I know there are exceptions, but most of the time I find myself wanting to post something anonymously it's because I'm saying or doing something I shouldn't. I appreciate Google's stand. All you need to do is look at 4chan to see what happens when anonymity reigns.
I'm 'ubernostrum' here. And also on reddit. And also on a bunch of other websites. And on Twitter. And also on IRC. And it's part of my most-often-publicly-distributed email address. I've been 'ubernostrum' since the last millennium, and I actually get annoyed when I find a site where someone else already has the name, because that means someone's using it who isn't me.
This is the difference between anonymity and pseudonymity. Someone who's anonymous is a one-off. Someone who's pseudonymous is the same person, the same identity, consistently over time -- just not their actual real name. And that's an incredibly common thing in the tech world, and I'm surprised so many people don't get that when they've probably been living happily in a pseudonymous world for years.
I agree. The problem is the line between them is so thin that from a rules/enforcement perspective they may as well be the same thing. How are they to tell the difference between a long-used pseudonym and a throw-away account?
When I want to say something anonymously, it's usually because there are people who disagree with my opinion who I'd rather not reveal my identity to.
For instance, I argue regularly against violent racists on certain football forums. I've been threatened by them and had them asking people what my real name is. Thankfully, I use a pseudonym on there (a different one to the one I use on here) and have so far been able to express those opinions without being physically attacked by thugs.
>All you need to do is look at 4chan to see what happens when anonymity reigns.
Or, God forbid, the Wikileaks. Damned whistleblowers... :P
The solution I'd like to see, to help those with delicate sensibilities, is a way to toggle whether or not you allow interaction with pseudonymous folks. This would allow those of us who enjoy hearing from folks who use pseudonyms to continue to do so, but would allow those who don't to employ filtering.
It's looking, however, like it's G+'s business model, and not concern for what users wants, that is driving G+ policy.
You do realize that (a) The John Gabriel Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is a joke, and (b) its inventor, John Gabriel, is a fictional character with a fake name?
Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, Acton, Currer and Ellis Bell, George Eliot, George Sand, Richard Bachman and Nicolas Bourbaki, among others, would like a word with this theory.
In this case there is another service, but that argument is quite weak in general. Here is a fantastic video with lots of legitimate criticism of that stand: http://www.securitytube.net/video/1084.
At a certain point your choice is give up privacy or give up participation in society. Right now giving up G+ is not giving up email, or giving up having a cell phone, or giving up driving, but at a certain point it will be exactly like that.
At a certain point your choice is give up privacy or give up participation in society. Right now giving up G+ is not giving up email, or giving up having a cell phone, or giving up driving, but at a certain point it will be exactly like that.
This is the argument that needs to be raised more frequently in these discussions. Until there is a unified architecture for social interaction across different networks, it is very important which networks you can access. If we don't have a unifying protocol that links all social networks, then in the end, there can be only one.
Arguing that pseudonymous users should find a different service is equivalent to arguing that they should be entirely excluded from social interaction with the broader society.
