Google+ to Allow Pseudonyms Soon (But I Wouldn't Start Celebrating Yet)

"Google+ will soon support pseudonyms, moving away from strict real name ID policy," says reporter Mike Swift, Tweeting from yesterday's Web 2.0 conference, citing a presentation by Google executive Vic Gundotra. This would reverse the company's much-derided real name policy, and The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which was on the forefront of opposing it, is already breaking out the champagne. (Hat tip: Melissa Yeuxdoux.) Gundorata actually suggested that Google would introduce pseudonymous features back in a July interview with Robert Scoble, but the fact that he's still discussing this now in such a major public forum for tech suggests how serious they are about this shift.

However, I wouldn't start celebrating just yet: Details are pretty scarce (non-existent?), and so far, the launch of Google+ has seemed fitful and internally confused. (As a private memo by a G+ developer accidentally (on purpose?) published on the web revealed.) And given Google's failure with former social platforms (hello/goodbye Lively, Wave, etc.), and Google's corporate culture, which seems fundamentally attached to real identities and institutions, I'm pretty skeptical the company can turn on a dime and fully embrace pseudonyms. My concern is that pseudonymous Google+ accounts will be crippled in some way, so that they have less functionality than real name-based accounts. Also, what happens to all the pseudonymous accounts which already exist now, and haven't been banned for one reason or another?

All that said, this is definitely a hopeful sign, and frankly, a very good strategy for Google to distinguish its social network from Facebook, which has already won the real name battle. As it happens, just yesterday Social Times published an excerpt of my analysis of Google+ as a game platform. Here's the advice I gave to Google itself:

At the moment, Google+ has no key market differentiator to Facebook, in great part because it has branded itself as a network for real names and identities, which is also the core branding identity of Facebook. This cedes enormous advantage to Facebook and, in SocialTimes Pro’s view, misses a tremendous market opportunity: To become the social network that can also appeal to all those who wish to share content with the many individuals in their extended, Internet-based social circles, via hundreds of millions of pseudonymous identities. By a very rough estimate, there are about 200 million of these in the West alone, a great many from Twitter, YouTube and other social media platforms, and perhaps as many associated with gaming platforms, such as the online service Steam (30 million) and virtual world games such as Habbo Hotel, Gaia Online, IMVU, and Second Life (25 million+). Allowing and enabling pseudonymous identities would give Google+ a unique value proposition distinct from Facebook. And, because so many pseudonymous identities are associated with online games, such an offering could greatly increase interest and engagement with Google+ games in particular.

Read the rest here.

Comments

[Ciaran Laval]

Hmmm I'd hold your horses, there was a story on Mashable yesterday with a headline like this where it turned out no such thing had been said.

I would join Google + if pseudonyms were allowed but I think this may be getting to a chinese whispers stage.

[Hamlet Au]

ReadWriteWeb along with many other sources also reported it:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/sergey_brin_vic_gundotra_on_pseudonyms_apps_users.php

But more importantly, Gundotra announced that "we plan to support pseudonyms in the future," a surprising turnaround of the terse dismissals of user identity advocates in the past.

[Adeon Writer]

My pseudonymous account will continue to sit there unused, waiting for a time when I'm told I can use it freely.

[Ananda Sandgrain]

This sounds like a good reason for optimism to take an uptick, but haven't you already reported here a month or so ago that Google was working on a way to let people display pseudonyms? I'd hope people don't think this is a good thing until we find out:

1. Will Google itself still demand to know your real name, regardless of what your display name is.
2. Will Google still make a habit of disabling a bunch of the rest of your services, just because someone doesn't like your G+ account.

[shockwave yareach]

I would have no problem identifying myself to Google when I create the account. But I'll be boiled in spam drippings before I tell all the thieves, HR people, bosses, coworkers, advertisers, priests and political crumbs of the world what I do for fun on my own time and on my own dime. Either let me pick what name I go by for each different circle with my real name hidden, or don't expect me to waste any time on Google+.

[Anon4fun]

Ananda Sandgrain said: "1. Will Google itself still demand to know your real name, regardless of what your display name is."

While I wouldn't rule this out completely, it seems unlikely. Google has already invested in a specific rationale for demanding real names, namely to facilitate interaction between users. This leaves them without a need to know your real name when all you choose to show the public is a pseudonym.