Vint Cerf: Google Shouldn't Require Real Names 113
An anonymous reader writes "In an interview with Reuters, 'father of the internet' Vint Cerf spoke about Google's past push for requiring real names from their users — a stance they later backed down from after public outcry. Google+ and many other services work just fine with pseudonyms, Cert says, and it's better to let users pick the option that works best for them. 'Using real names is useful. But I don't think it should be forced on people, and I don't think we do.' That said, he also firmly believes some services do need true identities from both sides: 'Anonymity and pseudonymity are perfectly reasonable under some situations. But there are cases where in the transactions both parties really need to know who are we talking to. So what I'm looking for is not that we shut down anonymity, but rather that we offer an option when needed that can strongly authenticate who the parties are.' Still, the matter of pseudonyms on Google+ seems to be settled internally, at least for the moment. Cerf said, 'There was a debate on this subject and it was resolved. ... Our conclusion was that choice is important.'"
The value of anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
The value of anonymity is in the ability to express ideas that are not necessarily socially acceptable, but are contributions to our ongoing resolution of social questions.
When Google starts trying to "civilize" the internet by requiring real names, it's forcing us to associate our free speech with our jobs, families and others who may face retaliation if our ideas are not socially acceptable.
Re:The value of anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
In scope, google is a private 3rd party service provider for email and a bunch of other stuff. What they require is not legally enforceable or really relevant. Short of having to submit physical documentation to create an account, how do they know the real name I gave is really me? Or a fake alias?
Still freaked out for that policy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The value of anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
When Google starts trying to "civilize" the internet by requiring real names, it's forcing us to associate our free speech with our jobs, families and others who may face retaliation if our ideas are not socially acceptable.
Google has no authority, and is not trying, to civilize "the internet". It's trying to apply those policies to its own services, and it has every right to do so. Doing so isn't "forcing" you to associate your name with your speech, unless you are somehow compelled to use Google's services. And in the arena where this applies (social networking) Google isn't even particularly dominant.
The thing about the internet is that it's not some uniform monolith. There is plenty of space for both pseudonymous and real-name services - if you don't like a service that requires real names, use one that allows pseudonyms. You don't have to force every service on the internet to conform to your ideas as to how the internet should operate - doing so is far more of an attempt to "civilize the internet" than what Google's doing.
Re:Still freaked out for that policy... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the reason I don't use Google+ I have active pages with more than a million users in facebook,..
Wait... facebook?! The other massive site with the real name policy? The one showing people their friends profiles and asking "Is that their real name?"
That is the site you prefer to use?
"Facebook is a community where people use their real identities. We require everyone to provide their real names, so you always know who you're connecting with."
http://www.facebook.com/help/112146705538576/ [facebook.com]
Being banned for any reason (I really never should be, never had any problems in facebook for example, but you never know)
Yeah, you never know, i mean you are just violating their Real Name policy. I'm sure I can't think of a reason you would ever be banned. Nobody has ever been banned from facebook for being in violation of the real name policy there.
I mean, they only banned famous (infamous?) author Salman Rushdie for registering as Salman Rushdie. Clearly that's not his real name so, they banned him, and when he complained they reinstated him as Ahmed Rushdie, since his passport says his first name is Ahmed. It took a bit of a media frenzy on the event for facebook to buckle and let him be Salman Rushdie on facebook.
But hey, Google is the company that had a real name policy and banned people over it, and then caved and dropped it, while facebook is the company that HAS a real name policy, recently fought a court case in Germany to keep it, and bans people who violate it... and so therefore:
You stuck with facebook, and will never touch G+ again.
Yes, that makes perfect sense.
Re:I think what they should do is (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, since the purpose of a name is to interact with other people, it is more accurate to say that your name is what other people call you. If 'Bud' is what everybody calls you every day in 'real life', then that is you real name.
Now is maybe a good time to post the link to the falsehoods that people[programmers] believe about names. [kalzumeus.com]
It's quite normal to have multiple names: one of my relatives was called by one name by half the family and another name by the other half. Was one of those names not her 'real' name?
If I am known by a nym in a community---a community that I interact with only using that name, then that is my name----in that community.