Nymwars: Thoughts on Google+
There’s something important happening around Google+. It’s the start of a rebellion against the idea of “government authorized names.” (A lot of folks foolishly allow the other side to name this as “real names,” but a real name is a name someone calls you.)
Let’s start with “Why Facebook and Google’s Concept of ‘Real Names’ Is Revolutionary” by “Alex Madrigal.” He explains why the idea is not only not natural, but revolutionary. Then move on to “Why it Matters: Google+ and Diversity, part 2” by “Jon Pincus.” From there, understand see “danah boyd” explain that ““Real Names” Policies Are an Abuse of Power . One natural reaction is ““If you don’t like it, don’t use it. It’s that simple.” ORLY?” as “Alice Marwick” explains, it’s really not that simple. That’s why people like “Skud” are continuing to fight, as shown in “Skud vs. Google+, round two.” [link to http://infotrope.net/2011/08/05/round-two/ no longer works]
What’s the outcome? Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia require real names. “South Korea is abandoning its “real name” internet policy”
So how do we get there? “Identity Woman” suggested that we have a ““Million” Persona March on Google ,” but she’s now suspended. “Skud” posted “Nymwars strategy.”
This is important stuff for how we shape the future of the internet, and how the future of the internet shapes our lives. Even if you only use one name, you should get involved. Get involved by understanding why names matter, and get involved by calling people what they want to be called, not what Google wants to call them.
The policy actually asks people to use their “real names” in the sense you define above; there is no requirement to use “government authorized names.” I’m not really sure why so much of the criticism of the G+ name policy includes this misconception.
http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271
I think the perception comes from the failures to address real names like
Skud, and in its place, ask for ID. In that heavily documented instance, Google is actively ignoring its own policy. So I don’t agree that it’s a misconception.