do it under bronxelf. Ebay knows my wallet data. They have *no trouble* marketing to me. And yet, they have no need to show *anyone else* anything but my username.

If ebay can do it, and amazon can do it... why can't google do it?

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

yeah, that's the thing, the step i wasn't myself connecting either 'til now: it isn't that Google wants/needs your real name. the issue is that google (and facebook) wants to only show the rest of the world your real name, and has no valid reason to.

If it needs to exchange that personal info with a financial company (or themselves if you purchase extra cloud disk space as I do for picasa), then fine, they can cancel everything if they discover you're an out-n-out liar...but chances are if you're making that purchase, you're not someone creating the account to be abusive to someone. no cyberbully spends money on being a cyberbully - cyberbullying is an act of convenience and spontenaity, "hey, wanna create a fake online girlfriend to fuck with so-n-so's head?". the cure for cyberbullying like that is to charge money for accounts, but that's never going to fly...

Identity theft is just as possible (and just as easy) as it was before Google decided everybody had to be public to the world on their terms.