ie8 fix
madison

Google+: Eric Schmidt wants your real name or nothing at all

By | August 29, 2011, 1:45pm PDT

Summary: Google’s former CEO says that if you don’t like their policy about having to use your real name to represent you on Google+, then maybe their social network is not for you. Thank you Eric Schmidt!

Recently at the Edinburgh International TV Festival, NPR’s Andy Carvin was able to squeeze in a question with Google former CEO Eric Schmidt about how Google could possibly justify its names policy, a policy requiring that one must use their real name to represent them on Google+, when it could put people at risk. He said “…people who are concerned about their safety, G+ is completely optional. No one is forcing you to use it. It’s obvious for people at risk if they use their real names, they shouldn’t use G+.”

Thank you Eric Schmidt. I love this.

Why do I love this? I’m a 98% right-brain social creative marketing guy but when it comes to personal responsibility there’s no room for squishy emotional grey area when people are online. If there was ever a  moment in my line of work when I appreciated the staunch pragmatist, it’s right now. Eric nailed it.

Now I know this means we need to now be more rational about why we are doing what we do online but think about this for a second.

The problem with social networks is that while it is definitely wrong for them to sell your data/content without telling you first or providing a way for you to opt-out of said data sale, the internet to me often feels like the “land of not taking responsibility for one’s own actions.” In all honesty, I’m more often than not appalled at the hypocrisy (and irony) of most users of social networks. The freedom of being online and getting access to something for free also appears to perpetuate an irrational sense of entitlement out of users that I find amusing for the most part, but it’s generally annoying.

1. Social networks owe you nothing. If a company creates a free website for you to sign up and be a part of, they reserve the right to create and implement whatever policies they want. If it’s all documented and made available to the public, the users have no real rights other than being informed about what is being done with their data.

2. Life is about choices folks. If you choose to create an account on a social network on your own accord, and then also decide to publish what you’d consider personal photos, videos, content, etc. - That was your choice to do so. No one held you at gunpoint (er…hopefully not), forcing you to create a Facebook account followed by populating it with your own content. You chose to. There’s a reason why some people never get on social networks or if they do, they hardly post anything. They’re making the choice of what to share because they know it’s their own responsibility.

3. You are being logged. Make no mistake: the moment you create an account anywhere, not just on social networks, you are signing up to be part of a human data collection experiment. Data collected will be used to figure out how to make money. End of story. If you can embrace that fact and be cool with it, then welcome to the current state of the internet party.

4. It is called a SOCIAL network for a reason. I always find it funny when people create an account on a social network and then feverishly lock everything down as tight as possible and hardly share anything. It’s like going to a business mixer or a family function or a get together with your friends where, immediately after you arrive, you go find a dark corner to hang out in by yourself until everyone leaves. In short, why bother?

Newflash: You are being digitally cloned

We are witnessing the early stages of the ultimate convergence of sociology, human behavior, and billions of data packets sailing over millions of miles of network cables intended to construct a virtual version of you.

I’ve observed that the same people who complain about or are fearful of this are the same ones that are also contributing to it the most by providing the most content, whether they realize it, like it, hate it, or not. Every time you update your status about what you had for dinner, your struggles as a parent, how much you like your job, when you last went to Disneyland and how fun it was, etc. – algorithms collect, organize and attempt to construct a ‘virtual you’ over a time period that can be stored (and manipulated) in a multitude of ways, deconstructed by ad agencies and reconstructed as needed to serve you content that they hope will be as close to your heart strings as possible so that you buy stuff. Because you have provided the data about yourself from your own brain and fingertips, associated content statistically has a higher and higher percent chance of resonating with you as time goes on after they measure your continued responses. As we continue to voluntarily provide more insight into our likes, dislikes and fears, the more data is collected about us and our individual behavior patterns.

In the bigger picture, websites are constructing a virtual version or copy of humanity in the form of patterns that fill up a multitude of databases. Unless you are in high-tech, this happens without the majority of us even realizing it because we are distracted by our own emotions, the day to day stresses of life and the onslaught of news feeds that now pour in from every direction.

If I sound crazy, a simpler way to describe it is this (I’m sure most of you have seen this before): When you see a new animated movie come out like Avatar, their goal is to as accurately as possible, recreate realistic human physical motion and movement so that the characters look as authentic as possible and are believable. In a production studio, they do so by making the actors wear a body suit covered in sensors that connect up to a computer program. They then have the actor do certain movements for the movie to support various scenes, etc. While they are moving around, the sensors are recording these movements and it creates a 3D image of those movements on the screen, completing a virtual version of that person and their physical/movement characteristics.

The social monopolization of the web is doing the exact same thing except that it’s with human behavior instead and on a global scale. By creating an account on a social network or site so that we can willingly populate it with content from our daily lives and true selves, we have officially authorized the creation of digital clones of us as a species so companies can utilize it for innovation and business.

Embrace it or bust

If none of the above sounds ok with you, don’t sign up for Facebook, Google+, or any other social network or community. Plain and simple. However, if you like the internet, you like Facebook, Twitter, RSS feeds, and being able to consume news and opinions from around the world, then sign up, be happy about it and make it a positive experience for yourself and those that are connected to you.

See also:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Rich Harris has been a web marketer for over 10 years, with over 14 years experience in high-tech, both in the consumer and enterprise spaces.

Disclosure

Rich Harris

Rich is employed full-time with Seagate Technology, a leader in storage devices for consumer, small business, and enterprise customers. The blog posts here are solely his opinion and do not represent his employer or any other organization with which he may be affiliated.

Biography

Rich Harris

Rich Harris has been a web marketer for over 10 years, with over 14 years experience in high-tech, both in the consumer and enterprise spaces. Currently heading up the social media effort for a large prominent high-tech company, he has a passion for people and community building coupled with a strong analytical aversion to online marketing's status quo.

122
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Your concept is
donaldsjones 9th May
I???m impressed, I must say. Truly rarely can i encounter a blog that???s both educative and entertaining, and without a doubt, you might have hit that the nail around the head. Your concept is outstanding; the issue is something there are not enough folks are speaking intelligently about. I am happy i always came across this within my seek out something with this.

reverse cell phone lookup
There should be anonymous social networks.
@tatiGmail - I don't disagree. My point is that if remaining anonymous is what people want, then they should go sign up for a social network that supports that ideal.
@Rich Harris Agreed, although it isn't really a "social" network, in the way of Facebook or G+, where you actively look for people you know.

As to you comment in the article about "hiding in a corner", I think of it more as you socialise, but you talk to small groups of friends about different things, you don't jump on the table and preach to the whole room.

Friends from one part of my life probably have no interest in what I am saying to another group - for example, my computer friends probably don't care about my motorbike riding and vice versa, I'll share my prostate problems with my family, but it isn't something all my friends should know (and that was just an example, I don't have prostate problems! wink ).
@Rich Harris wow... you guys really are willing to just give up some of your rights. I don't use Facebook due to how they handle their security changes. Although I did have to set up a temp account for accessing Powerpoint presentations for a class. I didn't even put my whole name, and with just the first name, last initial, including any other information Facebook took from my system I set my account up on, Facebook was able to provide me a list of "potential friends" all of which I knew excluding one. None of these "potential friends" resided in the state I reside in.

There are a lot of websites out there that won't fully function without google-analytics allowed or doubleclick.net (using NoScript in Firefox). This means that even if I don't use ANY Google products, in order for me to view a website that should have NOTHING to do with Google and me, I'm forced to allow their content to view the website. In essence, if you want to browse the internet you are forced to give Google some of your information. Google already knows who you are. I only see the forced names as a way for Google to increase revenue and decrease some posted crud.

You guys who are for this are giving a publicly owned corporation a lot of extra information and power... when the sky falls, I guess you can say you have been warned. happy
0 Votes
+ -
@Rich Harris

I'd like to commend you for writing what is perhaps the best piece on ZDNet I can recall. While I am against the real names policies You do make some valid points about user responsibility and choice. It is not Google or Facebook's responsibility to protect users privacy when it is the users who volunteer information and it is the users choice to reject using the services if they do not like the terms and policies of the service provider. Your's is a sensible and pragmatic position.

I am, however, as stated, against the real names policy and am also a pragmatist. First of all Google's policy is not actually a real names policy. It is a real sounding names policy. There are no controls that require actual verification of real names and as such has no socially redeeming value and only value for Google's data collection business model. I am not against Google's data collection business model either; only their real names policy. I don't care if ZDNet, for instance, knows that I comment on certain topics and can deduce that I'm a PC user using Linux and tailors ads suggesting products based on that fact as long as I don't have to give up my real name for them to do so.

In todays trolling culture, some of my comments could cause me to become the target of on-line harassment if my comments (which I stand behind 100%) were to offend some supporter of Ed Bott (who I have debunked and poorly reviewed several of his articles recently) or Apple or Microsoft. While my use of the services requires me to divulge my real world identity, anonymous trolls can victimize me on-line at all of my accounts that were established with my real identity from accounts established under real sounding pseudonyms or extend that harassment into the real world and do so completely anonymously. I would either have to suffer through it or burn my accounts and with it my real identity and re-establish a new unknown identity.

Real names policies do not protect the public from malicious anonymous attacks it makes them easy targets for victimization all in the name of profits for the providers of free services. No we don't have to use them but if the policies make profits for one company others will adopt them. Then the Internet will become more "use at your own risk" than it already is and a greater risk to use. For their own safetyand to satisfy the real sounding names policy everyone will have to be John or Jane Smith. Can you imagine finding out which Jane Smith out of 300 million on Facebook is Mary Jenkins from your old high school?
@Nate413 - I never said I supported giving anyone more power. All I said was basically, if you don't like the rules of a free website, don't sign up.
0 Votes
+ -
@Nate413
If you don't like the rules, don't play the game! This is not a rights issue...As stated previously, no one is forcing you to use these sites. Their sites, their rules. Simple! As long as it is legal, they can make any rules they like. Don't like it? Go some place else or start your own site.

Time for you to grow up!
@Rich Harris
My apologies. I read these stories as I have a few minutes here and there at work, and the initial slant I took you to have from the article is that you was in favor of how Google is handling Google+. After rereading and realizing the error of my ways, I had meant to take a minute to edit my post but got sidetracked and never took the opportunity.

Well written article, you obviously got my attention. happy

It just saddens me to see how a once small business centered around quality and customer service is showing how they are beginning to practice the same corporate ethics as every other corporation out there centered only around incoming revenue. Working for the largest newspaper corporation I get to experience it quite often.

@linux for me

You are giving away your rights to privacy when you sign up for G+ service and post content. They can do essentially whatever they want with that content (all in the name of "privacy"). You are right, as an individual I don't have to sign up for it. Although, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. As for not liking it, I have my own family website for friends and family to view baby pictures. There's a lot more I intend to add when time allows. However, that's the beauty of social sites such as G+. Less time is spent for an individual in creating the structure for the content to be put in and more time spent on creating the content. To me, that's not worth giving up privacy for.

As for growing up... I'm 29, just bought and moved into a new house a few months ago so my wife and I have ample living space to provide for our 9 month old son, where I just got my old home up for sale after purchasing and living there since I was 21. I work a full-time job and I'm working on a degree in Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship with the intention of one day starting my own business. No, I didn't get help from family either. If that isn't "growing up," then I guess I don't want to. happy
0 Votes
+ -
@Rich Harris and "Linux for me"

Sorry but IMHO you should say "if you don't like the rules, go try changing them!" instead of passively get into the game of "accept or get out" created by these companies.

Customer satisfaction IS a part of business and nobody can say "you are a slave to my rules or otherwise get out of my site" today. With tones of feedbacks and sacrifices (time and money), people like me can make the web a better place to sign in, but people like you will give rise to different kinds of dictators, by passively accepting their invalid and dangerous policies.

Don't you vote for adjusting the old rules, in real life? So reform must happen at the digital level too. Please don't make yourselves slaves of these companies, and please kindly think before you talk.
@Rich Harris and "Linux for me"

Sorry but IMHO you should say "if you don't like the rules, go try changing them!" instead of passively get into the game of "accept or get out" these companies.

Customer satisfaction IS a part of business and nobody can say "you are a slave to my rules or otherwise get out of my site" today. With tones of feedbacks and sacrifices (time and money), people like me can make the web a better place to sign in, but people like you will give rise to different kinds of dictators, by passively accepting their invalid and dangerous policies.

Don't you vote for adjusting the old rules, in real life? So reform must happen at the digital level too. Please don't make yourselves slaves of these companies. happy
@Nate413

Thank you for proving my point. You just confirmed that you join the game in progress and want to immediately change the rules!

It has nothing to do about what YOUR conception of whether those rules are right or wrong. You don't like them? Don't play. Make your own site with your own rules, and I will guarantee you that you will be drowning with requests to modify those rules.

Their site...their rules...Go play somewhere else if you don't like them. You probably want to change the traffic rules to drive on the left side of the road too! (This isn't Great Britain or Japan).

So what if you are 29...Doesn't mean you have grown up at all. Time to face reality kiddo.
@linux for me

Either you cant read or you cant see "kiddo". I agreed with you in my previous statement that I don't have to sign up for it. That means that I did NOT join the game because I DON'T agree to the rules. I never said anything about changing them, but they would have to be changed in order for me to "play."

My original statement was attacking the underlying principle to giving up a right of privacy. As an example, suppose Google+ was a huge building like a Sam's Club or Cosco where the whole city you reside in could go to hang out and chat with each other. However, in order for you to be a member, instead of them charging you $30, you had to accept an agreement that every second in that building, every word, and every action you make, they record and sell to other companies for "free." At the same time, every other company you go to visit Google records you visiting as well (without your permission, because the company you visited gave Google permission since that company is using some part of Google's services). Knowing all of that, would you still be willing to become a member of that company if you didn't know anyone, and if not, would you sign that agreement if all of your friends and family did?

Eric's philanthropic approach or justification for removing anonymity could be that he is cleaning up the internet. Currently with anonymity on the internet, most probably don't see my previous example as a big deal, but what happens ten or fifteen years down the road when every action or word you make is sold to other companies and these other companies start using them? What happens when privacy becomes even less so because today you have begun to be desensitized to the idea of giving up your internet privacy? Two years ago, people believed it to be a travesty when gas rose to $2.00 a gallon, and did nothing more than grumble and complain a little when it rose to almost $4 a gallon this year.

The biggest problem I have with this is that this "data" never goes away. Any actions you said or made online can haunt you for the rest of your life and could even become SEO friendly. In my original post where I posted about Facebook, the only conclusion I could come to on how they obtained information about me to give me friends I know is from my Yahoo account that I gave when I signed up. Some of those folks I had at one time or another sent emails to or received emails from since Ive used this email account for over 10 years.

About the rest of your post, I do have specific rules on my website. When people log in to see family photos on my site, I have in a big easy to see font right below the gallery tab stating that photos are for personal use where none of the photos are to be placed on any social sites or used for commercial purposes unless given permission by the people in the photos. If I find it happening, Ill reset passwords and restrict access. Not much else I can do since it is dependent on the honesty system. Ive got an option on certain galleries for them to save at 400 res to make 5x8's of if they desire.

If changing the rules on the road were reasonable, cost efficient and safer then I would be for changing them. I am flexible. Instances in this area I find an issue with are when law enforcement officials and tools (cameras) are used as a means of additional revenue and not to increase and enforce safety on the road.

I'm all for functional conflict, but attack the message not the messenger. I realize were all human and accidents do happen.

Nathan

Edited to add quotes/apostrophes since they were lost in pasting.
@tatiGmail 4chan
@tatiGmail How are you going to find your friends, if it is anonymous? :-S

Twitter is a little different, it is all public and people who find you interesting follow you (and vice versa). But with Facespace+ you are going there to socialise with friends. How are you going to find your friends, if they are anonymous?

A BBS or forum, where everybody is fairly anonymous is fine, but it isn't a network of your social contacts. You need to make the choice, are you going to join an anonymous forum or are you going to join a social network and look for your friends?

I do like G+'s circles. I don't want to share everything with everybody. Some things are only of interest to my tech friends, others are only for my family.

On the other hand, when I feel like shouting to the world, I do it 140 chars at a time on Twitter.
0 Votes
+ -
@wright_is when I want to add someone I ask for their username - its not that hard! I personally dont care because my name is too common for anyone to just find anyway - but I do think that people should be able to keep their identity secret if that is what they want , as long as the network has their real identity in the settings.

However I also understand that google provide this free (well they dont actually because I am supporting it by reading the targeted advertising) and that they can make the rules and people like me can join or not. Personally I think the world only needs one social network as anything else dilutes it and reduces the friending possibility.

I have always suspected that G+ is aiming itself at the business market rather than the kids - well thats fine but even though I am probably in their target market I prefer to hang out where its less serious and more fun.

Must look to see how I can unsuscribe from G+ - it could have been an amazing playground but its ending up like boring linkedin
@tatiGmail I have to agree. I think Google just fell down the well with their latest social networking attempt...again.

I'm never going to use my real name. Even worse most of my friends don't even know it. So why would I? ????!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
ZazieLavender Updated - 31st Aug
@ZazieLavender - Paid to praise Eric Schmidt? Would be nice.
@tatiGmail Try 4chan.org if you're over 18. Be warned though, before you enter, be prepared for anything. Then realize why complete anonymity is a bad thing.
0 Votes
+ -
When did Schmidt become CEO again?
William Farrell 29th Aug
I thought he was demoted to CIO, or something.
@William Farrell - Thanks for this...corrections have been made and should be reflected in this piece shortly.
0 Votes
+ -
Think about the real people this policy harms.
KeeHinckley Updated - 29th Aug
It's nice that you've never had to hide your politics from your boss, or needed to talk to other folks about being gay and in the closet, or weren't hounded off the internet by people who said they wanted to kill you, or weren't tracked down and almost raped by someone who learned your first name on Twitter. But just because those things haven't happened to you, doesn't mean those people don't deserve a voice on the internet. I appreciate that you don't want the trolls and the jerks who come with anonymity, and Google has done a very good job of trying to keep them off of Google+, and the techniques have had *nothing* to do with real names.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that someone's personal experiencesthe ones which they don't want to be right up there in the search results next to their resume, aren't relevant to our discussions about politics, religion, extremism, business, or anything else that might get discussed on a *general* social media site. I for one think that a social network stripped of the opinions of people who value their privacy would be a very sad network indeed.

The irony is that what Google is asking for here is revolutionary. In our offline lives we take it for granted that we can talk to the hairdresser or the bartender, or that stranger on a business trip about politics or religion or our marriage without having it get back to our bosses and customers. We don't walk around handing out a transcript of everything we ever said to perfect strangers and giving them our full name (and by extension, home address). Yet Google wants us to do just that online. This is a radical new concept of what it means to speak publicly. Google, Facebook and others are creating the new public common, but the freedoms you are used to getting in a public common don't apply. Either we put the pressure on them to change *now*, or we aren't going to get another chance. These conventions will become the standard for new networks.

Already Google is experimenting with attaching Google+ profiles to search results. That means that the stuff you wrote under your own name will have your profile link next to it. But if you write under a pseudonym because you value your privacy, or you don't want your ex-abuser to find you, or you simply don't want your boss to know your political opinions? Sorry, you can't have a Google profile. You can't attach those search results to your pseudonym. Google+ is the beginning of a nasty slippery slope, and it's going to impact far more than just a social network.

For a list of the kind of people who will be second-class citizens in Google's new world, read my long post of all the arguments I have ever heard against psuedonyms here http://j.mp/qBiP9O, or see the web page "Who is Harmed by a Real Name's Policy" http://j.mp/pojGSo and the site http://my.nameis.me/ . For more on the ethical issues surrounding requiring legal names, the Oxford University blog, "Practical Ethics", expands on the idea here: http://j.mp/pUMa0j
0 Votes
+ -
So don't play in Google's world.
matthew_maurice 29th Aug
@KeeHinckley Rich kind of skirts around the issue, but the fact is that Google+, Facebook, and the vast majority of free social websites exist to harvest data for their "algorithms" and ad targeting. These aren't altruistic creations intended to give people a strings-free digital playground, they're essentially trojan horses-apparently gifts but truly intended as an vector into your life.

As such they're going to create rules which facilitate what they want, which is a real name to tie all your online activity to. That is, and always will be, non-negotiable. So if you don't like don't use it.
@matthew_maurice That's the "go apply to another country club" argument. If my friends are here, if this is where the people are who are discussing business, I don't really have a choice do I?

As for the advertising argument, that's a red herring. Advertisers don't care what your name is, they want to know what you talk about and what you click on. They'll find out your wallet name when you make a purchase. If advertisers relied on your real name they'd be dead in the water. The average woman in American changes her name perhaps five times. Typos abound. "John Smith" is not a useful piece of information to an advertiser.
And keep in mind. Google isn't checking driver's licenses. This policy doesn't keep out spammers and trolls who call themselves John Smith and don't care if their account is deleted tomorrow. It keeps out people who care about their reputation online, but don't want to give their real name to strangers. People who use the same persistent name across multiple sites. The people who are responsibly using pseudonyms are the ones most hurt.
0 Votes
+ -
@KeeHinckley "If my friends are here, if this is where the people are who are discussing business, I don't really have a choice do I?" Which is exactly why Facebook has a multi-billion dollar valuation while it only makes a few million in net profit per quarter.

"Advertisers don't care what your name is, they want to know what you talk about and what you click on." You actually reinforce my point. This isn't about how Google targets ads now , it's about how they'll leverage "the algorithm" output in the future . "The average woman in American changes her name perhaps five times." Uhm, really? Legally? I think I'd like to see a link to a credible source on that one. "Typos abound. 'John Smith' is not a useful piece of information to an advertiser." Sure, but I think Google is betting that with a big enough sample size they can minimize those, and even common names can be individualized when you tie in all the other information people seem glad to give Google and Facebook.

"And keep in mind. Google isn't checking driver's licenses." Don't be so sure. More and more public records databases can be accessed. Google is pretty good at tying multiple pieces of information together (cf. Google maps). "It keeps out people who care about their reputation online, but don't want to give their real name to strangers." Dr. Strangelove (AKA Eric Schmidt) has made it clear, if you're big on personal privacy Google doesn't care about [read: they can't monetize] you. "people who are responsibly using pseudonyms are the ones most hurt." Again, Google doesn't care, and it's their playground.

The reality is that there's no free Soclal Media lunch. Platforms like Facebook and Google+ cost, literally, a fortune to develop and support, and the companies that created them are looking to get paid. They clearly believe that if they build we will come, give our real names, and they will get paid.
@matthew_maurice
Thank you, Eric, for giving us another good reason to eschew these "services".
@matthew_maurice Well stated and I agree wholeheartedly. The real problem, as I see it, is the less tech savvy users don't know this. Most people would be upset if they actually knew how their information was being harvested and used by Facebook, for example.
And don't tell me about the EULA. Nobody but the geekiest geeks read those.
@KeeHinckley "If my friends are here, if this is where the people are who are discussing business, I don't really have a choice do I?"

If you are hiding your identity because you're in fear for your life (or whatever), what friends do you have? Not public friends. If you reveal yourself to those people, you endanger yourself. because of the way Facebook works, you can be discovered third hand (through friends of friends).

If you're in hiding for political reasons, then you are probably more interested in informing the outside world about the situation you are in. So you want a network that will accommodate that, and Twitter works.
@KeeHinckley - Without repeating what Mathew said, just because your friends are there doesn't mean that you are FORCED to go there. You do have a choice. You can even discuss business over the phone. I would not want to talk business on any Google site or the information will be public. Mention the company name? Guess what, someone looking for your company could find your post though a search. The fact is, G+ still belongs to Google and you DON'T have to use it if you don't like their rules. Advertisers DO want your real name. That and your address, maybe phone number. That way they can contact you outside of the web if you fit a certain profile. Maybe send you snail mail and in the correct language. It's one thing to just blanket a large group of people with ads but if they can direct you to a local establishment that has just what you need based upon exactly who you are, then someone can charge a LOT of money for all of that info. And it may not just be advertisers. Could be law enforcement or just a bunch of crooks out to steal your identity. Or blackmail you. Lots of money in this. But there is nothing you can do about it. It's THEIR business. Not a public right.
@KeeHinckley That is why you have groups and you have friends lists. If you don't want it getting back to your boss, don't invite him into your circle, or don't talk about politics or how bad his breath is in a circle of which he is a member.

If you are worried about the topic, then don't mention it on the social network at all. If you are gay and haven't told your parents/friends/co-workers, talking about it openly on a social network probably isn't the best idea. You search out a more anonymous forum to talk about it.

I belong to several social networks, but I monitor what I want to say, and if I don't think it is appropriate for that social network or that group/circle, I won't post it.

You don't talk at the water cooler about your prostate problem and incontinence and you don't talk to your wife and children about the affair you are having at the office. You chose where you talk about those topics carefully. Why should a social network be any different?
@KeeHinckley hear hear!
@KeeHinckley The thing that doesn't make sense to me is that they could require a lot of personal information in order to open an account, including real name, phone number, address, email, etc. They can store that as private information to use as needed. Why would they care what name you use as a public facing cyber-person? What is wrong with having a 'stage name'?
@josmyth It depends why they REALLY want the information. Nothing on Google is private information. They say so in their Terms of Service. By using all your information as "accurate" they can get a lot more money for it. Oh, did you think your address and phone number were examples of PRIVATE information? Read Google's TOS.
@KeeHinckley
you totally ignored the point.
if you won't/can't provide your real name, then don't use G+. its that simple.

"It's nice that you've never had to hide your politics from your boss,"
if you need to hide things from your employer, that's your problem, and social networks are not obligated to provide you with the means to do so. however, if your employer is in his own circle (or just a separate one) away from any of your political posts, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. even facebook has this option, and has for a long time, its just kind of hard to deal with. if you need to hide things, then learn how to use the service. however, if you post that kind of thing online, then its very possible he could find it anyways, or HEAR ABOUT IT FROM SOMEONE ELSE.

"or needed to talk to other folks about being gay and in the closet,"
same thing here. have your own 'gay' circle, and theres nothing to worry about. except for, again, word of mouth.

"or weren't hounded off the internet by people who said they wanted to kill you,"
online threats mean little, and for the most part are not serious. i actually deal with that sort of thing on a near daily basis, and thats just from a single game that I play. however, the anonymity of the internet exaggerates the reality most of the time. i am sort of an anti-troll troll. when someone starts bashing another player, i start in on them. this usually leads to "if you were standing if front of me, id knock your teeth out" or various other real world threats. sometimes they actually are that pissed off, and other times they are just trolling themselves. there is really no way to tell the difference unless they make it clear. its rather amusing when is some child barely in his teens. anyways, i have given my real world location to such people before and have had nothing happen. perhaps it is because of the distance. perhaps it is because my confidence in doing so makes them not so sure of themselves anymore. or perhaps most of them just weren't totally serious to begin with. or perhaps, i simply have less to worry about than some, because i am not a female. no matter what, there will be threats online, but for the most part they are nothing to worry about. the ones you hear about are a seriously low statistic. in the end, if you have something to fear from online predators, then maybe you shouldn't be online at all. wether you use your real name or not, you can be found, especially if you are active. using the internet is not a necessity or even necessarily a 'right', its just something thats available to pretty much anyone, and can be useful for a variety of things. you have a right to stand on a soapbox in public and shout about your going ons, but you don't choose to do that do you?

"or weren't tracked down and almost raped by someone who learned your first name on Twitter."
again, statically minute numbers. it happens to people, and real names have nothing to do with it. in fact, having an online presence is metaphorically the same as choosing to walk down every dark alley in the country at the same time. if you want to be walking down dark alleyways at night, you need to accept that there is a chance you might get raped. if you want to be online, then you need to accept that theres a slim chance the same thing might happen.


the problem's you address have little to do with real name policies, and a lot to do with the fact that humans are despicable creatures. the problem with arguments like this is that you aren't laying any blame at all on the perpetrators, rapists and the like. "its the company's fault for having a real name policy!" how ridiculous is that? how about, it's the rapist's fault for doing it? instead of fighting real name policies that you dont even 'have' to participate in, you should instead be campaigning for more severe punishments for online predators. if they are gonna get the death penalty for tracking you down and raping you, then they're much less likely to do it aren't they? in the meantime, just don't bother participating in services that require your real name. there are still alternatives out there.

also, another point. you are harboring the delusion that your own opinion of what a social network should be, is in fact what all social networks should be.
@ppetty One point that is not exactly true. It probably doesn't matter what circle one is in and what the boss is in. If the company name is mentioned and someone does a Google search for that company, (such as the boss searches), they could find the post. There is no privacy on any Google website. Read their Terms of Service.
@KeeHinckley

Perfect. Thanks.
@KeeHinckley I think the point of the article is that these sites are NOT the public common. These are private enterprises who are out there to make money and not provide you with anything specific. Read Google's terms of Service, part 11. If you are worried about anything relating to your privacy, irrespective of what you are concerned about (being raped, hounded, the boss finding out stuff...) then stay away from Google. If you want to discuss personal stuff, find a site that supports that. Nobody has a "right" to social networking. Use the telephone, snail mail, ...
Google has EVIL intenetions behind it... stay away please.
Google is not the goverment, its just a pathetic company making money even from illegal drug sales, why would anyone trust them???
Go ahead, tell these evil intentions.
0 Votes
+ -
@owlnet If anything the entitlement that so many people seem to feel is the truly evil thing. Google doesn't owe you anything. In fact, in exchange for using Gmail, Google+, Picassa, or any other Google product you owe Google access to your datastream. That's the deal you made when you agreed to the TOS, so get over it or get out if it. You pick.
@matthew_maurice - Thanks. I had to read their TOS for work because some work idiots wanted to put personal, legal, constituent data on their and they didn't know that Google will own the data, can modify it, reformat it and do anything else they want with it (probably make it searchable). I guess you read section 11 of the TOS? People think there is some amount of privacy on these sites but the exact opposite is true, according to the websites.
0 Votes
+ -
1. "Social networks owe you nothing". Social networks do not do users a favor by creating a space for them to enjoy themselves. They *need* the users in order to profit from the provided content. Without the users, social networks can not exist. Therefore, the users owe nothing to social networks. The users should have the upper hand, and dictate the social networks' policies.

2. "Life is about choices, folks". Many privacy-conscious users choose not to post any personally identifiable data (e.g. photos, videos, work gossip) publicly. This should not prevent them from freely posting non-personal data (e.g. thoughts, reviews, fiction, art) pseudonymously, and to post personal data with limited visibility, only for trusted friends.

3. "You are being logged." When the collected data is being used not by humans but by software algorithms, it's perfectly ok. When the said data is made available for any human to see and abuse it for their personal gain, it's not ok.

4. "It is called a SOCIAL network for a reason." See #2.

I've been happily using Twitter, Tumblr, LiveJournal, Dreamwidth and other social networks and communities for years without providing my real name and data. Why Facebook and G+ should be an exception?
@cat gray - Thanks for posting. What specifically am I misunderstanding? My point is that anything you do online is being logged and used to drive business through behavioral analysis. If you decide to sign up for their services, you are opting in to their will.
@Rich Harris - Right, networks are collecting data and using it for their own purposes, such as statistics and targeted advertising. This is acceptable. But if this data is available to the machines, it doesn't mean that it should be available to the human users. There's a big difference, for example, between having your credit card info stored in the vendor's database and used only for transactions, with no human eyes ever looking at it unless there's a problem, and having the same info displayed on your profile for any visitor to see and abuse.

(In fact, a while ago I would've been perfectly satisfied with sending my ID to Google and letting my real data sit on the profile as "visible only to me". Sadly, I don't trust Google anymore, even with that.)

Another thing: you seem to assume that social interaction is impossible or inferior without sharing your personal data. This is wrong. There's plenty of meaningful conversations which do not involve knowing the other person's name, location, age, race, appearance and so on. Unwillingness to publish these details doesn't mean that the user is not fit to be a member of a community. Most of the online communities do not require real names, let alone photos. You say life is about choices. Right - please respect the choice of the users who keep their private persona separate from the public one.
@cat gray - Your comment: "Another thing: you seem to assume that social interaction is impossible or inferior without sharing your personal data. This is wrong. There's plenty of meaningful conversations which do not involve knowing the other person's name, location, age, race, appearance and so on."

I never assumed that in this post at all, nor did I claim there was nothing meaningful in convos that didn't involve more personal data.

Also, life IS about choices, like, the choice to not sign up for a website who's policies you disagree with.

If I don't like food, I don't eat it. If I don't like an online store experience, I don't shop there. If I don't like a social network, I don't sign up for it.
@cat gray Sorry, there is no distinction between humans and machines. Anything posted on a Google website can be used by Google as they see fit including making it searchable, modifying it, probably they can just hand it over to any company that asks for it. If you don't think that is right, well, that is too bad. This is not a PUBLIC anything. Google makes the rules and you have to abide by them. In this case, look at Google's Terms of Service.
Gotta be careful with your real name.
Too many fruit loops out there.
0 Votes
+ -
As you have pointed out, and has been noted on TED, Google uses over 50 parameters to tailor its searches for you, and that's before you've even logged in. They already know your name and could probably have populated that field for you.

That being the case, why not allow pseudonyms for people who want them? Circles let you ignore them if you choose or include them if you want. The choice can be with the consumer, the market share only growing for Google.

My guess is that Google doesn't want the culture shock of admitting to people that it already has all the data they need on you. That G+ is just a way to publicly open the kimono to the products, the targeted ad viewer.
0 Votes
+ -
Your concept is
donaldsjones 9th May
I???m impressed, I must say. Truly rarely can i encounter a blog that???s both educative and entertaining, and without a doubt, you might have hit that the nail around the head. Your concept is outstanding; the issue is something there are not enough folks are speaking intelligently about. I am happy i always came across this within my seek out something with this.

reverse cell phone lookup

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix
Click Here

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix