[magicalist]

My point is perhaps narrower than you are seeing. It was not that trust levels don't change, or advocating for some level of trust. Just that his conclusions do not follow from the evidence presented, to the point where the connection borders on the irrational (to me).

I don't think my username here is particularly interesting, just a variation on a typical one that was already taken.

[rohern]

I agree entirely with magicalist. I've tried to get my head around the stink about real names on Google+ since it first went crashing through the internet, but it seems like people shouting about teacups being too small.

The point of Google+ seems to be to do networking with your friends and co-workers. Why would one want to be anonymous in this environment? You're going to anonymously share pictures of yourself? I do not get it. If it's a pseudonym that you just happen to really like, then okay -- maybe you've kept it since your days on AIM and are really fond of it, after all things like JHR1987ILOVETHEBEATLES are pretty cool -- but other than that what is the point of this?

It seems like wanting the right to carry a gun in space. It's not going to do you any good, so why are you fighting about it?

[rednaught]

Substitute space with "Google space", add in Google becoming an online/offline identity provider without the same access(or oversight) as your local County Clerk of records, add in shareholder value and the the innocent concerns of networking with friends and co-workers(oh, Google is considerate enough to add companies and other entities to the mix to increase the fun party factor because nothing is free right?) becomes apparent.

Yah, nothing could go wrong. Joe user's medical practice's patients, his frat buddies, the parents of his children's soccer league, his NRA buddies and the local chapter of Curious Men all are interested in the exact same photo of Joe? As I said, perspective is interesting. Lack of understanding is less interesting.