Google, after holding out for a number of years, has finally relented, and will permit 'pseudonyms' on Google Plus. It has always struck me as a a hypocritical, myopic insistence by Google to use only real names.
Their own Eric Schmidt suggested in 2010 that kids might have to change their names on adulthood to disassociate from their teenage follies permanently recorded online. He regretted in 2013 that Internet does not have a ‘delete’ button to wipe such data, in a talk with Nouriel Roubini. Google, the company itself, is actively opposed to anti-privacy or intrusive laws like SOPA and CISPA.
So it was funny for the company to adopt a policy, firmly discouraging pseudonyms or nom-de-plumes. Adopting a pseudonym itself is a disadvantage, even without Google getting into the act. Many netziens do not take seriously, or do not interact seriously, with people who have adopted an unconventional pen name.
To me, an obvious pen name like mine, is not as dangerous as adopting an ‘alias’ - a name which sounds lifelike - Solomon, Suleiman, Sukandan, or Swarup Anand. Incidentally all the 4 names are related to peace, bliss, and content. Is it not more dangerous for you to think of me as Sukandan rather than as mad.madrasi?
To be fair to Google, I never had any problems, despite their policy of not encouraging pseudonyms. Even when Google offered custom URLs instead of those long numbers in G+ profile, it came through. There was no problem with Google Authorship program too!
Though I am glad that particular 'Damocles Sword' is no more, saving me from anxiety. Here is their announcement. As you can see, there are many who supported the real-name-only policy.
(image courtesy https://vle.queenelizabeths.kent.sch.uk/moodle/)
Their own Eric Schmidt suggested in 2010 that kids might have to change their names on adulthood to disassociate from their teenage follies permanently recorded online. He regretted in 2013 that Internet does not have a ‘delete’ button to wipe such data, in a talk with Nouriel Roubini. Google, the company itself, is actively opposed to anti-privacy or intrusive laws like SOPA and CISPA.
So it was funny for the company to adopt a policy, firmly discouraging pseudonyms or nom-de-plumes. Adopting a pseudonym itself is a disadvantage, even without Google getting into the act. Many netziens do not take seriously, or do not interact seriously, with people who have adopted an unconventional pen name.
To me, an obvious pen name like mine, is not as dangerous as adopting an ‘alias’ - a name which sounds lifelike - Solomon, Suleiman, Sukandan, or Swarup Anand. Incidentally all the 4 names are related to peace, bliss, and content. Is it not more dangerous for you to think of me as Sukandan rather than as mad.madrasi?
To be fair to Google, I never had any problems, despite their policy of not encouraging pseudonyms. Even when Google offered custom URLs instead of those long numbers in G+ profile, it came through. There was no problem with Google Authorship program too!
Though I am glad that particular 'Damocles Sword' is no more, saving me from anxiety. Here is their announcement. As you can see, there are many who supported the real-name-only policy.
(image courtesy https://vle.queenelizabeths.kent.sch.uk/moodle/)
No comments:
Post a Comment