Google has very slightly tweaked its naming policy for Google+ by allowing nicknames to be displayed alongside an individual's real identity on the social network. But the company is still largely refusing to listen to those users who want to remain anonymous on that service. The Chocolate Factory's product veep Bradley …
I can use Tony Blair as my name, but if people flag me, I will have to prove that I'm indeed Tony?
Just change it slightly.
Remember Saddams weapons of mass destruction?
You can call yourself Tony Blair
According to the new policy, as long as it looks like a name, it is fine, and they will not ask you to prove it. The only case where you have to submit evidence is if you want to use a well-known pseudonym like Geohot.
So you cannot call yourself XXXX12345 but John Doe is fine.
If you're going to put the blame on someone then please do it right. Blair didn't plain out -lie- against the UN, that was Colin Powell. If anything you can blame Blair and other politicians to be far too trustful of the US.
Goodluck with that
You can call yourself Tony Blair if you want. I'm going to go with "Goodluck Jonathan". I can't imagine that Google's naming policies will have an problems with it!!
"Only the insignifact few we ignore"
The rest has simply given up on google and facebook and the like. Curious how it's these giants that're doing for the western world what China is foisting upon all their social media: Force real names on everyone, everywhere. All in the name of "provide the customer even better service" of course. But that's not you, that's the advertisers. You are the product.
Now toe the line and give us your real name, product!
Good on them...
I am sick of cowards and freetards hiding behind pseudonyms.
That's a joke, right?
Or is your name really Shitpeas
Its a character on Charlie Brooker's screen wipe. I Highly recommend the 2011 one, which features a very funny Barry Shitpeas.
So your real name is Shitpeas?
Re: Big O
rather than the barry shitpeas on here who has yet to say anything amusing (apart from his hilarious "real names" comment at the start of this discussion, obv...)
We all know Barry Shitpeas' real name is G Oatsecks
irony seems to be lost on LOTS of people here....
However my name actually is now Barry Shitpeas, I just changed it by deedpool.
"scanned official document"
I think they missed "photoshopped" in there somewhere.
For a moment I was like "finally".... then I entered my nickname "djsmiley2k"
"The nickname that you've chosen appears to violate the Google+ Names Policy."
Erm, ITS A NICKNAME FFS.
or not, as the case may be...
I've had my online nickname since the beginning of the public internet why the fuck should I have to change it just to suit them?
You can keep it
As long as you show that it is an "established pseudonym"
...Though you and Google might have a different opinion on that.
Why the fuck do you feel the need to use Google+?
I love the way people complain about Google's policies, then meekly sign up because it's the trendy thing to do. Fucking sheep.
(No idea if you fall into that category, BTW.)
> He claimed that "only about 0.1 per cent [of the internet giant's userbase] submit name appeals."
Well, that correlates well with G+'s lack of popularity.
My friends with whom I was sharing and occasionally discussing news at Google Reader tried the G+, only to find it bit too distracting and not a good replacement for a news discussion medium Google Reader was. While lots of other (irrelevant) stuff is present in G+, one of the things missing is the ability to show the news discussions intermixed with the news themselves. Verdicts was that G+ is simply too redundant, as it has literally all the same stuff as other (two) social networks (my friends are already subscribed to).
does anyone care that G+ don't want into the mass media end?
If you're already making up an identity to share with people you don't know it hardly matters which privacy raping service you feed lies to. If Google don't want that trade that's Googles problem, why does anyone care?
TBH it seems like a bloody good idea to me to separate that public persona from your real identity by running them on completely different services. Talk to friends and family on G+, the world on Faceplant and lie,lie,lie everywhere. If that makes it harder for them to link all your information, that's great.
I'll start worrying when Google inevitably work that out and start pandering to these demands, they won't do it for *your* benefit. Right now the temptations not really there with G+, the 'can't turn it down' adjunct to gmail.
... I've been using my online name since I got into BBS'ing in early 80's. It's also documented in the SCA. If I can scare up an old registration card, I wonder if that'll be enough?
It's not a problem for me and my nickname
As I'm not signing up to Google+. Possibly ever.
Yahoo! Gargle+ Facebook?
Thats what you get for using "free" software.
One way or another, you will pay for it.
If you don't want to be identified then don't sign up. Simples! ;-)
Remember that there are BILLIONS of people out there who are NOT on GooBook and many of them have fulfilling and meaningful lives.
Article does not properly give details.
1) Anybody can sign up as John Smith, Tony Blair or George Bush
As long as it LOOKS like a name, they will not check anything, and there is no way other people can flag you. Which means you can be anonymous.
"Our name check is therefore looking, not for things that don’t look like “your” name, but for things which don’t look like names, period. In fact, we do not give a damn whether the name posted is “your” name or not: we will not challenge you on this basis, nor is there any mechanism for other users to cause you to be challenged for this."
2) You may have to prove your identity if the (real) name that you want to use does not look like a name
This is for people who have really strange name, or those rare few who have a first name and no last name. Or the reverse.
3) If you want to use a pseudonym, you can use it if it is "well-established", or just add it between parenthesis after your name.
So Madonna can use that as a pseudonym. If you are known on the web as 7331H4cker, you will probably have to do with Peter Jones (7331H4cker). Again, Peter Jones need not be your real name, only look like a name.
Well, that sounds sensible.
For about half a microsecond. It forces the name you use into a mold that is arbitrary, cultulrally defined and conflicting with other cultures. Way to go, world-wide company. So it entices people to think up fake names that look like they're not, like those telephone operators in India talking with a fake Texan accent and claiming to be called Billy Bob, only for your own Google+ Real Life[tm].
Personally I'd much rather know I'm dealing with a nickname than with a meaningless filler name made up to look like it's actually a real name. The longer I think about it, the more I keep on thinking of creative euphemisms for "short-sighted". It doesn't matter that this is a weak copy of the way facebook does it (with their fully automated judging of what is an "acceptable name" and what isn't); if it's even more stupiderest there it's still plenty stupid here. And evil. But then, that's the new google.
Like people for who they /are/
I think forcing people to use real names an utter fail for many reasons. First the obvious; protecting people from themselves. Sure; if they want to use their real name then by all means; let them. But also allow people to remain aliased.
Why? How many times have we already read about people who put certain information online, only to have it haunt them later on? Sure; in some cases people should know better, I totally agree. But on the other hand... On the Internet a small slip of the tongue will have drastically more effects and impact than in real life. Yet with these rulings you're more and more making people treat the Internet (social media) as if it were real life. Epic failure right there; its not and it never will be!
Second.. Why can't we like people for who they are, no matter their names? I've grown to like many people who I met on several IRC channels. A lot of those I now also know by name, even know where they live. Yet guess what? We still continue to use our aliases, even in e-mail. Because that's the way we know each other. We don't know each other in real life, thus we don't use our real life "aliases". Pardon me but I fail to see the problem with that.
Here I'm known as 'ShelLuser' and that suits me fine. Its an alias I also use on some of my favorite (synthesizer) based fora as well as my Windows Live alias. Whats the problem ?
Does not knowing my real name suddenly make my entries lesser meaningful or something?
So, now my online nickname is indelibly linked to my real name. Just what I want.
Who Do They Think They Are?
"Social Networking." Supposed to be fun, isn't it?
So who cares if someone wants to be known as Bernie The Bolt?
Methinks Messrs Google are getting a bit above themselves.
I think Google fails to understand the valid security reason for not using your real name (That your bank account is under) on the internet.
Linking them together makes it even worse.
The real world and the online one should never be linked. (I know that sentence sucks but I cannot think of a way to put it better right now).
You think YOU'VE got problems ???
Google won't even let me use my REAL name --- Mike Littoris
I'm known by most as "Uncle Dangle"
Now where do send the photographic evidence again?
Bah, social media!
Life is so much simpler without Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, Myspace etc.
Added bonus: whatever policy tweaks they make to their social media sites doesn't affect you one bit. Google+ won't let me use pseudonyms? No biggie, I'm not a user. Enjoy yourselves!
A vibrant social life in real life without social media. Making real friends and keeping in touch without social media sites! Imagine that!
Fine in theory...
But every circle of friends has a few members now who keep pushing the others to start using social media, usually the biggest brands of course. They keep whittling away at the resistance, and once a majority of the group has signed up, the minority will subconsciously start to worry about being excluded and ignored. Only the hardiest of "real life social animals" can survive such an onslaught.
One day you're just exploring the universe, and the next day you drop out of warp only to find yourself in the middle of BORG territory...
It shouldn't be too hard to find all 7 Google+ users on the planet and ask for their views...
Creating a google account was possible only after entering a code sent to mobile for verification in India. They used to say, there is some problem with your computer. But today, I created one account without mobile verification. Don't know what happened.
Do I legally change my name to "Fuck Google" just to sign up knowing I'll never use it? Maybe I'll just try sneaking something little past them and sign up as Mike Oxmall.
Being the top hit on google.com is...
...apparently not well known enough. In fact if you google Cyberspice I'm most of the first page and have been for years. However the google name police got me a while ago and I closed my account rather than put my real name on Google minus.
A classic case of
... too little, too late. Google really shot themselves in the foot with Google+, the more so because they shut down *entire Google accounts* of people with no warning if they decided they didn't like the name provided.
- Updated Microsoft Azure goes TITSUP (Total Inability To Support Usual Performance)
- Review Apple takes blade to 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display
- Munich considers dumping Linux for ... GULP ... Windows!
- Game Theory The agony and ecstasy of SteamOS: WHERE ARE MY GAMES?
- Pic iPhone 6 flip tip slips in Aussie's clip: Apple's 'reversible USB' leaks