Because it's in direct conflict with what Google+ was advertised to be.
The core advantage of Google+, as marketed by Google, is to allow you to separate different parts of your life and keep privacy between them. You can keep in contact with people from work, from your private life, whatever -- and keep them all separate. This deals with the primary perceived flaw in Facebook: hardly any users cared about what Facebook knew about them, but they were very worried about what other people knew about them.
But often "keeping them separate" means not giving your real name. Artists using pseudonyms is the most common example, but there's many others: every day, millions of people take part in communities that they would not want to say at work that they were part of. Sometimes it's related to sexual fetishes/kink, unusual hobbies, fandom, or even things like sexual orientation.
Even with "circles", if the people in group B know you by the same name as the people in group A (say, work), you have no privacy at all. All it takes is one person from Group B to look up your real name and contact someone, and the separation is completely broken.
The idea of Google+ was to solve this problem: whether it's to avoid telling their coworkers about that drunken party last night, to maintain the personal privacy of a popular artist, or to avoid telling a bigoted boss that they're homosexual. This is what Google+ was supposed to do. But if people are required to use real names, Google+ doesn't actually solve this problem at all. It's just Facebook by a different name.
Exactly this. Also, because their public rationale for this policy is so obviously bullshit. If they're willing to lie to me about this, what else are they willing to do?
> Even with "circles", if the people in group B know you by the same name as the people in group A (say, work), you have no privacy at all
The communities that you mention exist IRL; do people use pseudonyms in real life in an attempt to protect their privacy? In my experience people nearly always go by their real name, even when they are doing things that they really wouldn't want their workplace to know about.
Why would someone contact your work to tell them that you were part of an unusual community? What would your work even say if a random person came and told them that? What you are describing sounds like it only applies if you are doing something so extreme and socially unacceptable that a random stranger who sees them on the street would think "I need to make sure this person doesn't get away with doing this".
I already said it. Because if Facebook bans me, I only lose Facebook. If G+ bans me, I lose multiple services, including 1 that is integral to my online identity.
If your profile is suspended, you will not be able to make full use of Google services that require an active profile such as Google+, Buzz, Reader and Picasa. This will not prevent you from using other Google services, like Gmail.
From the zdnet article, it sounds like the Gmail lockouts were unintentional.
Because using G+ at all is vaguely risky to a vague subset of your Google services. People who have followed the rules to the letter have been suspended. Sure you can appeal. Maybe most people who do so win their appeal. But there is risk.
When Facebook started, Real Name policies weren't needed because the purpose was social networking on a college campus. A few "joke" profiles were created but, in general, non-RN profiles were ignored and therefore harmless. By the time Facebook officially set a Real Name policy in place, it had established momentum and a (somewhat negative) reputation.
The reason for the moral double standard is that people love Google and hate Facebook. Google's motto is "Don't Be Evil" and the company has done an admirable job of following that policy. Facebook is expected to be "evil" (in the Microsoft sense, not the Pol Pot sense, of the word) so a heavy-handed RN policy might disappoint people, but it's not a surprise.
What's actually behind a Real Name policy isn't "evil" so much as a bizarre and unenforceable mandate: You Must Use This Utility As A Social Networking Site. It's a very mandarin attempt to impose culture from the top down, when we know from experience that culture is emergent and can't be imposed on people without pissing them off.
Comments
Why does Google requiring a real name bug everyone, but not when Facebook requires it? I don't understand this outrage at all.
- Eric Florenzano
Because it's in direct conflict with what Google+ was advertised to be.
The core advantage of Google+, as marketed by Google, is to allow you to separate different parts of your life and keep privacy between them. You can keep in contact with people from work, from your private life, whatever -- and keep them all separate. This deals with the primary perceived flaw in Facebook: hardly any users cared about what Facebook knew about them, but they were very worried about what other people knew about them.
But often "keeping them separate" means not giving your real name. Artists using pseudonyms is the most common example, but there's many others: every day, millions of people take part in communities that they would not want to say at work that they were part of. Sometimes it's related to sexual fetishes/kink, unusual hobbies, fandom, or even things like sexual orientation.
Even with "circles", if the people in group B know you by the same name as the people in group A (say, work), you have no privacy at all. All it takes is one person from Group B to look up your real name and contact someone, and the separation is completely broken.
The idea of Google+ was to solve this problem: whether it's to avoid telling their coworkers about that drunken party last night, to maintain the personal privacy of a popular artist, or to avoid telling a bigoted boss that they're homosexual. This is what Google+ was supposed to do. But if people are required to use real names, Google+ doesn't actually solve this problem at all. It's just Facebook by a different name.
Exactly this. Also, because their public rationale for this policy is so obviously bullshit. If they're willing to lie to me about this, what else are they willing to do?
> Even with "circles", if the people in group B know you by the same name as the people in group A (say, work), you have no privacy at all
The communities that you mention exist IRL; do people use pseudonyms in real life in an attempt to protect their privacy? In my experience people nearly always go by their real name, even when they are doing things that they really wouldn't want their workplace to know about.
Why would someone contact your work to tell them that you were part of an unusual community? What would your work even say if a random person came and told them that? What you are describing sounds like it only applies if you are doing something so extreme and socially unacceptable that a random stranger who sees them on the street would think "I need to make sure this person doesn't get away with doing this".
I already said it. Because if Facebook bans me, I only lose Facebook. If G+ bans me, I lose multiple services, including 1 that is integral to my online identity.
I thought it was clear that a G+ ban does not affect gmail/docs/calendar/etc.
It's far from clear. Everything I've seen says otherwise. Please provide a citation.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/google-plus-too-much-un...
If your profile is suspended, you will not be able to make full use of Google services that require an active profile such as Google+, Buzz, Reader and Picasa. This will not prevent you from using other Google services, like Gmail.
From the zdnet article, it sounds like the Gmail lockouts were unintentional.
[1] http://www.google.com/support/+/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271
That seems orthogonal to me. How is putting all one's eggs in one basket related to a pedantic requirement upon registration?
Because using G+ at all is vaguely risky to a vague subset of your Google services. People who have followed the rules to the letter have been suspended. Sure you can appeal. Maybe most people who do so win their appeal. But there is risk.
Because my brother's real name on facebook is currently "Penelope Wilbert Turnip". Facebook don't give two hoots, but G+ would.
It stretches into the debate about what a "real name" is, which far too many people have argued more eloquently than I could.
My guess: because it seems to bug tech people more than non-tech people, and G+ seems disproportionately tech people.
Facebook doesn't seem to enforce it.
Great question.
When Facebook started, Real Name policies weren't needed because the purpose was social networking on a college campus. A few "joke" profiles were created but, in general, non-RN profiles were ignored and therefore harmless. By the time Facebook officially set a Real Name policy in place, it had established momentum and a (somewhat negative) reputation.
The reason for the moral double standard is that people love Google and hate Facebook. Google's motto is "Don't Be Evil" and the company has done an admirable job of following that policy. Facebook is expected to be "evil" (in the Microsoft sense, not the Pol Pot sense, of the word) so a heavy-handed RN policy might disappoint people, but it's not a surprise.
What's actually behind a Real Name policy isn't "evil" so much as a bizarre and unenforceable mandate: You Must Use This Utility As A Social Networking Site. It's a very mandarin attempt to impose culture from the top down, when we know from experience that culture is emergent and can't be imposed on people without pissing them off.