Preliminary results of my survey of suspended Google+ accounts

The other day I posted a call for people who have had their accounts suspended by Google for name-related reasons to fill in this form.

I’ve received over a hundred responses so far (N=119), so it’s time to start talking about the results.

Firstly, 74% of respondents are using the name that most people know them by. Specifically, 18% say that the name they are using on Google+ is the one they are known by “exclusively” and 56% say that “a majority of people know me by this”. However, only 13% of respondents say that it’s the name that appears on their government-issued ID.

No surprise whatsoever: many people are known by names other than what’s on their ID.

What types of names are causing suspensions? Here are some that respondents have said it’s okay to share:

  • Many names that seem “normal” even by the fairly limited standards Google seems to be employing: george meagles, Winter Seale, b. pepper, Jacqueline L., Laurence Simon, etc. Though he didn’t reply to my survey, William Shatner was also suspended.
  • Names that incorporate a nickname or handle as a middle name or using an “aka”, eg: Steve “robUx4″ Lhomme, Robert Myers aka Zarber Paracelsus, Josh (slayerXcore) Kimble. Another well-known example who didn’t take the survey is Limor “LadyAda” Fried.
  • A number of people using mononyms, including some for whom it is their legal name/on their government ID (“Sai”) and some who commonly use mononyms that don’t match their government ID (I’m in this bucket, as I used “Skud”). Some mononymous people have used a dot as their surname, while others have repeated their name, eg. “aestetix aestetix”.
  • Many cases of online identities of long standing, including Second Life identities, bloggers, etc.
  • Many cases of professional names: authors, artists, musicians, and technologists who are known by pen names/stage names/etc.
  • A handful of cases of names of non-English origin (Arabic, Taiwanese, etc) being suspended — I have heard that there are many cases of this, but I haven’t heard from many, perhaps because my survey is only in English.

Most telling are the reasons people give for their choice of name:

  • “I am a high school teacher, privacy is of the utmost importance.”
  • “I publish under my nom de plume, it’s printed on my business cards, and all of the thousands of people I know through my social networks know my by my online name.”
  • “I have used this name/account in a work context, my entire family know this name and my friends know this name. It enables me to participate online without being subject to harassment that at one point in time lead to my employer having to change their number so that calls could get through.”
  • “I do not feel safe using my real name online as I have had people track me down from my online presence and had coworkers invade my private life.”
  • “I’ve been stalked. I’m a rape survivor. I am a government employee that is prohibited from using my IRL.”
  • “I work for a private club. I have to carry a card around which states I will not share any element of the club with any sort of media. So, If I want to talk about work (and I do) on the net, I have to use an alias.”
  • “I’ve been using this name for over 10 years in the “hacking” community. There are a nontrivial amount of people who know me *only* by that name.”
  • “As a former victim of stalking that impacted my family I’ve used [my nickname] online for about 7 years.”
  • “Under [this name] I am active in a number of areas of sexual difference for which it would not be wise for me to use my flesh legal name.”
  • “My actual real name is utterly non-identifying, as 1) it is the name of a character in a movie (Girl, Interrupted), and that overwhelms google search results 2) it’s not unique at ALL.”
  • “[this name] is a pseudonym I use to protect myself. My web site can be rather controversial and it has been used against me once.”
  • “I started using [this name] to have at least a little layer of anonymity between me and people who act inappropriately/criminally. I think the “real names” policy hurts women in particular.
  • “I use the pseudonym to maintain my online anonymity because I am polyamorous and have no desire for professional acquaintances to discover this.”
  • “I enjoy being part of a global and open conversation, but I don’t wish for my opinions to offend conservative and religious people I know or am related to. Also I don’t want my husband’s Govt career impacted by his opinionated wife, or for his staff to feel in any way uncomfortable because of my views.”
  • “I have privacy concerns for being stalked in the past. I’m not going to change my name for a google+ page. The price I might pay isn’t worth it.”
  • “We get death threats at the blog, so while I’m not all that concerned with, you know, sane people finding me. I just don’t overly share information and use a pen name.”
  • “This identity was used to protect my real identity as I am gay and my family live in a small village where if it were openly known that their son was gay they would have problems.”
  • “I go by pseudonym for safety reasons. Being female, I am wary of internet harassment.”

It reads like a reiteration of the list of groups harmed by a “real names” policy that we started putting together last week, doesn’t it? And I’m not at all surprised that more than 10% explicitly cited safety concerns (stalking, harassment, etc), and the majority of those were women.

I’ve put together a spreadsheet that shows the data from those people who said I could share it. Note that the group who agreed to share their data are, on the whole, more likely to be from Western/English-speaking cultures, and more likely to have names based on Internet identities than those in the “don’t share” group. In other words, Internet pseuds are over-represented in the public spreadsheet, and international respondents are under-represented. Here are the public responses.

As I said, this is a preliminary round-up of the data. I’m hoping to get more responses and do more analysis over time. Please keep sending people to take the survey if they’ve been suspended. If you previously took the survey and want to update your information (for instance, if your account has been reinstated), you can email me the details at skud@infotrope.net.

Mural from Balmy St, San Francisco

ObRandomPic: one of my favourite San Francisco murals, in Balmy Street in the Mission District.


49 thoughts on “Preliminary results of my survey of suspended Google+ accounts

  • David Gerard

    It appears from this talk with Scoble:

    https://plus.google.com/u/0/111091089527727420853/posts/Fddn6rV8mBX

    – that the asshat responsible for this disaster is Vic Gundotra. Note he considers Google+ have done nothing wrong, and if anything they just haven’t done it hard enough. Real names are the magic elixir that makes a civil site. Forward! To success! With determination! Dragging Google’s reputation finally and terminally over the cliff with G+’s! Yeah!

    Any Google employee who wants the 25% of their bonus from “social” is basically going to have to ***** *** ********* to get it.

    This is not even to mention the Don’t Be Evil, Just Racist problem.

    I’m going to investigate the EU approach tomorrow:

  • Mackenzie

    I’m guessing the “hacking community” one was Aestetix, since that’s where I know him from. If it weren’t for a mutual friend’s caller ID one time, I wouldn’t know his given name, and I still don’t know his surname. I’ve known him since ShmooCon ’08.

  • Katarina Dennison

    I support pseudonymity for a variety of reasons. And I understand the outrage of people who have had their Google+ accounts suspended because of their name. But aside from celebrity names, ethnic names that might be considered unusual by Google’s (erroneous) selection algorithms, and those with only one name (chosen or otherwise) – just *how* can Google tell who is using a pseudonym? How would anyone know if Katarina Dennison is a legal name or a chosen name?

    Would you care to comment on this?

  • Skud Post author

    You’re right, there is absolutely no way for them to know whether a “real-looking” name is actually the name someone goes by. If they really wanted to avoid fake accounts, they would be much better off employing some kind of trust metric based on the social network itself.

  • Paul Zee

    (reposting as a reply to David)

    @David Gerard, although this hasn’t impacted me directly, it has impacted folks I respect, and it offends my sensibilities. I also like your links that relate to how Asian names are treated (“Con’t Be Evil, Just Racist”) and how European laws work (“EU Approach”) in regards to use of names (although I think you are misrepresenting the intent of Google’s employees by claiming racism).

    However, I can’t objectively come to the same conclusion as you about +Vic Gundotra from the Scoble interview. According to Scoble, Vic specifically comments “He says they have made some mistakes while doing the first pass at this and they are learning”.

    I see some sense in the basic intent of preventing characters from names that might cause searching or browser rendering problems, or having a system similar to Twitter’s of having Verfied Accounts, or perhaps preventing obviously fake names that a person has no claim to “like ‘god’”. However, I think the design and implementation of such filtering and prevention systems is typically fraught with significant problems and a significant testing and debug effort.

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m not defending the dumb-ass policies or policy implementations of Google. I’m still annoyed that a limited social view/ world view has created such a failure in policy implementation and that thorough user testing didn’t catch and adjust this before deploying it and causing such carnage, but it seems to me – both from Vic’s comments and the fact that accounts that were initially suspended have now been reinstated – that Google are claiming and in fact are trying to fix their mistakes and get things right.

  • Paul Zee

    Thanks +Skud, fascinating stuff.

    Not to detract from the issue at hand, but two other things struck me in the responses:

    – Perhaps obvious (and no doubt has been identified elsewhere previously) – but striking for me nonetheless, is that the responses imply people want to post their true, mostly unmoderated feelings in a public space. At least they don’t want to have to necessarily worry about moderating their commentary for public consumption.

    – it seems strange that someone would use anonymity to avoid their opinions offending conservative and religious people they know or are related to. Surely the opinion – if in a public forum – will offend in it’s own right when it’s read? Anonymity doesn’t negate the possibility for offence. Perhaps this might help prevent personal embarrassment though.

  • Amy Rothstein

    Why should Google or anyone need to know if it’s a real name? Google is offering a platform for people to interact. They want openness and civility. People are saying they can be MORE honest online *because* they can use a different name! People will lose this (and go back to Twitter) if the G+ platform can’t get over this very narrow definition of honesty.
    Anyway it’s not even feasible on this sort of scale. Google maps doesn’t know when a real store is closed for two years. How are they going to know if you have two personal accounts? When businesses are allowed, I will have two completely accounts. Neither is a lie, and I sure hope I can say whatever I want to about politics without annoying my customers!

  • NuShrike

    It also begs the question of Circles. Twitter dealt with the implications of this already. Whatever you post is either all public or all private.

    But Circles has the built-in idea of anonymity through post “broadcast” segregation. So then, what’s the difference between Circles and the segregation of one’s life through a pseudonym? Same “Circles” idea of “real life”, and “online life”.

    Where’s the CV and string of references to back up the “real name” anyways? Just as strawman.

    Drop Circles and make all posts public, or it’s Hypocrisy.

  • Sovigha Ruzverkina

    I think I can answer those somewhat.

    On the first part, I’m a customer service rep, and to make things more interesting, I’m a government customer service rep. While I moderate things somewhat, I want a safe place to vent about the frustrations of my job. I won’t reveal details, but I want to be able to reach out and find others without risking my job. I have a very, very uncommon first name and I’m the only person with my first name/last name combo in my entire country.

    On the second point, my grandmother is very, very conservative Christian. Nobody in their right mind in our family discusses religion with her. I want to keep my online name away from my legal name because she would not react well to finding out my opinions on Christianity, no matter how couched in polite, accepting terms I put them.

  • notemily

    Not just “personal embarrassment,” but actual harassment and sometimes violence from the surrounding community. The gay commenter whose family lives in a small village, you don’t know if there would just be embarrassment or if that person’s family would be the target of violence. Trans* people, who would have reason to use names other than the one they were born with, are also often the target of violence when their trans* status becomes known. It’s not about “embarrassment.”

  • Bob Foster

    You’re kinda loving this, aren’t you? Have you seriously tried to get G+ reinstated or decided notoriety lies in the other direction?

  • Paul Zee

    @nushrike, IMO it’s a stretch to claim that “Circles has the built-in idea of anonymity through post “broadcast” segregation”. In no way is my post anonymous, either to my “private” circle audience, or publicly: my G+ handle, profile etc is clearly evident.

    Apologies that this is a little off topic, however you also seem to be overlooking that Circles can serve multiple purposes. I’m using them fairly effectively as both an Inbound and an outbound content categorization tool. I even have some Circles that act in both ways. That said, there are various limitations (and it would be nice if I could do things such as post to the intersection of selected circles, but I digress further), and I expect we’ll see various improvements going forward.

    That said, my point is that, given the various uses for Circles, it makes little sense to me to say “Drop Circles and make all posts public, or it’s Hypocrisy.”. Is reading the content supplied by members of a circle hypocritical? How?

  • Paul Zee

    @notemily, I agree with your points as general comments, and agree anonymity makes sense in those cases. My point was a passing observation in reference to a very specific data point from Skud’s examples:

    “I enjoy being part of a global and open conversation, but I don’t wish for my opinions to offend conservative and religious people I know or am related to. Also I don’t want my husband’s Govt career impacted by his opinionated wife, or for his staff to feel in any way uncomfortable because of my views.”

    I agree it’s possible I took some interpretive license and may have inferred incorrectly, but I didn’t see the elements you are referring to here. The author seems to be concerned primarily about other people taking offence at the remarks they make or their husband being impacted, not that they themselves would be at risk. So, the concern for others but willingness to publicly post something that might offend them seemed at odds to me.

  • Paul Zee

    @SR I intended these as observations, not questions to be answered. I think they still hold true as interesting observations about how people behave or at least consider they wish to (or should behave) on social media platforms.

    However, I accept both your points: they make much sense to me.

    Your points echo in part what I believe @notemily was saying in that anonymous aliases enable us to be part of a loosely open conversation that would otherwise cause ourselves or our loved ones harm (mental or otherwise). They enable us to enagage with others of like mind, share ideas and get support in a relatively safe manner. And I think that’s a great and powerful thing.

    I guess the devils advocate in me wants to probe the flip-side, and ask how we know the people in that largely anonymous but generally open conversation are authentic? That the people we are engaging with are honestly taking part? That they aren’t stalkers or haters? I understand you need to be 21 years old to have a Google profile, so that at least provides some protection to children and adolescents, however I wonder if there is some useful and practical way to address that general concern of checking how genuine a “profile” is on a given topic? Peer review tags and/ or rankings? (it seems a little “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff”, but not much else springs to mind)

  • David Gerard

    Paul Zee – calling out really obviously and blatantly discriminatory action doesn’t obligate me to look into the mind of the perpetrator and read their thoughts. The targets of the discrimination don’t give a shit about that, oddly enough. Raising the issue in the way you did is basically a derailment. Google’s actions here remain unacceptable.

  • Matthew Brown

    Paul Zee: what guarantees do we have that someone using their “real name” is “authentic”? Absolutely none. The two issues of identity and trustworthiness are almost completely orthogonal.

    Furthermore, Google is largely incapable of actually enforcing “real names”; rather, all it can do is remove seemingly obvious cases and admitted aliases – in other words, the least abused portion!

  • Stoneshop

    I doubt Skud is looking for any further increase in notoriety. Very much. This is just exposing Google’s stupidity.

  • Ewen McNeill

    I remember BBSes having these debates, literally, 20 years ago, with no really clear resolution (if anything it seemed like pseudonyms were winning out, particularly as the Internet became more mainstream). One of the more surprising instances of attempting to verify identities for a BBS I ran was encountering a person whose real name, on government ID, was “Guest” (I forget the surname, but he did have one). This had been causing him all manner of surprises when encountering BBSes where the typical “don’t register trial account” was “Guest”, often auto-recreated. I think he ended up using a pseudonym online fairly quickly to avoid that problem.

    From 20 years of watching (and participating in) online communities the best predictor I’ve seen for a stable, civil, community is a stable identity (ie same identity you’re known by over a long period of time and/or large set of online relationships) and the ability for your “reputation” to follow you around. Preferably plus meeting the same people “in real life”, so they’re not just bits. “As per Government ID” works relatively poorly for providing a stable, recognisable, identity for reputation purposes in the general case (not specific enough, not widely enough used in real life, etc). And has very little to do with meeting people in real life (there are large numbers of people I’ve met in real life for whom I know, at most, some portion of their “per Government ID” name — and often only the name they usually go by.

    I’ve used my real name (or at least a strict subset of what’s on my government ID) pretty much exclusively online for over 20 years (as various search engines will reveal; I did sometimes use a pseudonym prior to that). But I’ve done it with both an explicit choice simply not to do online, or talk about online, things which could cause awkward questions in different contexts (and I’m not on a whole bunch of social networking sites for basically that reason). Plus a recognition that I have a bunch of (white, male, first world, etc) privilege that means it is less necessary for me to hide who I really am.

    However that’s not a choice that it’s reasonable to expect others to make and still do the same things for a bunch of reasons (including the ones you’ve been collecting). And in many cases the things that pseudonymous people have been willing to do (eg, talk about “revealing” things in their lives, which parallel situations in my own) have been very valuable to me. So it seems at best counter productive to insist others make the same (“real name only, online”) choice, given that “reputation through stable identity” is a better predictor for good outcomes and I want many of the things that come from people feeling less exposed online.

    Ultimately I think that a “real names only” policy probably only works if what you’re doing is trying to recreate a business world networking site; another LinkedIn clone. Which is a pretty niche product (and already exists, viz LinkedIn).

    Ewen

    PS: I’ve known you as Skud for over 10 years, and while I think I’ve always been aware of your “government” name, Skud is the one more directly associated with you.

  • Denise

    So barring the “unusual names” that katarina and skud referred to above, just HOW did Google figure out whose names were fake and suspend those people?

  • Renee Avery

    I, and a number of people I know, have been using a pseudonym [first and last name] on Google+ and elsewhere for quite some time. We haven’t been flagged. So, why is that, I wonder.

  • LadyKayla

    I walked into a solicitor’s office a couple of years ago and had him countersign a statement by me that I was changing my name from what I was given at birth to what all of my friends have known me as for the last decade and a half (no, not “Megabitch”!). That’s perfectly legitimate and legal in this country and, as a matter of fact, I didn’t even have to take that step – as long as I am not using a false name “with intent to defraud or otherwise [do naughty stuff]” etc etc I can use any damned name I like in this country. I have to wonder if google would like to suspend or otherwise lockup my g+ account because it’s not the name on my birth certificate despite it being my “legal name” as far as European (and Australian, since I did take the step of seeing a solicitor) Law is concerned.

    PS. No, I haven’t told my parents ;)

  • Skud Post author

    David, Flickr Poke is right here. You need to back off, and suggesting lynching in this way is in no way welcome on my blog. I have edited your comment to star out the most offensive part.

    Flickr Poke and everyone else, my apologies for not jumping on this sooner, as I didn’t pay close attention with the rush of comments/emails I’ve been getting.

  • John Carter

    Google+ automatically put my business name in as my G+ name and I didn’t catch it at the time. After reading that adult business and business names were being deleted I looked to delete my G+ to keep from losing my gmail. I didn’t see a clear cut way to delete just the G+ AND make sure it was all gone, so I opted for trying to change the name. Problem is, there’s a movie about to come out next year, already being promoted now, with my name. Is that going to get me suspended now anyway? Who knows…

  • Sid

    Witch hunt. Some loose-lipped google engineer said something very unwise on his own G+ account, which was taken by large numbers of people to mean, “Rat out people you think are using pseudonyms.” So they did. He’s since printed a retraction, but the genie is out of the bottle.

    I’m informed that it’s apparently becoming reasonably common for griefers to just report random people — or people they don’t like — for the lolz.

  • blauzahl

    Flashback: School. Substitute teacher or first day of class. Losing most of classtime because said teacher has to run through the role call and almost everybody has a name correction/nickname.

  • Paul Zee

    Hi @AAHZ. Well, actually, as we’ve chosen to define those terms, intent pretty much does have everything to do with it. Racism is “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.”

    My point is that although I completely agree the original policy was dumb ass, unworkable, and has impacted groups outside of the Google teams social awareness/ experience including minority and disadvantaged groups, it seems to me there is no evidence whatsoever that this is racist policy premeditated by racists.

    (and for the record, I’m commenting in the interests of keeping this a complete, useful and on-topic discussion)

  • Paul Zee

    @David Gerard: I agree that actions that are discriminatory should be pointed out, especially by those who can identify them, whether they are obvious, blatant or otherwise. And I think that if we have the means to do that, we should use those means.

    If we honestly desire to have such a situation resolved, my experience is that understanding the mind of the perpetrator is an important step to getting the problem resolved: it’s a key part of understanding why the problem occurred, constructing a solid argument that debunks the poor thinking that lead to the problem, and gets the problem resolved properly.

    I guess I’m personally more interested in focusing energy on WHY and HOW problems have occurred, so that a solution can be found and the problems can be FIXED quickly. Personally, I’ve seldom found excessive name calling and flaming to be a good strategy to achieve that. People often do dumb shit, typically without thinking properly. But that’s a downside of involving people.

  • Tom Indigo

    Maybe the best way to uniquely identify everyone is to assign them a number (like a social security number). Maybe Google could keep your real name on file with this unique number and perhaps your address and phone number. Then you could use a name you’d prefer.

    And hopefully Google would be able to keep this database completely secure.

  • BEG65

    Replied to the form, but no response from Google. How long does one wait, anyway? It’s so frustrating to not even be able to *say* anything (form didn’t even have any comment option) to anyone. I’m not famous and I don’t know anyone at Google. There’s probably hundreds of people like me. I mean, maybe I should just delete my Google stuff and get out before they remove it themselves for something I don’t know I’ve done. It really feels threatening, actually, because of all this additional data of mine they have.

  • BEG65

    Actually, I have a question for everyone with a currently suspended G+ account: have you been able to create a facebook account with the gmail address while suspended?

  • Aahz

    Even better, teacher using different name from roll call sheet because obviously the name there is “wrong”. I overall get LESS hassle in life with a full legal name comprised of one unusual word than I did when I had the “normal” two names, because one of my two names “looked” like a nickname.

  • Avory

    So glad someone’s doing this! Do you need translated versions? I can’t help with the characters issue; the only non-English alphabet language I know is Russian and it’s fuzzy, but I could probably do French, German, and Turkish.

    (Incidentally, my name is on my driver’s license and all, but I find it frustrating that there is no way to choose one of your names as the one that shows up. My name is Judith Avory Faucette but I go by Avory, and as a genderqueer person, which name is used is actually pretty important to my identity. When people see three names, they tend to use the first one.)

  • saje

    I started a “not visible in search” G+ account with my real name and was happy until this:
    http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1192471&p=public_profile
    Obviously I now have to decide quite soon whether to delete my account or to change my name to a screen name that I have used in the past and hope that my account is not disabled.

    I do not use facebook and I hate what it stands for. I did trust Google not to change the goal posts on my privacy – there is a good reason for me to have a private only profile that I share exclusively with close friends and relatives.

  • Beable

    Saje, your profile should still be considered public AFAIK. There is a jargon issue here that Google is being very unclear on, but a friend tested this his profile, he set it to non-searchable, and we determined that with a direct link someone logged out of google+ could still see the profile (or rather the parts visible to the public) – hence it is considered “public”.

    But Google’s help pages are definitely really unclear on that point.

  • David Gerard

    Paul – what we have is (a) clearly discriminatory behaviour (b) Google being informed of the clearly discriminatory nature of the behaviour, at length, by many (c) Google responding not by changing their clearly discriminatory behaviour, but doubling down.

    It’s at point (c), where they know what they’re doing and insist on continuing, that I think we can reasonably claim the “intent” part of “racism”, if you insist on an “intent” component being present.

    Knowing what you’re doing and being dismissive of concerns quite definitely counts as delberate action for all reasonable definitions of “racism”.

  • Tony

    Hey guys how is everyone doing? How about keeping this issue simple. I wish to use a pseudonym because I just do – not because I’m in danger, not because I’m a cop, or a teacher, a stripper or a kid, but just because I feel like that is my wish. Aside from the fact that as stated above – there are a million valid reasons for wanting not to show your real name in a public profile on the internet. I just want to.

    Google says, well then you can’t use google plus, but you can still use our other services,…Lol. I cannot use google + because I do not wish to show my name on a public profile for the whole world to see (including ) hackers? Okay, but I will stay at facebook, use their email service or some other, or perhaps I will use my own websites email service, outlook, word, excel, publisher etc. will replace most other google services which I do not wish to use on the internet either by the way,…and lastly, there is Mozilla, Internet Explorer and the many other browsers that I have so that I can go some place else to chat with hundreds of people I don’t really know, because the blogs on the internet just aren’t enough for me. LOL. Okay, I hope that was simple enough.

    To Google, I for one will not blink in this pseudonym stand off as I know many,many,many,many others will not either. So when google tries to make a user feel like they stand alone, because soooooooo many people want to use their real names – for the life of me I can’t figure out why – ,….I’m not standing alone,..I’m at facebook.

  • youying

    I delete my google+ account, just to protest Google’s stupid policy. If I should use real name to display, I can use stupid Facebook, why Google?

  • CrisisMaven

    This is an interesting U-turn for all those politicians who talk about fostering democracy etc. Voting rights are anonymous, for example – the very foundation of modern democracy. People who write against massive industrial interests, like exposing the misdemeanors of nuclear industry, all the whistleblowers – take the pseudonym away and the Internet is a rather barren place, only for online shops and fan magazines. When people meet in a queue and start talking – they might have a lively dscussion, but who would swap names first???

  • Riot.Jane

    I blog pseudonymously because I am opinionated and the topics I discuss are often controversial or offensive to the “Christian Nation” in which I live. The very last things I need are (1) a religious headcase figuring out who I am in order to stalk/harm me, (2) losing out on a job because a decision-maker is fundamentally opposed to my non-work writing or (3) appear on a governmental list of domestic malcontents. While I am harmless, other people, the maladjusted ones, are not.

  • Mystical Box

    Google must understand something very important: it is not a world of “majority” of people using real-names versus a “minority” of people using pen names or nicknames, and they are the ones meant to “keep the bad ones outside” of Google+.

    No, the online world is actually made of a minority of people that like / accept / to use their real names everywhere, and a HUGE PILE of various minorities, each one with its own identity, reasons of exist, readers, leaders, topics, you name it.

    I even could dare to say that for each “real” people there are 99 “online/ nicknamed” people in the internet.

    And this is because even Google tells us “come on, come to us so we will protect you against unknown people around”, so they promise us a cloak of privacy for our real lives, real email messages, etc.

    And after that, they take from us that cloak, like throwing us in the street, naked, maybe even embarrassed enough and with no privacy whatsoever ?

    This is kinda ‘evil’ ….

    Then why any user can though HAVE A PASSWORD, in first place, if not for just keeping his private life as it actually should be – private ??

    Don’t fear, if G+ is going to fail, they will lose subscribers, don’t worry !

    In any situation, the best one will prevail, be it Twitter, or Facebook, or someone else even not created as of yet !

Comments are closed.