Features for Google+ Pseudonyms Coming, Says Google VP; Profile Suspensions Aren't to Push Real Names Only

Google Plus will have "features" to handle pseudonyms on the social network, Google Vice President Vic Gundotra told Robert Scoble in a brief interview Scoble recently published on Google Plus. Responding to widespread news (which largely began on NWN) that Google was banning pseudonymous accounts in order to push real names, Gundotra said this:

He says it isn't about real names. He says he isn't using his legal name [on Google Plus]. He says, instead, it is about having common names and removing people who spell their names in weird ways, like using upside-down characters, or who are using obviously fake names, like "god" or worse. He says they have made some mistakes while doing the first pass at this and they are learning.

Emphasis mine. As I read that (and the way Gundotra himself creates a Google+ account), Google's naming policies are still evolving, and they do seem to be responding to continued calls that there be a pseudonym option which affords some anonymity:

He also says they are working on ways to handle pseudonyms, but that will be a while before the team can turn on those features (everyone is working hard on a raft of different things and can't just react overnight to community needs).

Read more from Scoble here. Curiously, Scoble was an early adovocate of SL (and certainly among the most influential), but this issue has gone way beyond whether someone can call himself Opensource Obscure on Google Plus. Beyond the avatars and other online names hundreds of millions of us use on a regular basis, the anonymity of Google Plus users in repressive countries, or those whose personal safety might otherwise be compromised by having their real name exposed, also hangs in the balance.

Comments

[Ordinal Malaprop]

For those readers who aren't on G+ or don't care to read through posts on it (which is quite fair enough), Scoble has been extremely hostile to the idea of people using anything but their real name at all recently, so that is something to bear in mind when reading this.

I am not impressed at all, incidentally. It sounds like waffle: "we made some mistakes, we are learning from feedback and improving things, give us time" - no specifics. I'm not even sure they have a coherent policy to change in the first place.

[GoSpeed Racer]

"Obviously fake names". That seems pretty arbitrary to say the least. Will they go after this gentleman too? https://plus.google.com/111560366438356935798/about?hl=en

What a pain in the ass for those who got suspended and have heard nothing yet at all from Google who then go out and create a RL account and then try to hook up with other SL users. You can't find them because you don't know their RL names!

[Ciaran Laval]

I have to agree with Ordinal, Robert Scoble has been very hostile to people who don't use their real name, at one stage he was threatening to install Facebook comments on his blog.

I wonder what's bringing about this apparent change of stance, are people finally seeing the potential in going beyond real names?

[Nyoko Salome]

really it's not surprising; it's the same thing facebook wants to combat: several things, one - "simple country doctor" types who are monetizing their web presence (anyplace to just post a paypal/other "send me mon" front), and fake avatars who are actually big corporate figureheads masking themselves as "ordinary people". :0 the former being just simply "medicine show" con-games; the latter being more insidious and akin to installing "fake audience members" to agree or uphold a marketing ploy or strategy. at least, that's a political perspective upon it... corporations (or more accurately, private "think-tank" style groups) are already abusing anonymous web systems to push their agenda out. they've got plenty of money and initiative to do so, even if it's an adverse strategy that works against the populace/world en-totale... at the same time that they envy this strategy, that absolutely hate upon individuals who use the same systems (as they were mostly intended to be) as empowering the honest citizen from speaking their mind anonymously, as a way to put their thoughts/ideas/experiences out to the world. as they cannot "control" these messages, they wish to eliminate it, and insist upon laws that require "real-life identification," so that they can surround/counteract/attack those who speak out against their initiatives. in the wake of their own corporate/industrial debacles (blackwater renaming themselves "xe" or something like that; bp reportedly pursing rebranding themselves after the gulf oil disaster), they cannot easily get away with the old "rebranding" trick so easily in this internet day and age - it is a scheme easily uncovered and tracked. so, they at the same time envy - and wish to obliterate - anonymous webbing.

[Nyoko Salome]

really it's not surprising; it's the same thing facebook wants to combat: several things, one - "simple country doctor" types who are monetizing their web presence (anyplace to just post a paypal/other "send me mon" front), and fake avatars who are actually big corporate figureheads masking themselves as "ordinary people". :0 the former being just simply "medicine show" con-games; the latter being more insidious and akin to installing "fake audience members" to agree or uphold a marketing ploy or strategy. at least, that's a political perspective upon it... corporations (or more accurately, private "think-tank" style groups) are already abusing anonymous web systems to push their agenda out. they've got plenty of money and initiative to do so, even if it's an adverse strategy that works against the populace/world en-totale... at the same time that they envy this strategy, that absolutely hate upon individuals who use the same systems (as they were mostly intended to be) as empowering the honest citizen from speaking their mind anonymously, as a way to put their thoughts/ideas/experiences out to the world. as they cannot "control" these messages, they wish to eliminate it, and insist upon laws that require "real-life identification," so that they can surround/counteract/attack those who speak out against their initiatives. in the wake of their own corporate/industrial debacles (blackwater renaming themselves "xe" or something like that; bp reportedly pursing rebranding themselves after the gulf oil disaster), they cannot easily get away with the old "rebranding" trick so easily in this internet day and age - it is a scheme easily uncovered and tracked. so, they at the same time envy - and wish to obliterate - anonymous webbing.

[Nyoko Salome]

really it's not surprising; it's the same thing facebook wants to combat: several things, one - "simple country doctor" types who are monetizing their web presence (anyplace to just post a paypal/other "send me mon" front), and fake avatars who are actually big corporate figureheads masking themselves as "ordinary people". :0 the former being just simply "medicine show" con-games; the latter being more insidious and akin to installing "fake audience members" to agree or uphold a marketing ploy or strategy. at least, that's a political perspective upon it... corporations (or more accurately, private "think-tank" style groups) are already abusing anonymous web systems to push their agenda out. they've got plenty of money and initiative to do so, even if it's an adverse strategy that works against the populace/world en-totale... at the same time that they envy this strategy, that absolutely hate upon individuals who use the same systems (as they were mostly intended to be) as empowering the honest citizen from speaking their mind anonymously, as a way to put their thoughts/ideas/experiences out to the world. as they cannot "control" these messages, they wish to eliminate it, and insist upon laws that require "real-life identification," so that they can surround/counteract/attack those who speak out against their initiatives. in the wake of their own corporate/industrial debacles (blackwater renaming themselves "xe" or something like that; bp reportedly pursing rebranding themselves after the gulf oil disaster), they cannot easily get away with the old "rebranding" trick so easily in this internet day and age - it is a scheme easily uncovered and tracked. so, they at the same time envy - and wish to obliterate - anonymous webbing.

[Nathan Adored]

Hmmm.... Nyoko musta had problems posting, his post showed up three times.

Hmmm.... Nyoko musta had problems posting, his post showed up three times.

Hmmm.... Nyoko musta had problems posting, his post showed up three times.

Well, if they are indeed changing their stance, it occurs to me they might be getting pressure from somewhere outside... say, maybe some government body or legal outfit is leaning on them telling them they're behaving in a discriminatory manner and possibly breaking the law by not allowing certain sorts of names.

On the other hand, I wonder how the "'features' to handle pseudonyms on the social network" will be implemented. And I hope this system comes soon, and that it lets me use different nicks or pseudonyms in different circles, at my discretion.

[Mark Ciccarello]

It sounds like a lot of double-talk. It's not about using real names, but they want remove "obviously" fake names? So fake names are OK, as long as it's not obvious they are fake? What?

The only advantage I see to Google+ over Facebook is that they have better features to control who sees what. That's the whole idea behind it. One of those things should be your name.

[Nyoko Salome]

b-dup! sorry nathan; web-posting stutter; seemed to hang up a long time on me. i hope she forgives me. ;)

[Chaffro]

Too late. Their culling of (primarily) Second Life users within the first couple of weeks has done too much short-term damage for them to go "We made mistakes, we're learning." For a company that claims it's forward-thinking, they're extremely short-sighted.

And +10 points to Ordinal for use of the word Waffle! Woot!

[Tateru Nino]

Those features are now announced. You can have any number of pseudonyms so long as your public profile displays your real name.

[Ossian]

Isn't the real lesson here that Google is no more interested in privacy than Facebook?

[Sling Trebuchet]

Brilliant! We can list any pseudonyms against our real names in public.
Is there any truth in the rumour that they are going to change the term 'Real Name' to "Stalkee Name"?

[foneco zuzu]

Ossian, i make your words mine.

[Arcadia Codesmith]

So if I'm reading Gundotra correctly, he's saying it's A-OK to have a pseudonym, as long as it's formulated to fool Google and other users into thinking it's a real name.

If you're honestly telegraphing the fact that your pseudonym is a pseudonym, you'll be scrubbed.

I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Arcadia.

[Nyoko Salome]

;0 welp, there we go - i guess today facebook decided i am not 'real enough' to keep an account with them!! :0 oh well, really it's doing me a favor... too much a waste of time, really. ;0 not sure i will pursue g+; i've got plenty of better things to do with my time...

[Ego]

"widely began on NWN?" please try not to be completely arrogant sometime? try Google+, where a number of us have been speaking directly to Google+ staff & press like Scoble