[LaRakel]

Pseudonymity for everyone helps the ones who do need it, because then they don't stand out.

If you're not part of any minority or have no radical politics, yeah you might not need it. But even then, you would want the comfort of the advertising industry and your future employer not being able to disrespect your privacy. (Public data and privacy? Yes.)

Why then is it good to kick people out for using pseudonyms? Why does it have to be a requirement? Do the benefits of real names even compare to the benefits of pseudonymity? I don't think they do.

[bmelton]

I didn't mean to imply that they don't have the right to anonymity, just that I don't think that Google is any less right for refusing to provide it. It is their platform, and those who feel they require anonymity are free to choose another platform (like Livejournal, Twitter, Identi.ca, etc.) to voice their opinions from.

Whether or not the benefit of real names matters, Google has decided that they think it does. I happen to agree, but even though I (obviously) disagree with the idea that Twitter allows pseudonyms, I don't feel justified in complaining that they don't require real names. That's their decision just as much as this one was Google's.

And while I realize that what I'm writing comes off as a slightly less sensitive version of "If you don't like it, then leave," type of comment, and I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I really don't understand why people who disagree with Google's real names policy can't just up and go elsewhere. This isn't remotely as serious (in my humble opinion) as mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts that we're seeing so much of lately.

Again though, that's just from my perspective, and may very well be a result of a white privilege.

[LaRakel]

I do interpret what you wrote as a slightly less sensitive version of "If you don't like it, then leave," type of comment.

That type of comment is doesn't say anything, there's no real argument in it. It's simply dismissing criticism. You can dismiss any criticism whatsoever using it.

The sweeping "if you don't like it leave" doesn't really work. There's good reasons to use a platform despite deficiencies, no platform is exactly how I'd do it. Perhaps Google+ is technologically better, or the audience on Google+ is better for what I have to say. Maybe I want to keep in touch with real life acquaintances and they are on Google+. Do I have to convince every contact I have to switch to a platform that is worse in different ways?

Even if I vehemently disagree with their stance on publishing your true identity; there's reasons to use a platform despite it and keep complaining about their bad policies.

[bmelton]

To frame the discussion differently, I disagree with Paypal's recent mandatory arbitration clause, but I have reasons to use Paypal despite it; Namely, I have a few accounts that I pay for that only offer Paypal as a payment option.

As of this morning, I have sent emails to each of those account holders asking whether or not they have alternate payment methods available, as I will be canceling my Paypal account shortly so as to opt out of their mandatory arbitration clause.

If I choose to accept their mandatory arbitration and continue to use the platform, then that is my choice. That it causes me considerable inconvenience to opt out of their policy is my problem alone. So long as there are other ways to pay, then it isn't Paypal's responsibility to cater to me or my beliefs.

Does this mean that I might have to cancel some accounts (namely PRGMR.com, which I use and love) and replace them with other, perhaps more expensive alternatives? Yes, but that is the choice that I am making regardless.

If G+'s benefits to you are greater than your conviction against their real name policy, then that is the choice that you have made. You're of course entitled to your opinion on it, but nobody's forcing you to use it even if it is perhaps the most convenient way to do what you want.

[LaRakel]

Whether or not you keep using a service, it's good to voice your opinion on bad policy, because every so often a company listens to its users.

Besides marketshare, bad press has an impact as well. Leaving a service is NOT the only way of protest.

[orangecat]

but even though I (obviously) disagree with the idea that Twitter allows pseudonyms

I can understand not caring about pseudonymity, but I see no good reason (for individuals as opposed to corporate entities) to be actively opposed to it. Why do you think you have any right to know my name, and what harm comes from not knowing it?

[bmelton]

I don't disagree with the premise. When I say I disagree with Twitter's choice, what I mean is that I would probably enjoy Twitter much more if that wasn't their stance.

The reason for this is perhaps anecdotal, but in my personal experience, I generally find richer, deeper and more meaningful discussion when real names are involved.

This is anecdotal at best, and HN is a notable exception to that rule, but that is my experience. If I were president of the world, I would not change Twitter's rules, as that is within their right to provide pseudonymity, but if I were president of Twitter, I might just change it. (Though from a business perspective, what they have has been working for them, and I'm profit-minded enough to wager I wouldn't mess with that.)

[Raphael_Amiard]

> I didn't mean to imply that they don't have the right to anonymity, just that I don't think that Google is any less right for refusing to provide it. It is their platform, and those who feel they require anonymity are free to choose another platform (like Livejournal, Twitter, Identi.ca, etc.) to voice their opinions from.

I try to be free, but because i have a Google account (for GMail), i keep being harassed by Google, around 10 times a week, to join Google+.

I don't want to use Google+ (by principle, because i have no problem using my real name online). But i want to keep my GMail account. And this is getting increasingly difficult.