Sophie - Google+
browse
my journal
February 2020
 

Date: 2011-07-24 20:32
Security: Public
xposthttp://soph.livejournal.com/222617.html
Tags:google+, names, pseudonymity, rants
Subject: Google+

I have a few posts that I need to make. But I'll start by talking about Google+.

Let me first just state for the record that I do not use Google+ nor am I ever likely to do so. I do not have a profile and I'm not going to sign up for it to look around.

With that said, I've been hearing a lot about it lately. People are calling it Google's answer to Facebook, although to be honest I'm not entirely sure why it exists. It's only going to fragment the social networking scene more and make each of them less useful than they'd otherwise be. And I see no reason to believe that Google are going to treat your data with any more respect than Facebook do. On the contrary, in fact - Facebook doesn't know what you search for, what you click on in search result pages, or what your email inbox contains. Google very possibly knows all three, among other things, and with the addition of social networking, where they know who your friends are, it becomes quite clear that the massive amount of data they hold about you is, quite frankly, terrifying.

Let me clarify that, because on the surface it sounds like knowing who your friends are isn't such a big thing. The thing is, you can get a *lot* of information about a person not from them themselves, but by the information their friends give about themselves. Interests, hobbies, sites you're interested in, the social circles/cliques you're in... even if you give no information about any of these on your profile page, there's a good chance that your friends will, and when aggregated, this information can actually pretty effectively show not only what you're interested in (for example), but *how* interested you are in it, simply by seeing how many times it crops up.

Obviously, it's not foolproof. A friend of mine, who reads this journal, finds that automated services which find out information using this sort of method always tends to think he's interested in Doctor Who - which he isn't, but a lot of his friends are. That said, it's still a pretty darn good way of finding out this information; the same person, when shown results from tools that I made (which also had Doctor Who as one of its items listed) said that the rest of the results were very accurate.

Okay, enough about blog sociology for now. Let's talk about Google+'s display names policy. The Google+ User Content and Conduct Policy has this to say on the subject:

13. Display Name

To help fight spam and prevent fake profiles, use the name your friends, family or co-workers usually call you. For example, if your full legal name is Charles Jones Jr. but you normally use Chuck Jones or Junior Jones, either of those would be acceptable.
Great! So it sounds like Google is being inclusive and letting people use the names they're generally known by, right?

Wrong. There have been a lot of cases where people are getting their profiles suspended from Google+ because "After reviewing your profile, we determined that the name you provided violates our Community Standards." This even though the name they provided is in fact the name that their friends, family and co-workers usually call them, just because the name doesn't look like a 'real name'. This also happened to a friend of mine, Skud, and she's written a blog post detailing all this, along with screenshots. (People may be amused to note that she's even a former Google employee.)

So if you use your real name, you should be safe, right? After all, how can they say that it isn't your real name?

Turns out they can. Ka-Ping (or just Ping) has had his account suspended, even though that is his real first name. So has So had Limor 'Ladyada' Fried, although the account is back now. So did CHAN, Tai Man. [edited: Actually, reading that thread, I think they would fall into the category above rather than this one, as it sounds like they were using the name they were commonly known by and not their Pinyin name. But still.] In fact, from what I hear, a lot of people are having their accounts suspended. Remember, Google's policy is to use the name you're best known by.

And, of course, there's the fact that many people deliberately don't use their real names on the Internet. I've talked about this particular issue before, and it can be for many different reasons, safety being one of them (and one of the most important, in my view). You all know my views on that, so I won't go into it any more. (If you don't know my views, check out the linked post.)

In short, Google+ is a mess, it'll fragment the social networking scene, it gives Google a huge amount of information about yourself, and Google aren't implementing their policies as stated on a hugely important matter.

And that's why I'm never going to be using it.

Post A Comment | 7 Comments | Add to Memories | Tell Someone | Link



Chell
User: [personal profile] labrat
Date: 2011-07-24 23:17 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

We're so skeeved out by the whole mess. If it weren't for trying to help fix it for other people, we'd delete our whole profile right now.

Reply | Link

afuna
User: [personal profile] afuna
Date: 2011-07-24 23:46 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

Facebook doesn't know what you search for, what you click on in search result pages, or what your email inbox contains

Two things that leave me wary of thinking that FB is any safer than G+ in this respect:

* but FB does know what sites you've visited, assuming those sites have a like button (and that button is far more ubiquitous than search, it feels).

* aren't they rolling out an email system? though since I try not to know anything about FB, I don't really know how effective the rollout is


FWIW I'm all in favor of fragmenting social networking. I'm not particularly interested in mushing all the various parts of my life into one massive contextless blob of data. And I'd rather have multiple sites so I can leave one site when it's creepy, rather than be forced to keep an account on a site I'm uncomfortable on because all my friends are there!

That being said, I deleted my rarely-used Facebook account a long time ago, and despite initial high hopes, I've decided to stop using my G+ account, both for reasons that other people have covered much more eloquently and in greater detail than I'm willing to in this comment. Bleh.

Edited (bad html) 2011-07-24 11:46 pm (UTC)

Reply | Link

User: [personal profile] xaea
Date: 2011-07-25 14:22 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

my thought on the matter is this: i have used gmail religiously for many years and in the last few years, i've also started using picasa. there is NOTHING that they will be able to glean from my use of G+ that they wouldn't have first gleaned from my email. so using G+ is a moot point for me.

the only real issue is whether or not i trust them. right now, i do. they (unlike facebook) have never tried to sneak new settings that reveal more of myself to them or the world than i wanted. they (unlike facebook) have never made me opt OUT of a new feature -- only opt in. the only time google screwed up in the privacy department was when they first released buzz. it was a ROYAL screw up but it was purely accidental and immediately addressed. facebook's privacy issues have always been deliberate and rarely addressed.

lastly, facebook DOES track the things you search for as well as the sites you visit *if* you stay logged in while you surf the nets. and given their track record in the past with privacy, i am not okay with that. i don't post any information to fb -- not even my real name -- and i log out immediately after using it.

Reply | Link

Aisling
User: [personal profile] charcoalfeathers
Date: 2011-07-25 18:01 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

I didn't see this before I posted mine because I haven't caught up since Feywood, but it looks like you covered most of what I would've said too. I do want to add this that I said on my Facebook in regards to "real name":

Also I'm working on scrubbing "real name" from my vocabulary tendencies -- it's a big misnomer (hah) in several ways. Many people don't go by their legal name at all. Some people have separate realms for different purposes (like me). And of course there are the multiple/plural people who are being completely disenfranchised by things like Facebook and Google+'s severe name policies.


I've been influenced a lot by Sandy Stone's Violence and Virtuality essay as well. "Legal name" == "real name" is a pretty recent innovation that came along with the massive correlated databases of information that many governments and organizations now hold on people. It makes more manageable citizens to force them to identify as this one thing which (presumably) they were assigned at birth before it had anything to do with their personality. Some are lucky enough to get one they like, many are not. In many cultures, changing names was just something people did as they changed and evolved their sense of self. I've done it myself a number of times lately.

I dunno. That whole idea just gives me the willies. I think a real name is whatever you want to be known as, and are known as consistently, among a particular group of friends, even if it's outlandish sounding by someone else's standards. It sounded like G+'s policy was going to follow that, but if so, it needs to be clarified much more strongly and the "enforcement" needs to restrict themselves to cases where someone is impersonating someone else or something like that.

Reply | Thread | Link

display name
User: [personal profile] floatboth
Date: 2011-07-26 21:09 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

'In US Common Law, pseudonym used "consistently, openly and non-fraudulently, without interfering with other people's rights" is a legal name'

http://twitter.com/SFriedScientist/status/95563913336328192

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link

Aisling
User: [personal profile] charcoalfeathers
Date: 2011-07-26 21:48 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

*blinkblink* O.o Thanks for that. That's mighty interesting. (And strangely sensible.)

Reply | Parent | Link

display name
User: [personal profile] floatboth
Date: 2011-07-26 21:07 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)

Skud's back on G+. Also, check this out: http://twitpic.com/5w9qnf – Google visitor badge :-)

By the way, I don't trust Google that much. I prefer being more decentralized (what, one login to everything isn't an issue, there's 1Password): mail on Apple's iCloud (dev beta for now), photos on Flickr, videos on Vimeo, bookmarks on Pinboard, etc. I heard many stories about suspended Google accounts and people losing a lot of stuff… don't want to write another one.

I didn't start using Google+ because they had a statement about no responsibility for losing data during the "field trial". GUESS WHAT THEY WON'T BE RESPONSIBLE AFTER IT TOO :D

Reply | Link