Nymwars: A view from the trenches within Google

https://plus.google.com/u/0/110295984969329522620/posts/ExKJZgBAYxM#110295984969329522620/posts/ExKJZgBAYxM

by bootload • 15 years ago

44 33 15 years ago

plus.google.com

sciurus• 15 years ago

Recent discussion on this topic at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2906434

thristian4• 15 years ago

A friend of mine reshared that post on G+ yesterday and I left this comment there:

"nymwars" is a big complicated thing that has far outgrown my ability to keep track of the nuances, so I don't understand what this means for my personal pet feature (showing different names to different people), but it's encouraging to hear that there is raucous debate inside Google.

I still think that the strongest argument for pseudonyms is that a system that doesn't handle them is Wrong, in the same way that "everything can be losslessly converted to ASCII" is wrong, or "an accurate map of a geographical area can be drawn on a flat surface" is wrong. Pseudonyms aren't a feature you can decide whether to support or not, they're part of the problem that you're trying to solve.

grourk• 15 years ago

Huh?

Aglet• 15 years ago

Are you saying that everything cannot be losslessly converted to ASCII?

thristian4• 15 years ago

You might claim that everything can be losslessly converted to ASCII by applying, say, base64, but I would claim what you lose in that situation is readability.

When I wrote that, I was mostly thinking about systems that assume it is always safe to replace "é" with "e", for example.

InclinedPlane2• 15 years ago

The worst part is that google+ does support pseudonyms... if you're rich or famous enough. Personally I thought google was better than that.

starwed• 15 years ago

That's not what OP means... Your point is that google allows famous folk to use their RL pseudonym as their primary ID on google+.

What thristian means is that the system itself needs to allow a single account to present multiple nyms, depending on context.

natesm• 15 years ago

Is this really a huge deal? I haven't really been using Google+ (after I finally dropped Facebook, I guess I just... stopped caring about this sort of thing), but this topic keeps showing up everywhere.

I'm not sure why it's a problem. Google+ isn't that kind of website to me. Reddit, HN, etc. are really in a different class of websites and should be treated as such. Google+ is like my Address Book. I want real names, because they look nice. I should not that (in my mind) this doesn't make "JK Rowling", "Mark Twain", or "Jon Stewart" unacceptable. "rms" or "natesm", on the other hand, aren't the sort of thing that I'd want to see on Google+.

Similarly, I have Adium set up to display real names and real pictures instead of ugly AIM screen names. I don't talk to ladygagafan05, I talk to "John Smith".

thwarted• 15 years ago

"rms" or "natesm", on the other hand, aren't the sort of thing that I'd want to see on Google+.

You, as the recipient or the viewer, don't really get to decide how people would like themselves to be referred to. That doesn't really stop people from referring to others however they want to, which leads directly into...

Similarly, I have Adium set up to display real names and real pictures instead of ugly AIM screen names.

And that's most likely the best or real solution to all of this: allow people to change the labels they see for other people to something custom, which only they see. This actually mirrors how the real, non-Google+ world works.

mrphoebs• 15 years ago

It's a huge deal. I don't use Google+ either but a social network this big will set precedents for everything that comes after it. Every website that might allow you to sign in with g+ id will be affected.

thristian4• 15 years ago

I want real names, because they look nice.

This is part of the problem: what you want is nice-looking names, but what you're asking for is real names. Unfortunately, not everybody's real name matches your "niceness" rules, and even the people who have sensible "real names" don't always use those names in all their social contexts.

What I want is for Google+ to list my friends under names that I recognise. I don't care whether they happen to use that name when talking with their parents, their employer or their tax-office, I want to see the name they use when talking with me.

darklajid2• 15 years ago

In the first real name discussion I had a lengthy debate about exactly this point. The issue I see here is that you argue for keeping the rules with 'I don't want THEM to show up as ...' while the other side argues 'I don't want ME to be listed as ...'.

One side of the argument wants to force their standard on others. The other side wants to be left alone and decide about their own account as they please.

Sniffnoy• 15 years ago

That seems to be how they intended people to use it, but that doesn't seem to be how people are actually using it. From what I've it looks like people are using it much more like LJ (or a similar type of blogging network) rather than like Facebook. That is essentially what it does, after all!

Plus, who's actually taken it up? Looks like internet people mostly... who will want handles/pseudonyms. So they put out a service, but they misguessed who would use it and what for. :)

jrockway• 15 years ago

How is Google's policy different from Facebook's? Google is enforcing the policy more strictly? People are just complaining because it's new and they think they can change it?

I don't really get it. Host your own blog and you can be called whatever you want.

thristian4• 15 years ago

G+ is different from Facebook because Facebook's policies are already firmly set. G+ is still nominally in "limited field testing" and Google has shown a willingness to change the system based on feedback from their users.

So, they're getting feedback from their users.

neilk2• 15 years ago

Facebook doesn't go out and actively eliminate users they think have pseudonyms. Google+ does.

Facebook just reserves the right to ask you for your government ID, if there's a dispute or you need to reclaim an account. But in practice pseudonyms are tolerated unless you make a nuisance of yourself.

comex• 15 years ago

I was banned from Facebook a while back for having a fake name; no dispute or issue that I know of, just a random banhammer.

darklajid2• 15 years ago

If you start a new product, label it 'Beta' and people use it, like it, but have a problem with it: Do you answer 'So - go away and build it yourself'?

I agree that there is a lot of whining involved. 'The right to use G+', 'Think of the children/lesbian/gays/victims of numerous crims' arguments that cannot really be countered in a productive way. But if you actually look into the debate you find lots of people that are merely asking Google to reconsider. These are people that started using the product in its early beginnings, care about it (otherwise it would be a non-issue and we could just host a blog as you suggest or go elsewhere with a shrug), but won't - for a multitude of reasons - support this 'community guidelines'.

Facebook? Really? Who cares about Facebook. Why is Facebook coming up in this discussion all the time? If G+ is ~like Facebook~, why do we need it in he first place? It's a competing product in the same market, granted. But arguing 'Facebook does X, why do you care that G+ does the same' is really weird in my world.

dredmorbius2• 15 years ago

One significant difference is that loss of a G+ account can mean loss of access to other linked accounts, including use of your Google-linked Android phone.

And that this is a highly arbitrary process.

And that the process occurs on a stated 4-day grace basis (what happens, if, say, you're offline / disconnected for ... 5 days or more?).

And that in actuality, the 4-day grace period isn't respected.

This is a royal clusterfuck for Google. The only firm resolution I've made is to as rapidly as possible dissociate anything I value highly with the company. And they're one I've championed and respected for most of its life.

robrenaud• 15 years ago

You will not lose the ability to use any non G+ related service if you are banned on G+. You will still be able to use gmail.

The current "banned from G+" message makes this clear.

https://plus.google.com/105822688186016123722/posts/LWySptwh...

yuhong• 15 years ago

>(ironic that these anonymity requirements are needed to talk about nymwars)

Anyone know what is exactly happening here? I am not advocating for real names, but things like this should still be fixed if possible.

motters• 15 years ago

The nymwars demonstrate that dictatorships in "the cloud" are not always benign ones. Why is Google trying to control the identities of its users, and why doesn't it seem to care about the legitimate needs of certain groups of people?

nl• 15 years ago

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/02/freedom-to-be...

JulianMorrison3• 15 years ago

Fuck their attitude that LGBT people are expendable.

homosaur3• 15 years ago

Could you like, explain this?

JulianMorrison3• 15 years ago

From the link:

- "Women, LGBT, abuse victims, etc, will be disadvantaged"

Larry/Vic: "There are other places they can go to, we don't have to fight every ethical and social injustice every time in everything we do, G+ is one of the occasions when we don't seek to right the wrongs of the world, we just want to get the work done."

mypov• 15 years ago

So sad that we are like sheep waiting to see what" Vic" and big G decide in regards to our (practically) our social identity and the nature of the social space as well.

One certainly can have the equivalent. Of real-life anonymity. The issue is institutional will.

Nymwars: A view from the trenches within Google

Related Stories