> If anything, your viewpoint--that every single website on the internet has to be run the way you would run it--is the more oppressive one.
That's an awfully cute straw man, but not really what's being discussed here. My calling for some basic human decency is no more "oppressive" than my remarking that hey, people who kick puppies or don't say thank you to waiters are pricks.
> by providing a forum for people to speak out anonymously.
That doesn't address the issue.
The value of large companies with large social graphs is one of networking. Having a soapbox to talk shout into silence doesn't do anything to improve the cause of someone who can't be safe with their own identity online.
Cramming people who are unable, for their own safety and well-being, into a ghetto cut off from the larger world is hardly a kind thing to do. For one, it deprives them of the ability to open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help or resources to begin flowing.
At a certain scale, the privilege of network effects comes with social responsibility. People have the right, and often the need, to define their identity along specific parameters. Refusing to acknowledge that does not respect users – and it's entirely valid to condemn that.
That's an awfully cute straw man, but not really what's being discussed here. My calling for some basic human decency is no more "oppressive" than my remarking that hey, people who kick puppies or don't say thank you to waiters are pricks.
Lots of people actually, voluntarily, want to participate in social networks based on people's real names. You don't want to let them do that.
Cramming people who are unable, for their own safety and well-being, into a ghetto cut off from the larger world is hardly a kind thing to do. For one, it deprives them of the ability to open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help or resources to begin flowing.
No, it doesn't, because there are lots of places online for people to "open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help". In fact, most of the web is accepting of pseudonymous or anonymous socialization. (You're on one of many such sites right now.)
Facebook (and now Google+) are an exception, and Facebook, at the very least, is popular. That doesn't make it a public utility--it's still a private service that people are free to use or ignore. No one's obligated to use Facebook and no one on Facebook is obligated to truthfully divulge any more information than they want.
> Lots of people actually, voluntarily, want to participate in social networks based on people's real names. You don't want to let them do that.
I certainly don't want a bunch of privileged western jagoffs to enjoy a marginally better online experience at the expense of anyone else not similarly privileged. Ya got me there. I'm just not impressed by the tradeoff.
I'm reminded of a favorite book:
"Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop. Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good."
I think when we optimize around what the group wants at the expense of the individual, we're on our way to misery. Let each person do what is best for their own needs, so long as it doesn't come at the cost of any other individual. That's a good rule for any human community, including one built on the internet.
And that includes companies. If these guys want a completely homogenous platform where everyone is perfectly marketable to advertisers, that's ultimately their decision and their right. But it's a damn waste of a lot of power.
When you build an online community around the idea of absolute individual freedom, you get 4chan. And, quite in opposition to your viewpoint, this kind of environment brings out all the racism, sexism, homophobia, mob rule, and other assholery you can imagine. Still, people participate in that kind of free for all, and they're free to do so.
Outside of 4chan, people are figuring out that online communities, just like communities in real life, work better when there's a social contract. You can get downvoted into oblivion, flagged to death, or hellbanned from Hacker News, but you accept these infringements on your freedom of expression because it keeps the trolls out. Social networks (which, if you've forgotten, are designed to enable communication between people who already know each other, largely in real life) enforce a social norm (or in some cases an actual policy) of using real names. This makes people you know in real life (presumably by their real names) easier to find, and makes your behavior accountable to your real-life reputation.
Now, maybe some of these social contracts are wiser than others. But unlike the social contract that governs a physical community[1], online communities are trivial to join, trivial to leave, and not that difficult to form in comparison. This is a freedom of association that's unprecedented in world history, and really gives us the best of both worlds.
Finally, if you're all that angry about "privileged western jagoffs" forming their own exclusionary communities, you'd be better served railing against e.g. the Freemasons, rather than Google+.
[1] It's worth pointing out that most countries have very strict laws mandating that people are known to the government, their employers, etc. not only by a "real name" that requires legal action to change, but by some sort of identification number. Anonymously earning income, using banks, and getting health care are much bigger problems, and there's much more potential benefit in solving those problems than in bickering about whatever website people are using to share pictures of cats.
"Anonymously earning income, using banks, and getting health care are much bigger problems"
Because of fraud of course, not because legal names are somehow holy. Did you know for example that passports are a recent invention? Did you know that even names where at some point invented? They are now though widely used and conventional.
Honestly however, throughout all your replies here, I have not to be very honest heard of one reason why the choice of people should be limited by such a gigantic organisation which in many ways defines the internet and for a number of people is the interent.
The excuse that your mother might be apprehensive about commenting because djjd has commented is frankly ridiculous. Firstly, you can simply educate her that this is how the internet works. Anyway, I do not think your mother would comment if that person was using a real name either because that person would probably be a friend or a number or friends or coworkers and frankly, I would rather my mother did not so engage in commenting in such spheres. My mother is some distant figure they get to meet when they come home and she makes them a very nice dinner.
Your second point was basically you like it and therefore I do not care that other people do not like it. You are saying google has the choice to make such policy and you disagreeing with it does not matter at all because if you do not like it you can go somewhere else. That is what those in power say to those that challenge them. Not saying you are in power at all, but when someone criticises something, you can not simply say well you do not like it, then leave. If I am challenging the government because of a policy, my government can not simply say, well leave. Nor indeed is it an excuse that the rich may leave if we tax them.
We are talking about millions of people. Google+ is hardly a niche. When we talk about Facebook, we are talking about billions of people. You see, that is how social networks work. Though you can have a network for those that use nicknames and those that do not, what if these people want to share the same network?
Finally, Facebook has been very vocal about its antagonism against anonymity. Google is very high profile too so they enforcing a real name policy is not a small deal. Soon, they will want us to use real names everywhere. These are not small fish. They are giants, really, in some ways, the governments of the internet. So it is not about G+ or Facebook. I think, it is about a principle. The principle to be anonymous. The principle to not be judged by colour, ethnicity, gender, nationality, orientation, disability, etc. Names convey a lot of information. Indeed they convey all of these informations.
The internet is a level playing field where people are judged based on content, unlike, in many instances, in the real life. The internet is so awesome because in many ways it is not like real life. It is, in many ways, completely different from real life. That is what has made it such a powerful engine of our society and if you wish the power structures in the real world to be transported to this world, then you must be mad.
Not saying you are in power at all, but when someone criticises something, you can not simply say well you do not like it, then leave.
We're talking about what websites people visit in their spare time here, not the government or Comcast. It's the equivalent of saying, "If you don't like Chicken McNuggets, don't go to McDonalds and order them."
So it is not about G+ or Facebook. I think, it is about a principle. The principle to be anonymous. The principle to not be judged by colour, ethnicity, gender, nationality, orientation, disability, etc. Names convey a lot of information. Indeed they convey all of these informations.
The internet is a level playing field where people are judged based on content, unlike, in many instances, in the real life. The internet is so awesome because in many ways it is not like real life. It is, in many ways, completely different from real life. That is what has made it such a powerful engine of our society and if you wish the power structures in the real world to be transported to this world, then you must be mad.
That's not an argument against G+ or Facebook not allowing pseudonyms, it's an argument against people using G+ or Facebook in the first place.
If you're looking for some type of utopian metaverse where everyone takes on androgynous identities and interact with strangers, there's plenty of that to be found. Social networking sites were specifically created to provide something different, and they got popular because a lot of people want that.
It turns out most people use the internet as a tool to interact with the real world. If the internet was just some sort of metaverse, it wouldn't be a powerful engine of society at all--it's useful specifically because it's connected to the real world. Google and Wikipedia help people find information about the real world. Amazon helps people select and purchase physical goods to be shipped to them in the real world. Your bank's website helps you pay your bills, including the mortgage or rent for whatever physical chunk of the real world your flesh and bones sleep in at night. Countless websites exist to help people meet up and physically pleasure each other's (potentially) gendered, colored, disabled bodies in whatever orientation they want in real life. Likewise, Facebook and Google+ help people keep in touch with other people in the real world.
People who want pseudonymous conversations with strangers still have no shortage of choices. (You might notice that we're having one right now, or we would be if not for our choice of usernames.)
Before I'm finished, I have another point to make. All that Facebook and Google+ did was set up a web application that millions of people voluntarily used, and millions of people voluntarily chose not to use, for free. There's no force or natural monopoly here, just a diversion, a leisure activity if you will. I honestly cannot understand the sense of entitlement here. It's not like people don't have choices, it's that for the people who use Facebook, Facebook is what they want, and for the people who use Google+, Google+ is what they want.
If you (or indeed anyone) feels strongly enough that some type of anonymous social network would be a great idea, and that the current plethora of news sites and web forums are missing something, why don't you back up your words and set it up yourself? If that's what people want, then it'll be a success. Hey, it might be a lot to ask, but it's no more than the people who built Facebook and Google+ have done. If your principles are so important that you're personally insulted that Facebook and Google+ don't follow them, they're strong enough that you should consider doing something about the situation yourself.
That's an awfully cute straw man, but not really what's being discussed here. My calling for some basic human decency is no more "oppressive" than my remarking that hey, people who kick puppies or don't say thank you to waiters are pricks.
> by providing a forum for people to speak out anonymously.
That doesn't address the issue.
The value of large companies with large social graphs is one of networking. Having a soapbox to talk shout into silence doesn't do anything to improve the cause of someone who can't be safe with their own identity online.
Cramming people who are unable, for their own safety and well-being, into a ghetto cut off from the larger world is hardly a kind thing to do. For one, it deprives them of the ability to open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help or resources to begin flowing.
At a certain scale, the privilege of network effects comes with social responsibility. People have the right, and often the need, to define their identity along specific parameters. Refusing to acknowledge that does not respect users – and it's entirely valid to condemn that.