Google+: Say My Name and Banned from Argo Filk.

[tablesaw]

Made some posts today on Google+, in that they are contained in an about the service.

If you haven't been keeping track of Google Plus's rampant suspension of profiles that don't conform to mainstream Western standards, there are some good comprehensive links to check out. Google+ user Sai, whose account has been suspended multiple times because of his (legally documented) single name, posted a massive, collaboratively written account of the whole situation, including suggested policy changes.

In sharing it, I added:

"You're one of the very first people to use Gmail. Your input will help determine how it evolves, so we encourage you to send your feedback, suggestions and questions to us. But mostly, we hope you'll enjoy experimenting with Google's approach to email."

That's what Google e-mailed to me on June 11, 2004. The name on my account then was "Tablesaw Tablesawsen." It remained the name on my Gmail Account when my Gmail Account became a Google Account, and it was the name on my Google Account when my Google Account added a Google Profile. And when that Google Profile became a part of Google Plus (yes I activated it slightly in advance), Tablesaw Tablesawsen it remained.

Every e-mail since then--whether to friends, family, or businesses--has started with a "To" field of "Tablesaw Tablesawsen" and ended with the even more memorable .sig of "Tablesaw (It's the saw of the table!)." It's been the name on my Google Documents and my Picasa pictures.

Notwithstanding the fact that I'd been using the name Tablesaw since about the time that I started hearing about this "Google" thing that was so much better than AltaVista, these seven years of using this Google Account almost exclusively is what establishes it as a real name (one of a few, but no less real). Google should know that Tablesaw Tablesawsen is a real name since they've been sending mail to, and harvesting information from, this name for over seven years.

+Sai and others have written a detailed summary of this issue within Google Plus, including several links and policy suggestions. Per +Sai's request, this share is also being linked to +Natalie Villalobos, whom I'll be counting on to remember this testimonial, should my profile be friviolously suspended.

The other posts come from skud, a longstanding advocate for the benefits of pseudonymity, whose profile was suspended on Friday. (A second post with further notes was posted today.) In the comments to the first, Aahz said, "For anyone who knows Leslie Fish, just think 'Banned From Google' (sorry, haven't gotten any farther)..."

Well, I couldn't help myself:

When we signed up for Google Plus, the network of our dreams,
We all set out investigating circles, sparks, and streams.
We had high expectations for our pseudonymity,
But found too late it wasn't geared for users such as we.

And we're banned from Google; it's not just.
Banned from Google, you could say that we're nonplussed.
We'd love to give more feedback on a field test we adore,
But Google doesn’t want us any more

The ToS is simple, but the policy opaque
Behind how mods consider some names real and some names fake.
The Name Police keep coming for +aestetix, +Sai, and +Skud.
So please, folks, make some changes before Google’s name is Mud.

Since we're banned from Google, all of us.
Banned from Google, and we're kicking up a fuss.
We used to be evangelizers; now we're pretty sore.
We don't know if we'll Google any more.

Comments

[seekingferret]

I'm just struck by the paradox- in order to make sure I don't run afoul of the policy, since I don't want to get into a fight with Google about my identity, I've been using a name which is NOT the name that most of the people in my google circles commonly call me. Which in a saner world would be what was truly the TOS violation.

[jadelennox]

the funny thing is even if they do a good job of enforcing a permissible pseudonym/autonym policy, that still means I probably won't use the service. I'm not interested in using the service which requires me to link it to a specific online identity, whether that be my real name, this identity (by which I am known to many, many people), or some other.

I would be interested in using the service which allowed me to set up specific identities for specific purposes, as DW and LJ do, that were completely not linked to each other. Yes, I understand that such accounts can be used for abuse, but anyone who thinks that people don't abuse each other under their real names has never read the comments on a news site.

I feel about the anti-pseudonymity people much the way I feel about rules preventing me from buying large packs of Sudafed during cold season and forcing me to show photo ID to buy it: why is it that just because the goddamn tweakers use Sudafed to make crystal meth, I have to lose privacy and have more difficulty treating my congestion, for a completely legitimate use of the drug? Why is it that just because trolls and griefers used pseudonymity as one of their many weapons, I can't use pseudonymity in utilitarian legitimate fashion for communicating with people online?

[tablesaw]

Google's got a multiple-sign-in tool that works for some apps (including Profiles) and not others, and it's not at all clear to what extent it works with Google+, as in whether it works now, whether it will work in the future, or whether Google+ will develop policies. I've seen at least one Google employee (not directly affiliated with the project) mention using multiple profiles on Google+, but I can't see how it would be feasible for most people to do so without a built-in acceptance of non-namey names.

[trinker]

But the issue with that, even if it worked as designed, is that google would know those were all linked.

LJ/DW doesn't really know that my other accounts are linked, except incidentally by perhaps sharing an IP address.