Elgan: Even Google hates its own 'names' policy
The Google+ real names policy is so bad, Google can't even describe it honestly. Fortunately, the solution is easy and obvious.
Computerworld - Google's only big blunder in the creation of its otherwise excellent Google+ social network has been a flawed policy on what users are allowed to call themselves. Everybody hates the policy. Even Google hates it.
A lot of thought went into Google+. But the names policy? Not so much.
Here's my interpretation of Google's real names policy:
We require you to use your real name on the service. If we catch you using a fake name, we will give you four days to change it to your real name. If you don't change it, we won't let you use Google+. The main reasons for our policy are that we don't want anonymous trolls, spammers and haters wrecking the service, and also because real names make Google+ a better platform for commerce.
This is my own statement of Google's policy. Google people have never honestly articulated this policy. Instead, Google always couches its policies in euphemisms and misdirection. Their actual policy is so unpalatable that they can't even say it out loud.
Here's Google's disingenuous statement about its real names policy (according to Google+ product manager Saurabh Sharma in a video posted this week):
Google has "asked that those signing up for the service use the name they commonly go by in the real world." The reason? Google wants to "make connecting with people on the web more like connecting with people in the real world."
I respect what Google is trying to do with its real names policy -- at least I have no interest in Google+ descending into some kind of unholy mix between 4chan, YouTube and Chatroulette, where conversations are dominated by hate speech-spewing cowards hiding behind anonymity. And I understand that Google isn't a nonprofit organization -- they want to monetize. That's fair.
But Google's statement is disingenuous on three counts:
1. They're not "asking." It's a requirement. They don't want to say "requiring" because the truth sounds too harsh.
To ask is to imply that you'll respect the person's decision. "Asking" is not what Google is doing. They are "requiring."
Google should be honest and say: "We are requiring that those signing up for the service use the name they commonly go by in the real world."
2. The stated reason for the policy is not the real reason. "More like connecting with people in the real world?" Why? Google's official policy page says it's "so that the people you want to connect with can find you."
But that's not the reason. In fact, that doesn't even make sense. Where in the real world does using my real name let people find me? The phone book? Do they still make phone books? I don't get it.
It's disingenuous of Google to not admit that real names also make Google+ a better environment for civil discussion and a better platform for commerce.
The phony "real world" argument could be used as the reason for everything and anything. "Oh, we're plastering advertising on every conceivable bit of G+ real estate, because we wanted to make Google+ more like the real world."
"We're going to force you to listen to random telephone conversations of people using Google Voice because we wanted to make Google+ more like the real world."
- Google+ ups competition with Facebook by including teens
- QuickPoll: What was the top story of 2011?
- Is Google's big bet on Google+ too risky?
- Why Google+ will become Google's only product
- Google unveils 'Find My Face' tool for Google+
- Is Google+ or Facebook better for business?
- Google+ comes to the enterprise via Google Apps
- Privacy a concern as Google links Plus with its other sites
- Google readies Google+ for push into the enterprise
- Google slips a sneak peak at Gmail redesign


- Excel 2010 Cheat Sheet
- Register for this Computerworld Insider Cheat Sheet and gain access to hundreds of premium content articles, guides, product reviews and more.
- Practice Management: Double Billing Rate and Improve Patient Services
- Would you like to double your billing rate and achieve faster payment for services?
Download this customer success story to see how One Health... - Mission Critical Data Explosion and Customer Case Study
- Would you like to double your tier 1 storage capacity while simultaneously reducing your storage footprint?
Download this customer success story to see how... - Protecting Against Database Attacks and Insider Threats: Top 5 Scenarios
- Read this new eBook to learn the top five scenarios and essential best practices for preventing database attacks and insider threats.
- Database Activity Monitoring Is Evolving
- Read the analyst report and learn how you can leverage the core capabilities of a DAP solution for better database security.
- Establishing a Strategy for Database Security is No Longer Optional
- The options for securing increasingly valuable databases are very broad and deep, and can be confusing. This research provides an overview of three... All Web 2.0 and Web Apps White Papers
- Distributed Database Security with Real-time Monitoring
- View this demo and learn how IBM InfoSphere Guardium database activity monitoring can help protect your sensitive data in distributed DBMS environments with...
- InfoSphere Warehouse Packs Demo
- These flash modules make warehousing more tangible and relevant to business users through detailed explanations of the InfoSphere Warehouse Packs.
- Delivery Management -- Extending Lifecycle Management
- Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012, 1:00 PM EDT
Siloed organizations continue doing the wrong things and doing things wrong, leading to increased costs,... - Leverage automation today to reduce IT complexity
- Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2012, 2:00 PM EDT
Whether your B2B complexity is caused by multiple technologies due to M&A, business or application specific... - Redefine Expectations in the Data Center
- Need to do more with less? Watch this video to learn how HP ProLiant Gen8 servers can help your business deploy servers three... All Web 2.0 and Web Apps Webcasts
