On the obnoxious entitlement of the “nymwars” crowd

http://enpassant.posterous.com/on-the-obnoxious-entitlement-of-the-nymwars-c

by yanw • 15 years ago

9 12 15 years ago

enpassant.posterous.com

It's beyond ridiculous for a company to claim title over what individuals have a "right" to use as a name or not. Nicknames and pseudonyms are at the very core of social identity and to avoid recognizing that is I believe a fault on google's part. Surely google can say "we choose not to support pseudonyms for X reason" but it's too far to say has any sort of absolute authority on what names people can use to call themselves, their authority begins and ends within the confines of google's own services.

The only good argument on google's side is the "my roof, my rules" argument.

P.S. Some interesting google-plus-y names: samuel clemens, edwin aldrin, john draper, charles dodgson, allen konigsberg, paul hewson.

anigbrowl2• 15 years ago

Not as ridiculous as claiming a right to a free account using the name of your choice. Nobody expects this from a bank or other commercial supplier. If you care about your pseudonym that much then set up a corporation and trademark it.

kennywinker• 15 years ago

In Canada, anyway, there is something called the "right of paternity"

"This right includes the right to claim authorship, the right to remain anonymous, or the right to use a pseudonym or pen name."

I've heard stories that this is as far reaching as getting a bank account under a pseudonym, but I'm not sure about that. It DEFINITELY applies to publishing and copyright, which is what we're talking about. Google, in the case of G+, is a publisher.

InclinedPlane3• 15 years ago

This isn't banking, it's chatting with friends. If google wants to make chatting with friends as stringent as banking they are not going to win a very high level of satisfaction or be able to keep up with competition who understands that chatting with friends is a casual endeavor.

molecule3• 15 years ago

Arguing against pseudonyms from behind one doesn't really support your argument.

Additionally, "I’m certain these rules are supported by data that outsiders aren't privy to" is a non-starter.

yanw• 15 years ago

I'm all for pseudonymous actually, and I've never argued against them. I use them where allowed and don't where they are not (or not participate at all).

What gets on my nerves however are those comparing their grievances with a project not yet mature to those currently struggling in freedom struggles around the world.

molecule3• 15 years ago

"What gets on my nerves"

is irrelevant to the discussion of how others want to use a third-party service. make a valid point, or recognize your incessant axe-grinding for what it is.

http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=yanw

molecule3• 15 years ago

Why all the presumptuous name calling? There is no cited evidence that this has anything to do w/ the article author, it has to do w/ others' opinion of how they want to use a third-party commercial service. Complaining about others' opinions of how they want to use a third-party service certainly smacks of obnoxious entitlement.

tariqk• 15 years ago

It's certainly very ironic. So the OP is unhappy about people complaining (when the OP could certainly... I don't know, not bother to follow the issue?), and thus OP decides to complain about people wanting to use pseudonyms... while using a pseudonyms.

Maybe it's satire.

jinushaun• 15 years ago

I don't understand what all the hoopla is about. Real names is, IMO, part of the reason why Facebook is so successful compared to the earlier social networking sites. Unlike MySpace, Facebook friends were real people you know in real life. As a result, Facebook has become the de-facto internet identity provider. Google is just following that recipe.

On the obnoxious entitlement of the “nymwars” crowd

Related Stories