Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pseudonyms Now Allowed On Google+

Soulskill posted about a month ago | from the finally-batman-can-set-up-a-profile dept.

Social Networks 238

An anonymous reader writes When Google+ launched, it received criticism across the internet for requiring that users register with their real names. Now, Google has finally relented and removed all restrictions on what usernames people are allowed to use. The company said, "We know you've been calling for this change for a while. We know that our names policy has been unclear, and this has led to some unnecessarily difficult experiences for some of our users. For this we apologize, and we hope that today's change is a step toward making Google+ the welcoming and inclusive place that we want it to be."

cancel ×

238 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Anonymous Coward for the WIN!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462285)

I cockslapped your little sister, and all I got was Open Sores.

8==C=O=C=K==S=L=A=P==D ~~-_

Thunk.

Re:Anonymous Coward for the WIN!! (5, Funny)

Snufu (1049644) | about a month ago | (#47462593)

Actually, "Anonymous Coward for the WIN!" should be the headline of this story.

Re:Anonymous Coward for the WIN!! (-1, Troll)

Nyder (754090) | about a month ago | (#47462849)

I cockslapped your little sister, and all I got was Open Sores.

8==C=O=C=K==S=L=A=P==D ~~-_

Thunk.

That was my older sister, my younger sister is too ugly & fat to get laid.

Back to the roots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462303)

Until next time.

Youtube Comments (5, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | about a month ago | (#47462307)

I see the only major impact of this being that people can now leave pseudonymous comments on Youtube again.

Re:Youtube Comments (5, Interesting)

sd4f (1891894) | about a month ago | (#47462353)

After so long of not posting comments (i may have been able, but youtube just started annoying me too much to bother, with all these screens that desperately wanted to know who I am and create google+ accounts), I no longer care. They can keep their commenting system.

Re:Youtube Comments (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462429)

Same here. Sometimes I go to leave a comment on a youtube video but then it prompts me to set up a Google+ account.

So I just don't comment instead.

Re:Youtube Comments (4, Insightful)

Glarimore (1795666) | about a month ago | (#47462643)

There's no reason to be contributing to that pool of bile anyway. Youtube comments are notoriously atrocious.

Re:Youtube Comments (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462935)

There's no reason to be contributing to that pool of bile anyway. Youtube comments are notoriously atrocious.

They got worse with the redesign, though.

Old and busted: You could always look at page 1/2/3 of the comments or binary-search your way through the pages (pre-page-57 or post-page 57? pre-page 84 or post-page-84?) if a video that hadn't been relevant for ages became relevant. At 100 comments per page, all displayed in full, and popping tabs for each page with a bunch of middle-clicks, it was relatively easy to skim through the 99.99% of the shit to find the 0.01% you wanted
New hotness: Some fucking UXtard goes for infinite scroll, and you have to click to expand subthreads, and then click to expand any comment longer than three lines in any subthread.

Every time a UX designer fucks with something to make it more mobile-friendly, they make it less usable for both desktop and mobile users.

..unnecessarily difficult experiences for some.. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462443)

Yes,
Unnecessarily difficult, because google either already knows who you are (via some other registered service(s) i.e. Adwords etc) or will link in a relationship to your choosen "Pseudonym" to your real name, web history and other online events later on anyway.

So yeah google, what a stupid idea.

Re:Youtube Comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462447)

I don't think enforcement of this policy was anything special. Same with Facebook for that matter. What were they gonna do, check your driver's license?

Re:Youtube Comments (4, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47462619)

Sort off. what they do is send links asking if you know certain people and give the names. They also have a link for if they misidentified them.

So some sorry sap will help them check your drivers license. It's probably someone who you worked with 10 years ago or who has seen you at a pub or something too. I get these all the time for random people in my area. I tend to shorten my name when signing up for crap and they ended up with my full name and I bet it was this exactly. I know the people they ask me if I know- they are geo-locating your ip or something to pass them around.

Re:Youtube Comments (2, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a month ago | (#47462457)

I see the only major impact of this being that people can now leave pseudonymous comments on Youtube again.

I think you missed the big one: lots of people might actually start using Google+.

Sure, lots of people already did. But lots of people did not. Some people just didn't like the blatant privacy violations.

Re:Youtube Comments (1, Insightful)

exomondo (1725132) | about a month ago | (#47462491)

I think you missed the big one: lots of people might actually start using Google+.

I doubt it, it was unpopular before the real names policy and I don't see the reversion of that policy increasing it's popularity.

Some people just didn't like the blatant privacy violations.

Sorry I'm not really familiar with Google+ - outside of the necessity of it to make use of Google services and the incessant nagging from Google that I create one - but what privacy violations does this change rescind? I did a bit of a search and found this but AFAIK that is still in effect (or maybe it isnt?). [india.com]

Re:Youtube Comments (5, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a month ago | (#47462579)

Google+ is not about a popularity contest. It's about being social without being on facebook, or keeping track of special interest groups (including celebreties). The only real problem with Google+ was that it wanted to tie you to other stupid services like youtube, without even letting you go slumming on a separate account. Google should have left it alone instead of trying to get a one-acount-fits-all login (trying too hard to be a facebook clone instead of being something better).

Re:Youtube Comments (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462599)

Google+ is not about a popularity contest. It's about being social without being on facebook, or keeping track of special interest groups (including celebreties).

In other words, much like Facebook, it's absolute garbage.

Re:Youtube Comments (2, Informative)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a month ago | (#47462647)

Unlike Facebook, in that there is intelligence. The way I explain it (someone said it before me), Facebook is for keeping track of people I care about, Google+ is for keeping track of ideas/issues/things I care about. The intersection is very small.

Re:Youtube Comments (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462949)

Google+ is just more privacy-invading social media garbage. You can pretend all you want that it's completely different from Facebook, but it's more of the same trash.

Re:Youtube Comments (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47463087)

He likes to pretend that he's a noble patrician while watching reruns of My Little Pony and the latest cat video.

Re:Youtube Comments (2)

znrt (2424692) | about a month ago | (#47463099)

Unlike Facebook, in that there is intelligence. The way I explain it (someone said it before me), Facebook is for keeping track of people I care about, Google+ is for keeping track of ideas/issues/things I care about. The intersection is very small.

fb also throws random crap "you might care about" at you. the link is still the people (or "entities"), and the business model is still in these links. that's all what advertisers want: bunches of linked people.

the very reason for the sick name policy thing was to convince advertisers that g+'s bunches were of real people, unlike fb where more than half of them are fake, meaning they could offer a "more valuable" bunch of linked people than fb. that was the only real difference between fb and g+, besides a slicker ui. that they now have backed down means it didn't work out, i guess, son now there'll be no substantial difference between fb and g+ at all. different tribes or market segments, maybe.

it also means my g+ account is no longer banned, because naturally i told them straight away they could go fuck themselves the very moment they insisted in knowing better than me how i should be recognized on the net. lol, suckers.

Re:Youtube Comments (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47462635)

Not slumming is what made it great.

Re:Youtube Comments (3, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47462685)

It was probably easier for them to tie all the data they collect to you with one account. That's what they seem to be after anyways, data.

Re:Youtube Comments (4, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | about a month ago | (#47462891)

I don't think that would have made that much difference to them, honestly. They already have pretty much all of your data.

My issue with it was that while I've come to terms with Google knowing everything about me, it doesn't follow that I'm OK with everyone else knowing everything about me.

Re:Youtube Comments (1)

butchersong (1222796) | about a month ago | (#47462793)

Agreed. I use my real name on G+ and never had a problem with that. I enjoy the conversations and try to think out my posts and be polite in my replies. Of course not everyone is but I've found the lack on anonymity contributed to a rather unique and convivial environment. Now, it completely pissed me off when they tried to force me to do the same on Youtube. I always tried to be polite on youtube as well but I don't want my real name linked to every obnoxious video I watch and comment on. Love it for G+, haven't used youtube comments since they tried to enforce the same policy.

Re:Youtube Comments (2)

fractoid (1076465) | about a month ago | (#47462873)

At least in my circle of friends, it was taking off pretty fast. We were all sick of Facebook's privacy bullshit and wanted something else to use that would supply the same service. We all dropped it pretty much straight away when they started pushing for real names.

Re:Youtube Comments (2)

quarterbuck (1268694) | about a month ago | (#47462603)

Actually this probably means that people will use youtube again.
It was a pain to set up an alias to comment or upload a video - even when you had an alias, it would keep prompting you to pick between them all the time. And if you chose to not log-in to a google account while using youtube, your search results changed and you could not create playlists (earlier you had a seperate youtube account on which you could create playlists). I like to watch british version of top gear, so I would often create playlists of those on youtube and then watch it on my internet connected TV. Now that I have to use a trace-able account, I no longer do - I don't want cable companies tracking my account and banning it permanently. Clearly, people who watch copyrighted content is not youtube's target audience, but I think there are many other scenarios where youtube-google tie-up is bad.

Re:Youtube Comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462969)

Clearly, people who watch copyrighted content is not youtube's target audience

I'm not convinced of that.. Of course google would never admit it but afaict copyright infringment is a large part of what made and keeps youtube big. .

Re:Youtube Comments (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a month ago | (#47462611)

I won't be using it - not directly - but I'll allow my profile to have a Google+ "page" now that it doesn't want to have my name associated with it.

Re:Youtube Comments (1, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47462625)

Those people shouldn't be using any social media.

I like G+ very few trolls and flamebaits. I've had some good conversations. It was nice being in a science thread and not here AGW denier bullshit, and actually discuss the science. Many other examples as well.

Re:Youtube Comments (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462767)

Too little, too late in my case. I've managed to live without it for so long now, I won't be bothering.

Re:Youtube Comments (0)

Blue Stone (582566) | about a month ago | (#47463017)

The whole G+ real-name crap kept me away but it did teach me something I wouldn't have otherwise known if I *had* started using the service:

I can get along perfectly fine without Google +.

Re:Youtube Comments (4, Informative)

lord_mike (567148) | about a month ago | (#47462577)

And Google Play comments, too...

I did it! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462309)

Omg first?

In other words (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462345)

"Now that our pseudonym to single user identity resolution algorithm is reasonably accurate, go right ahead and make up a fake name."

Re:In other words (1, Interesting)

Isomorphic (241771) | about a month ago | (#47462383)

Yes. We are making this PR-friendly change because we don't need you to be logged-in in order to track you.

Re:In other words (5, Insightful)

osu-neko (2604) | about a month ago | (#47462469)

Yeah, I already figured Google knows who I am and what all my aliases are anyhow. It's not Google I'm trying to keep from putting the pieces together, it's J. Random HR twerp who doesn't need to know my hobbies and kinks to determine if I'm qualified for the job.

Re:In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462917)

Of course Google would probably be all too happy to tell J. Random HR Twerp about your hobbies and kinks for the right price.

Re:In other words (3, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | about a month ago | (#47462627)

Sure. I don't care about Google knowing my name. I care about schmucks on Youtube knowing my name.

Re:In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47463133)

This.

Finally! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462351)

Now Google+ is sure to become the popular destination it's always been destined to be! I'm going to go on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and Reddit and Tumblr and a site with Disqus and tell everyone it's time for Google+! Then I'll pull down my pants and tell all my friends on SnapChat!

Re:Finally! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462467)

Don't forget to update your work history on LinkedIn with douchebaggery!

Re:Finally! (1)

digitalPhant0m (1424687) | about a month ago | (#47462515)

Google--

I have an important response to that (1)

CauseBy (3029989) | about a month ago | (#47462569)

Yo!

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462617)

Sorry. You are not pseudonymous until you can sign up for a new account via Tor without a telephone.
Enjoy your google marketing drivel. SUCKERS.

Re:Finally! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462939)

Sorry. You are not pseudonymous until you can sign up for a new account via Tor without a telephone.

You can't?

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47463021)

Google is so progressive, it only took them a few years to make Google+ a more positive place for everyone. I am waiting for the new version, Google++

about time (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a month ago | (#47462399)

The number of stalkers, kidnappers, and identity thefts just got slashed by them allowing fake names. It's about damn time. Jesus, Abraham Lincoln, and Hitler posted a comment on my Google+ page that they're very happy with the change as well.

The frick? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462423)

I spent more time than I care to admit going through the list of "People You May Know" and removing variations of "Thor Odinson", "Loki Laufeyson", "Kili Oakenshield", etc. What exactly will this decision change?

Re:The frick? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about a month ago | (#47462785)

You were pretty much always allowed to have an alias.

I played one of the early games on the G+ platform, got quite involved in the community. It was fairly common for players to have multiple characters, which required multiple accounts, and there was no shortage of fake "real" names. For every John Michaels in that game, there was a Michael Johnson alongside them.

Re:The frick? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a month ago | (#47462995)

In the early days of google+ there were reports of people losing their entire google account (not just google+) for signing up to google+ under something other than their real name. I can see why people would be reluctant to take that risk (however slight) with their main google account (throwaway accounts are another matter).

Re:The frick? (1)

seebs (15766) | about a month ago | (#47463275)

Someone I know had that happen to her even though she had never intentionally signed up for any part of google+. Something caused her account to get tied to it, then they nuked her stuff.

Yeah (1)

oldhack (1037484) | about a month ago | (#47462431)

That'll fix'em.

Bullshit + News = Pointless (3, Interesting)

Dan Askme (2895283) | about a month ago | (#47462433)

- The news Story = " removed all restrictions on what usernames people are allowed to use"
- So i clicked "Edit your name:"
- I enter "4D", in the name field

Result = "Please fill in the name fields."

Garbage news for a garbage product. Did any of the devs even think to "test it"?

Re:Bullshit + News = Pointless (1)

Thantik (1207112) | about a month ago | (#47463023)

Also uneditable is the "G+ URL" that they were allowing people to sign up for. What the hell good is editing my name, when the URL I was allowed to have ends up having my real name and completely unchangeable....

You have to put a '.' as a last name for mononyms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47463281)

It doesn't display the period in the UX for you or others; just in the form dialog. Read the FAQ.

Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462441)

I've already been using my username instead of my real name since long ago....

I WON (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462455)

I knew if I told google to fuck off, they would listen to me!

Doesn't mean I want to be on G+ any more now than I did a year ago when I was "banned".

that's why I use a fake name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462471)

so.. i'm Mishotaki on the internet... if I can't be only Mishotaki, my last name will be "-" and if it doesn't accept a symbol, it will be "dash"... so i still don't have my real name in google+

They did that now? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a month ago | (#47462489)

I haven't even noticed that pseudonyms were ever banned. Are you telling me the guy I talked with the other day wasn't the *actual* Adolf Hitler!?

Re:They did that now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462629)

Might have been. Did his IP resolve to Brazil?

Re:They did that now? (3, Insightful)

penix1 (722987) | about a month ago | (#47462779)

No... No... No... No! Those are his clones. The REAL Adolph Hitler lives in Argentina...

Re:They did that now? (2)

seebs (15766) | about a month ago | (#47463283)

What they really banned wasn't "names which aren't yours" but "names which don't look like they are real names". There was no effort at all to enforce the accuracy of names unless they thought you were impersonating someone. But if you had a not-very-Western name, well, that was a possible problem. And once you got into the "we don't think that looks like a name" thing, they wanted real documentation of some sort.

I never did find a way to make that happen, but eventually I talked to someone who knew someone who could put me in touch with a guy who could fix my account.

say it with flowers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462527)

kings crawl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHOyahv4hSE rock on /.

Too little too late (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a month ago | (#47462545)

nice gesture, but its too late now.

The Internet is meant to be anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462563)

Strong anonymity enforced through core network protocols and cryptography is the only way to restore the glory of the internet we grew up with.
The more time passes the more obvious it gets.

And no, Google + don't offer that any more than other services. It is thus evil.

Re:The Internet is meant to be anonymous (3, Interesting)

William Baric (256345) | about a month ago | (#47462707)

Restore the glory of the Internet? You mean to go back to a time when most people posted on Usenet with their real name and email address as their signature? The time when even political discussions were civilized?

From my point of view, anonymity was the worst thing that happened to the Internet.

Re:The Internet is meant to be anonymous (2)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about a month ago | (#47463081)

How horrible it is when people can say controversial things without people and employers holding it against them for all time. Privacy and anonymity are awful!

Re:The Internet is meant to be anonymous (0)

William Baric (256345) | about a month ago | (#47463285)

With "say controversial things" you mean trolling?

Don't you think life would be better for you if you could assume who you are and what you think instead of having to hide and having to be a hypocrite? Yes, you will lose some superficial friends, a tyrannic employer might even fire you, but not having to live a lie, not feeling shame or fear for what we think, does feel good. Anyway, don't you think you should find friends or an employer who can appreciate you for who you are and what you have to offer instead of trying to please intolerant people who don't really give a shit about you and are only searching for yes-men?

You can also look at it the other way. Do you like it when people lie to you in order to obtain some kind of friendship from you?

There are reasons which could justify anonymity. But my guess is you never posted anything which could justify it.

Re:The Internet is meant to be anonymous (3, Interesting)

seebs (15766) | about a month ago | (#47463287)

How do you know whether those were their "real name"? I knew a guy who once got interviewed for a newspaper, and they reported his name exactly as written; Tsu Dho Nimh.

What difference does it make? (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a month ago | (#47462567)

When all is said and done, what difference does it make? All you had to do before was make up a name that looked real, such as Rufus T. Firefly. [wikipedia.org]

Re:What difference does it make? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a month ago | (#47462651)

Because I already have a pseudonym I would prefer to continue using?

This is bad (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about a month ago | (#47462607)

having to use real names has made it far less trollish then other places.

Re:This is bad (2, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a month ago | (#47463143)

having to use real names has made it far less trollish then other places.

You're confusing inactivity with civility.

Re:This is bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47463231)

having to use real names has made it far less trollish then other places.

You're confusing inactivity with civility.

You're confusing knowledge with ignorance.

Re:This is bad (1)

stoploss (2842505) | about a month ago | (#47463227)

having to use real names has made it far less trollish then other places.

Enjoy yourself over there with the other people like you. Personally, I don't perceive why you would be trolled when you can just make an insular group of associates and block everyone else.

FWIW, I don't think that having your identity known by others has influenced you to dial back your trolling on this site. Then again, given that it's you, I'm not surprised that you prefer a highly structured social construct with many regulations.

Custom URL (1)

corychristison (951993) | about a month ago | (#47462665)

Google+ allows a custom URL.

When I registered my business for Google Places (now part of Google My Business) it had an "easy" way to get on Google+, so I set it up as part of my profile.

Then a few weeks later, they sent me an email saying I was preapproved for a custom G+ URL. It was not editable, and included the city of my business in it. So it ended up being around 40-45 characters long.

I tried to change it, but it seems it is not possible. The one I want appears to be available. Its 11 characters long, and the same as my business' twitter handle, and FB URL.

Why can't we change the custom URL!?

Re:Custom URL (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | about a month ago | (#47463073)

YouTube allowed a custom nickname too, if you were persistent. But as much as I tried, it never let me actually pick the the first 5 attempts. I now have 6 alternate identities which are *exactly the same 11-letter name*. But the 6th one stuck, and YouTube still logs in with it. G+ I only use to stay in touch with a minimal subset of developers, so my real name isn't a problem. I was confused by circles disappearing and being replaced with communities, though. It's not just their policies which need some tweaks, but also their interfaces.

Anonymity makes sense for special cases. (3, Insightful)

Snufu (1049644) | about a month ago | (#47462693)

Whistleblowing, witness protection, for example. For most other cases anonymity degenerates into a cesspool of behavior that is not accepted in normal society. See every unmoderated anonymous internet forum ever.

Using real identities can vastly improve internet behavior. For example, a forum I frequent recently switched from anonymous posting to Facebook accounts. Overnoght the forum changed from endless spam and trolling to respectful discourse between actual people.

Re:Anonymity makes sense for special cases. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462831)

... says "Snufu"

Re:Anonymity makes sense for special cases. (1)

cjc25 (1961486) | about a month ago | (#47463051)

+1

Re:Anonymity makes sense for special cases. (4, Interesting)

penix1 (722987) | about a month ago | (#47462897)

Using real identities can vastly improve internet behavior. For example, a forum I frequent recently switched from anonymous posting to Facebook accounts. Overnoght the forum changed from endless spam and trolling to respectful discourse between actual people.

The same happened with my hometown paper but the reverse is true. They went from a moderated (meaning the spam and abusive posts were never posted since posts had to be pre-approved) with lots of insightful comments to almost no comments what-so-ever and the few that were commenting were doing so from fake FB accounts. So the noise ratio went way up on the comments they were getting. In short, they replaced their working moderation system with the FB system thinking the same way you do and got exactly the opposite effect.

Re:Anonymity makes sense for special cases. (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | about a month ago | (#47463083)

I can't say YouTube changed at all while they only allowed real names (but not really; I somehow managed to avoid it, having a short nickname already). There may have been a lower total volume of posts, but the remaining comments were like the cesspool we all know and love.

Re:Anonymity makes sense for special cases. (5, Insightful)

jeIIomizer (3670945) | about a month ago | (#47463003)

Whistleblowing, witness protection, for example. For most other cases anonymity degenerates into a cesspool of behavior that is not accepted in normal society.

People suppress their true nature in "normal society." "normal society" bores me to tears.

Overnoght the forum changed from endless spam and trolling to respectful discourse between actual people.

More like useless, non-controversial discourse. By tying everything to real names, you make it less likely that anyone will do anything controversial, even when it needs to be done. Who knows if a future employer will decide to not hire you because you said something they don't like, even if you thought it was completely innocuous?

I'd rather deal with trolls and spam than have "respectful discourse" between fake people.

Re:Anonymity makes sense for special cases. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47463009)

Using real identities can vastly improve internet behavior.

But it's not the only way, and it comes at a cost.

behavior that is not accepted in normal society.

Is keeping a list of every single thing I said behavior that is accepted in normal society? no, many would consider that stalking. But every forum has that option... click on my name and see everything I ever said. Maybe I don't want you inferring or assuming I have such and such opinion, and thus discounting what I'm saying just because something I said a long time ago that you disagree with. Or holding it against me economically (job), etc.

Re:Anonymity makes sense for special cases. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47463013)

Using real identities will also mean that some people will decide to never comment, because they value their privacy. For every troll you discourage by using their "real name" (probably not their real name anyway, and they always make a new account or connect from a different IP), you'll lose many other people who would have given useful comments, but won't do so if they were going to be identifiable. You will never know what you're missing. Really, a comment should be evaluated regardless of who the person is, and the little bit of accountability added by having names is a poor shortcut for a proper moderation system.

It accomplishes "look, we're doing something", and sure the trolls may diminish, but how many other people leave? I suppose you could assume that if people aren't willing to identify themselves, they must not have anything useful to say, but in my experience people who post anonymously sometimes are able to say things first-hand about issues that they otherwise wouldn't disclose at all. Sometimes that's pretty important stuff, like talking about their job or a competitor's better product. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as legal whistleblowing or witness protection.

Re: Anonymity makes sense for special cases. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47463169)

That's not true, I have seen plenty of rednecks and other people openly lynching people, being racist, and generally heinous.

Even on the internet, just type "am I beautiful" on YouTube to watch ugly women asking the public if they're beautiful, and check the comments of real names telling her how ugly she is.

Re:Anonymity makes sense for special cases. (4, Insightful)

seebs (15766) | about a month ago | (#47463291)

You're failing to distinguish between anonymity and pseudonymity.

You could argue that "seebs" isn't my "real name", although it's the only name I reliably answer to. But I've got ~30 years of history using this name, and nowhere near as much visible history under the name on my government ID, so this is the one I care about.

This is excellent news... (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | about a month ago | (#47462703)

Miles O'Toole, Mike Hawke, Man-hung Long, Hubicha Kokov and Hugh G. Rection join me in applauding this long-overdue initiative.

Well, it still says my name violates policy (2)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | about a month ago | (#47462721)

When I attempt to go to Plus, it still says my account is flagged for name violation...apparently, it's not fixed for those already so-flagged.

Reviews next (1)

butchersong (1222796) | about a month ago | (#47462727)

Maybe next they can begin allowing you to post reviews anonymously again from your main account. I use google+ quite a bit and post using my full name but I don't want a restaurant I frequent or my tire change place to see my full name in my reviews. I haven't posted a review since the removal of public facing anonymity.

I hate google+ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47462733)

I have a google account and a youtube account(which got "upgraded" to google+ at some point). I didn't see any reason to link those together.
Then a some point I clicked on the wrong button when logging on to youtube and I got another google+ account.
When I realized what had happened, I removed the association to the google+ account again.

Some time later I tried to associate the youtube account to my original google account but that isn't possible anymore and because of my attempts, I ended up with another 2 google+ accounts.
I tried to follow different guides and videos on how to associate youtube with my original google account but that isn't possible anymore. By reading different guides, it seems like that might have been possible at some point.

I can understand why they are trying to get rid of all the idiotic anonymous comments, but it has not helped. :)

FU Google! (0)

mtthwbrnd (1608651) | about a month ago | (#47462763)

That is all there is to say. F-U-C-K Y-O-U!

Yay! (1)

lord_mike (567148) | about a month ago | (#47463011)

I can now finally get a Google+ account and do ratings on Android apps...

Too bad it's a few years too late... Had google offered this when they launched Google+ they might have actually become a decent competitor to facebook. Now it's too late.

google what? (1)

alphazulu0 (3675815) | about a month ago | (#47463029)

"Google+ is still around??" - everyone on slashdot

az0

Google+ (1)

Syntastic (1165215) | about a month ago | (#47463113)

Google+ is still requiring me to use a first last name so I don't know if this is something coming down the pipeline or what.

Yup, they are trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47463131)

I guess google based comments sections will turn into "little 4chan's", we all know the trolls needed more outlets to be anonymous assholes.

Fine, if they tell you which are psuedonyms (1)

Animats (122034) | about a month ago | (#47463137)

You want, of course, to block all email from pseudonyms.

Just Call it ASSBOOK (1)

Bob_Who (926234) | about a month ago | (#47463147)

Where Google can wear their ass hats and kiss mine goodbye.

What great news! (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a month ago | (#47463149)

Everyone is chatting about it on Twitter and Facebook!

It's a trap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47463163)

My first thought was that they came up with a method that obviated the need for you to supply the real name for their identity service. In fact, I presume they will be relying on their own backend real identity inferences as canonical rather than any user-supplied name data.

They probably determined that they have a high probability of knowing your real name/identity regardless of what you enter.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>