{"id":1202,"date":"2011-10-16T06:48:12","date_gmt":"2011-10-16T14:48:12","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=1202"},"modified":"2011-11-02T00:10:48","modified_gmt":"2011-11-02T08:10:48","slug":"a-social-network-or-the-name-police-%e2%80%93-but-not-both","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/?p=1202","title":{"rendered":"A social network or the name police \u2013 but not both"},"content":{"rendered":"

It seems\u00a0a number of\u00a0people\u00a0take the use of\u00a0“real names”\u00a0on the Internet as something we should all just accept without further thought.\u00a0 But\u00a0a recent piece <\/a>by Gartner Distinguished Analyst Bob Blakley <\/a>shows very clearly why at least a bit of thought is actually called for – at least amongst those of us building the infrastructure for cyberspace:\u00a0<\/p>\n

… Google is currently trying to enforce a \u201ccommon name\u201d policy in Google+. The gist of the policy is that \u201cyour Google+ name must be \u201cTHE\u201d name by which you are commonly known\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This policy is insane. I really mean insane<\/em>; the policy is simply completely divorced from the reality of how names really work AND the reality of how humans really work<\/strong>, and it\u2019s also completely at odds with what Google is trying to achieve with G+.\u00a0 (my emphasis – Kim)<\/small><\/p>\n

The root of the problem is that Google suffers from the common \u2013 but false \u2013 belief that names are uniquely and inherently associated with people. I\u2019ve already explained why this belief is false elsewhere<\/a>, but for the sake of coherence, I\u2019ll summarize here.<\/p>\n

There isn\u2019t a one-to-one correspondence between people and names. Multiple people share the same name (George Bush, for example, or even me: George Robert Blakley III), and individual people have multiple names (George Eliot, George Sand, George Orwell, or Boy George \u2013 or even me, George Robert \u201cBob\u201d Blakley III). And people use different names in different contexts; King George VI was \u201cBertie\u201d to family and close friends.<\/p>\n

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A \u201cREAL\u201d NAME.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A name is not an attribute of a person; it is an identifier of a person, chosen arbitrarily and changeable at will. In England, I can draw up a deed poll<\/a> in my living room and change my name at any time I choose, without the intervention or assistance of any authority. In California, I apparently don\u2019t even need to write anything down: I can change my name simply by having people call me by the new name on the street<\/a>.<\/p>\n

COMMON NAMES ARE NOT SINGULAR OR UNIQUE.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Richard Garriott is COMMONLY known as \u201cRichard Garriott\u201d in some contexts (check Wikipedia), and COMMONLY known as Lord British in other contexts (go to a computer gaming convention). Bob Wills and Elvis are both \u201cThe King\u201d.<\/p>\n

Despite these complexities, Google wants to intervene in your choice of name. They want veto power over what you can call yourself.<\/p>\n

Reversing the presumption that I choose what to be called happens \u2013 in the real world \u2013 only in circumstances which diminish the dignity of the individual. We choose the names of infants, prisoners, and pets. Imposing a name on someone is repression; free men and women choose their names for themselves.<\/p>\n

But the Google+ common name policy isn\u2019t even consistently repressive; it sometimes vetoes names which ARE \u201ccommon\u201d in the sense Google intends (Violet Blue is an example<\/a>), it sometimes accepts plausible names based on clearly fraudulent evidence<\/a>, and it even \u201cverifies\u201d fraudulent names<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Google+\u2019s naming policy isn\u2019t failing because it\u2019s poorly implemented, or because Google\u2019s enforcement team is stupid. It\u2019s failing because what they\u2019re trying to do is (1) impossible, and (2) antisocial.<\/p>\n

(2) is critical. Mike Neuenschwander has famously observed that social software is being designed by the world\u2019s least sociable people, and Google+ seems to be a case in point. Google wants to be in the \u201csocial\u201d business. But they\u2019re not behaving sociably. They\u2019re acting like prison wardens. No one will voluntarily sign up to be a prisoner. Every day Google persists in their insane attempt to tell people what they can and can\u2019t call themselves, Google+ as a brand becomes less sociable and less valuable. The policy is already being described as racist<\/a> and sexist<\/a>; it\u2019s also clearly dangerous to some disadvantaged groups<\/a>.<\/p>\n

If you want to be the host of a social network, you\u2019ve got to create a social space. Creating a social space means making people comfortable. That\u2019s hard, because people don\u2019t fit in any set of little boxes you want to create \u2013 especially when it comes to names<\/a>. But that\u2019s table stakes for social \u2013 people are complicated; deal with it. Facebook has an advantage here; despite its own idiotic real-names policy and its continual assaults on privacy, the company has real (i.e.<\/em> human) sociability in its DNA \u2013 it was created by college geeks who wanted to get dates; Google+ wasn\u2019t, and it shows.<\/p>\n

If Google\u2019s intention in moving into social networking is to sell ads, Google+\u2019s common names policy gives them a lock on the North American suburban middle-aged conservative white male demographic. w00t.<\/p>\n

The Google+ common name policy is insane. It creates an antisocial space in what is supposed to be a social network. It is at odds with basic human social behavior; its implementation is NECESSARILY arbitrary and infuriating, and it is actively damaging the Google+ brand and indeed the broader Google brand.<\/p>\n

The problem is not flawed execution; it is that the policy itself is fundamentally unsound, unworkable, and unfixable.<\/p>\n

Google can be a social network operator, or they can be the name police. They can\u2019t be both. They need to decide \u2013 soon. If I were Google, I\u2019d scrap the policy \u2013 immediately \u2013 and let people decide for themselves what they will be called.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0[Read the whole piece<\/a>.\u00a0 BTW,\u00a0 Mike Neuenschwander<\/a>\u00a0has hit the nail on the head yet again.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

According to Bob Blakely, “Google wants to be in the ‘social’ business. But they\u2019re not behaving sociably.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":68,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[17,2,85],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1202"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/68"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1202"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1202\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1202"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1202"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.identityblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1202"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}