More on Nymwars
I think this post makes a really good point link
It is discussing what probably will not work and what might. At first, it seemed like explaining the issue might work. That's been done. Now, the question is what can people practically do to try to fix this. And I do think fixing it is important. Google is big. Google is too big for a policy this bad to not be a serious problem. Telling people who have reasons not to use their legal names or who have weird names or who otherwise fall afoul of Google's policy to simply not use Google Plus is going to cause a lot of problems, especially as it helps to validate this model. The way I view it is pretty much along the lines that we are at an early stage in the development of online societies. There have been many online societies, but now they are starting to expand to the masses, and not just a few people who got to play with computers while other people didn't have access for various reasons. Online societies are becoming part of what society is. We are shaping what that will look like.
And we have the question before us: Do we create inclusive or exclusive societies? Do we say that it's okay to tell the people who don't fit in that they can just not be a part of these societies and be left out?
I view it a lot like a world before the ADA where we are deciding how to build buildings, and we have a choice to decide whether ramps will be standard or not, whether grab bars in bathrooms will be a feature. We could tell people that they can make do without grab bars - sure, it's a little more dangerous and difficult, and if they don't like it, they don't have to use these buildings. And if you don't like that your friend can't use this building, you don't have to come in either. Or we could say, we'd like to make this building as usable as possible. We recognize that some people have these needs. We recognize that for some people a ramp is an absolute necessity. We recognize that for some people, they could function without the ramp. Sure, that parent could manage to get that kid and the stroller up the stairs eventually even without a ramp, but it's a lot more effort, and a ramp would certainly be far preferable for such people. So, for some people it's a vital need, for some it's a preference, and for some it's irrelevant. Maybe they don't even like ramps and prefer not being at all tempted to not take the stairs. But making the building usable to everyone makes for a more inclusive society, and we've found that it's far better to build an accessible building from the start than to try to retrofit them later.
Now we are building our virtual communities. And we know that some people need a pseudonym or an autonym for their personal safety. Some people have a strong preference to go by the name of their own choosing. Some people don't care. Some people prefer that everyone around them looks like them, and like how inaccessible buildings and communities keep out the different people. But I think we should be working to encourage inclusiveness. And that link gives good points for what might work.
Unfortunately, I don't really know people outside of geek circles. The closest I have to that is actually things like people I know on LJ... and people who use LJ obviously are people who are comfortable getting to know people who aren't using the names on their government-issued ID cards. So, preaching to the choir. But maybe some of you can help spread the word further. It's not the only important issue out there. It may not be the most important issue out there. But I do think it will affect how online communities develop, and that affects how people interact. I don't want that future to develop as one that has higher costs for minorities. And that's what Google is pushing for, whether they understand it or not.
It is discussing what probably will not work and what might. At first, it seemed like explaining the issue might work. That's been done. Now, the question is what can people practically do to try to fix this. And I do think fixing it is important. Google is big. Google is too big for a policy this bad to not be a serious problem. Telling people who have reasons not to use their legal names or who have weird names or who otherwise fall afoul of Google's policy to simply not use Google Plus is going to cause a lot of problems, especially as it helps to validate this model. The way I view it is pretty much along the lines that we are at an early stage in the development of online societies. There have been many online societies, but now they are starting to expand to the masses, and not just a few people who got to play with computers while other people didn't have access for various reasons. Online societies are becoming part of what society is. We are shaping what that will look like.
And we have the question before us: Do we create inclusive or exclusive societies? Do we say that it's okay to tell the people who don't fit in that they can just not be a part of these societies and be left out?
I view it a lot like a world before the ADA where we are deciding how to build buildings, and we have a choice to decide whether ramps will be standard or not, whether grab bars in bathrooms will be a feature. We could tell people that they can make do without grab bars - sure, it's a little more dangerous and difficult, and if they don't like it, they don't have to use these buildings. And if you don't like that your friend can't use this building, you don't have to come in either. Or we could say, we'd like to make this building as usable as possible. We recognize that some people have these needs. We recognize that for some people a ramp is an absolute necessity. We recognize that for some people, they could function without the ramp. Sure, that parent could manage to get that kid and the stroller up the stairs eventually even without a ramp, but it's a lot more effort, and a ramp would certainly be far preferable for such people. So, for some people it's a vital need, for some it's a preference, and for some it's irrelevant. Maybe they don't even like ramps and prefer not being at all tempted to not take the stairs. But making the building usable to everyone makes for a more inclusive society, and we've found that it's far better to build an accessible building from the start than to try to retrofit them later.
Now we are building our virtual communities. And we know that some people need a pseudonym or an autonym for their personal safety. Some people have a strong preference to go by the name of their own choosing. Some people don't care. Some people prefer that everyone around them looks like them, and like how inaccessible buildings and communities keep out the different people. But I think we should be working to encourage inclusiveness. And that link gives good points for what might work.
Unfortunately, I don't really know people outside of geek circles. The closest I have to that is actually things like people I know on LJ... and people who use LJ obviously are people who are comfortable getting to know people who aren't using the names on their government-issued ID cards. So, preaching to the choir. But maybe some of you can help spread the word further. It's not the only important issue out there. It may not be the most important issue out there. But I do think it will affect how online communities develop, and that affects how people interact. I don't want that future to develop as one that has higher costs for minorities. And that's what Google is pushing for, whether they understand it or not.