Google Plus and Real Names
Just letting my mind wander and brainstorm on this.
Who Am I:
I've been online since 1989. Back then, I used the internet for Usenet, email, and gopher. I was on just long enough to know what life was like before the September that never ended, but not enough to notice the difference until well after it happened. In that time, I've participated in discussion forums of all sorts -- technical, religious, emotional, sexual, and others -- both anonymously and not. I spent years participating on BBSes with different name requirements (internet and dial-up, real name only and not).
I have no direct connection to Google, but a lot of indirect ones. I've phone interviewed for positions there several times, and have done a three-round-but-no-offer interview within the last year. I've friends and family who currently work there, have recently worked there, and/or (presumably) will work their in the future; some have been hired directly and others through companies acquired by Google. I have invested in Google in the past, although I believe I don't currently have any direct financial interest (although, I presume some of my mutual funds have holdings of Google stock).
Something is, metaphorically, rotten in the state of Denmark.
Google has been a geek's technical giant. They haven't always made good decisions (q.v. Buzz roll-out), haven't always had the success they expected (q.v. Wave), and haven't always done what users wanted (q.v. killing Labs). However, they have tried, and until now, have lived by their motto "Don't Be Evil."
Then there was Google Plus, and something went wrong.
I'm not going to discuss the moral or political status of disallowing pseudonyms on Google Plus (although I think they should be allowed). I'm not even going to discuss the uneven enforcement of the issue (which is pretty extreme). There's something more than those issues, which seems to be the root-cause of the problem.
To be clear, I'll state my observations of what the current state is, and then go to speculation.
What does all of this mean?
My spouse's theory is that someone high in Google Management had a "Brilliant Idea" (tm), and wants to see it through, come hell or high water. I find this believable and possible, but less likely. This sort of behavior isn't consistent with the history of Google as-I-know-it. On the other hand, with the recent shuffling of responsibilities in Google upper management, it is possible that someone new is exerting their authority.
This leaves 2 other options that I can think of:
1) There is some reason that Google's legal department has required real names. This seems the least likely option, but it is the most generous to Google of the options. I can't fathom the reasoning that the legal department would come to this conclusion, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility.
2) I will admit that this is the conspiracy theorist in me. The Powers That Be Outside of Google are applying pressure. This is the least likely, but it is also the only one that truly makes sense. Between failing to be responsive to their user base, burning bridges, offending early adopters and evangelists, and otherwise tripping over themselves, Google's behavior is as atypical from their norm as I can recall. Google wasn't perfect in my eyes before this, but this is A Step Beyond, and runs directly counter to the sort of behavior I would expect. This would presumably be a major world government, as Google has pretty much ignored influences by anything else. It probably isn't be the EU because, as report elsewhere, this policy seems to be in conflict with EU law.
Regardless, whatever reasoning Google is using, it is doing pretty impressive damage to their reputation and good-will. Further, as much as Google Plus may be better than Facebook with respect to individual rights and privacy, it won't matter. Facebook has always been awful in that respect; individuals use it in spite of that, as a known flaw. Google built up users' hopes, and are now dashing them. It is human nature to take that as more offensive and damming (betrayal of a friend) than almost anything Facebook could do.
---
As a further point, I will call out some bullet points from Google's purported philosophy.
From http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/corporate/company/tenthings.html
"As we keep looking towards the future, these core principles guide our actions.
1. Focus on the user and all else will follow.
...
4. Democracy on the web works.
...
6. You can make money without doing evil.
...
8. The need for information crosses all borders."
From http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/corporate/company/ux.html
"Ten principles that contribute to a Googley user experience
1. Focus on people-their lives, their work, their dreams.
...
6. Design for the world.
...
9. Be worthy of people's trust.
...
10. Add a human touch."
I wonder when the management at Google last read the descriptions of those bullet points. Currently, Google is missing those 8 of the 20 bullet points on those 2 pages; in my experience, a 60% is a very, very low 'D'.
----
[1] it may also represent other logical fallacies. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies and http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
[2] I have no data, other than via the online sources I read, on the totality of interest in this issue. All I can base my experience on is those I communicate with, and that group is a biased basis. However, the super-majority of my experience is people who dislike or hate this policy. A notable minority don't care either way or are willing to let Google fix it over time. The remainder, supports of the policy, do not exist within my social group.
To be fair, my social group is very liberal-minded in a social-policy standpoint. Personal freedoms are very important, as is individualism and the ability to express ones-self in whatever manner one chooses. It is also full of many who identify as 'The Other' for one or more reasons (although it does not have a large diversity in ethnicity or social upbringing -- mostly white, and mostly middle class).
[3] This I know for a fact -- my 'legal' name is not the name I used with Google Health. New Hampshire does not allow for name-changes via marriage license (where we were married), and my spouse and I have not filed the paperwork to make our name change official. It is, however, the name I registered on Google Health. It is also the name I registered on Google Plus. Which means, I may be kissing my access goodbye in the near future.
This entry was originally posted at http://marphod.dreamwidth.org/646793.html. I'd prefer a unified comment thread, so please comment there using OpenID. There are
comments, so far. (Comments are allowed here, for those who dislike going offsite.)
Who Am I:
I've been online since 1989. Back then, I used the internet for Usenet, email, and gopher. I was on just long enough to know what life was like before the September that never ended, but not enough to notice the difference until well after it happened. In that time, I've participated in discussion forums of all sorts -- technical, religious, emotional, sexual, and others -- both anonymously and not. I spent years participating on BBSes with different name requirements (internet and dial-up, real name only and not).
I have no direct connection to Google, but a lot of indirect ones. I've phone interviewed for positions there several times, and have done a three-round-but-no-offer interview within the last year. I've friends and family who currently work there, have recently worked there, and/or (presumably) will work their in the future; some have been hired directly and others through companies acquired by Google. I have invested in Google in the past, although I believe I don't currently have any direct financial interest (although, I presume some of my mutual funds have holdings of Google stock).
Something is, metaphorically, rotten in the state of Denmark.
Google has been a geek's technical giant. They haven't always made good decisions (q.v. Buzz roll-out), haven't always had the success they expected (q.v. Wave), and haven't always done what users wanted (q.v. killing Labs). However, they have tried, and until now, have lived by their motto "Don't Be Evil."
Then there was Google Plus, and something went wrong.
I'm not going to discuss the moral or political status of disallowing pseudonyms on Google Plus (although I think they should be allowed). I'm not even going to discuss the uneven enforcement of the issue (which is pretty extreme). There's something more than those issues, which seems to be the root-cause of the problem.
To be clear, I'll state my observations of what the current state is, and then go to speculation.
- While there are some supporters of the no pseudonym/real name only policy, these appear to be a significant minority. While every one that I've seen support the current policy is also arguing from a position of privilege, and only argues about the theoretical reduction of hostilities or poorly behaving users, none has provided concrete evidence to support their position, this is only what I've seen. I'm willing to concede their might be evidence to support this point of view and that there are people who are more closely associated with The Other who support the policy. However, even conceding that these exist, they are not common, not loud, and not making arguments in a place that is having the same volume of distribution.
- Objectors to this policy have come from all sorts of social, economic, political, and religious positions. Many argue the necessity of pseudonomynity because of the need to protect The Other; in fact, some of these objectors are in a precarious circumstance themselves and would be put in real danger if they had to use their best-know-to-positions-of-power (offline) identify. Some objectors are basing their arguments on theoretical issues for using pseudonyms, but others have based their arguments on concrete, significant, actual threats to their health, happiness, freedom, employment status, or other condition.
- Google has, historically and generally, responded positively to user feedback and objections. The feature sets of many Google application and tools get expanded from suggestions of users, and they have responded to user objects (most notably, buzz privacy concerns) quickly and on the side of the users. Google's key to success includes providing the end user with a good experience; while their income is from advertisers, it is the end users that make them their 'ker-ching-ker-ching'.
- Google is dependent upon its user-base. From browser plugins that enhance Google's online and non-hosted (e.g. chrome) applications, to bug bounties, to edits and updates of data (e.g. maps), to content providers (e.g. YouTube, Picassa, Groups, Docs), Google needs it user base to keep driving more web browsers back to their virtual arcology. In particular, Google needs its evangelists who encourage others to send their business to Google, via individual or corporate subscriptions.
- Google is burning through massive amounts of good will with how it is handling this situation. There are several distinct problems with how Google is responding to the users. First, it isn't addressing the core issue -- the primary responses from Google have been about improving enforcement, clarifying the policy, and how a user can still associate their pseudonym with their account. This is a non sequitor and a red herring -- it is neither responding to the argument and it is introducing facts that are irrelevant to the argument[1]. Secondly, Google has been very slow to respond. Additionally, despite very vocal opposition, which is a strong majority of my friends[2] (although I have no idea how that relates to the general user-base), Google is ardently refusing to budge. This is offending a non trivial number of Google's early adopters and evangelists, without getting them anything out of it.
- Google is enforcing a policy, uniquely and distinctly, on a pre-release product. I do not know if the Terms of Service for other Google products require "real names"; I don't recall reading it in any of the products I use, and there are many google products that I haven't tried. Regardless, the Real Name requirement was not enforced on Orkut (if it was present when I used Orkut), and it isn't enforced with Checkout. It isn't even enforced with Google Health[3].
- (Somewhat tangentially) Google is still a very top-managed organization. To wit, when I interviewed there last fall, I was informed that all technical hires needed to get sign-off from Sergey Brin (as well as a bunch of hiring committees before getting that far), and he was known for occasionally vetoing hires. While everyone can innovate, major decisions still come from the top.
- Google Management has placed a gag order on at least some of the employees of Google, barring them from discussing this issue in public forums (http://infotrope.net/2011/07/29/google-is-gagging-employees/). The nature of the gag order isn't known (how many employees are affected by the order, whether it applies in the office as well, if there is a legitimate business reason for the order), but it isn't encouraging.
What does all of this mean?
My spouse's theory is that someone high in Google Management had a "Brilliant Idea" (tm), and wants to see it through, come hell or high water. I find this believable and possible, but less likely. This sort of behavior isn't consistent with the history of Google as-I-know-it. On the other hand, with the recent shuffling of responsibilities in Google upper management, it is possible that someone new is exerting their authority.
This leaves 2 other options that I can think of:
1) There is some reason that Google's legal department has required real names. This seems the least likely option, but it is the most generous to Google of the options. I can't fathom the reasoning that the legal department would come to this conclusion, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility.
2) I will admit that this is the conspiracy theorist in me. The Powers That Be Outside of Google are applying pressure. This is the least likely, but it is also the only one that truly makes sense. Between failing to be responsive to their user base, burning bridges, offending early adopters and evangelists, and otherwise tripping over themselves, Google's behavior is as atypical from their norm as I can recall. Google wasn't perfect in my eyes before this, but this is A Step Beyond, and runs directly counter to the sort of behavior I would expect. This would presumably be a major world government, as Google has pretty much ignored influences by anything else. It probably isn't be the EU because, as report elsewhere, this policy seems to be in conflict with EU law.
Regardless, whatever reasoning Google is using, it is doing pretty impressive damage to their reputation and good-will. Further, as much as Google Plus may be better than Facebook with respect to individual rights and privacy, it won't matter. Facebook has always been awful in that respect; individuals use it in spite of that, as a known flaw. Google built up users' hopes, and are now dashing them. It is human nature to take that as more offensive and damming (betrayal of a friend) than almost anything Facebook could do.
---
As a further point, I will call out some bullet points from Google's purported philosophy.
From http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/corporate/company/tenthings.html
"As we keep looking towards the future, these core principles guide our actions.
1. Focus on the user and all else will follow.
...
4. Democracy on the web works.
...
6. You can make money without doing evil.
...
8. The need for information crosses all borders."
From http://www.google.com/intl/en/about/corporate/company/ux.html
"Ten principles that contribute to a Googley user experience
1. Focus on people-their lives, their work, their dreams.
...
6. Design for the world.
...
9. Be worthy of people's trust.
...
10. Add a human touch."
I wonder when the management at Google last read the descriptions of those bullet points. Currently, Google is missing those 8 of the 20 bullet points on those 2 pages; in my experience, a 60% is a very, very low 'D'.
----
[1] it may also represent other logical fallacies. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies and http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
[2] I have no data, other than via the online sources I read, on the totality of interest in this issue. All I can base my experience on is those I communicate with, and that group is a biased basis. However, the super-majority of my experience is people who dislike or hate this policy. A notable minority don't care either way or are willing to let Google fix it over time. The remainder, supports of the policy, do not exist within my social group.
To be fair, my social group is very liberal-minded in a social-policy standpoint. Personal freedoms are very important, as is individualism and the ability to express ones-self in whatever manner one chooses. It is also full of many who identify as 'The Other' for one or more reasons (although it does not have a large diversity in ethnicity or social upbringing -- mostly white, and mostly middle class).
[3] This I know for a fact -- my 'legal' name is not the name I used with Google Health. New Hampshire does not allow for name-changes via marriage license (where we were married), and my spouse and I have not filed the paperwork to make our name change official. It is, however, the name I registered on Google Health. It is also the name I registered on Google Plus. Which means, I may be kissing my access goodbye in the near future.
This entry was originally posted at http://marphod.dreamwidth.org/646793.html. I'd prefer a unified comment thread, so please comment there using OpenID. There are
comments, so far. (Comments are allowed here, for those who dislike going offsite.)