Opening-night reviews for Google+ have been fairly breathless, with the social-media hipstocracy declaring it just-better-enough than Facebook in almost every way that matters. But on one count at least, the unhappy story of an Italian Second Life die-hard who goes by the nym Opensource Obscure suggests that Google has missed a chance to handle online social life with more flexibility and nuance than the spawn of Zuckerberg. As reported by Wagner James Au, Cnet, and Business Insider, Google suspended the user's Google+ account because "Opensource Obscure" didn't pass muster as the kind of real name the company is requiring Google+ users to adopt. Here's the story in Opensource's own words:
I'm a Second Life user since 2006. My avatar name is 'Opensource Obscure'.
https://my.secondlife.com/opensource.obscure
A few days ago I joined Google Plus. There, I engaged in some
discussions about virtual identity and pseudonyms, exposing
myself to the attention of some Google employees.
Then, my Google Profile was suspended because I'm using
my SL name as my primary name on Google Profiles.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/opensourceobscure/5915226844/
My profile is still suspended. Since then I never provide Google
with my "real" name. Note that they don't have a "real-identity"
verification system - so they don't verify if your name is "really real".
If I changed my Google Profile name from "Opensource Obscure"
to "Tom White" or whatever, they would be fine - if it was a "realistic"
name. And my Google profile would be reinstated.
Ah, the perils of virtuality!
Well, commentariat, is this proof that, as W. James Au puts it, "Google still doesn't get social"? Or is it a sign that "social" has gotten irrevocably real?
I've been involved in a running debate among my friends on this issue: it's definitely a matter where reasonable people can differ.
I have two Google profiles, one for work and one for friends, the latter under my universal online name. One, I want to be able to close down my work email at times, without making myself unavailable to my friends, and two, if someone's looking over my shoulder at work, they don't need to see what I do in my private life.
I'm identity transparent - I don't "hide" my other profile from anyone who's got any business knowing, but I do believe in keeping private and professional distinct.
When I received an invitation to Google+ on my social account, I declined: Google's identity policy would have me risk losing my email account, Blogger login and access to other services. It's not worth it.
Given their disastrous handling of privacy issues with other services, I actually trust Google rather less than Facebook: I've *seen* them give me inappropriate access to other people's messages, and I've already gotten Google+ social spam from people who place me in "circles" I'm not interested in being in.
From their perspective, I'm not convinced that my data is less mine-able and marketable if I call myself "Opensource Obscure," "John Smith," "IP Freely" or "John Carter McKnight."
And, more and more, I'm seeing people, even my undergrads, taking privacy management seriously and segregating accounts and identities online. Companies in the data-selling business would do well to recognize and at least plausibly pretend to support this trend.
Posted by: John McKnight | Jul 12, 2011 at 17:31
I'm gonna have to reject your binary prompt on this one Julian. As John notes, there are clearly ways in which Google struggles with social in regard to user privacy. At the same time, Facebook technically requires users to only register under their real names. Google is giving their users more flexibility in that regard, so in one sense +, at roll out, is a move away from the notion that social media should be bound up with real ID.
Basically, while everyone wants to make big prognostications about Google+ in terms of how its going to fair in general and what effects it might have on the social marketplace I think it's still too soon to say much about any of those things. I'm not convinced that what we see now is the same thing we're going to see three months from now when it comes to some of these key questions like privacy and user ID.
Posted by: Moses Wolfenstein | Jul 12, 2011 at 17:55
I think that there doesn't need to be one social network that is king and is for everyone. If Google and google+ want to cater towards people interacting and networking with their real identities, I think that's their perogative. It's not them "missing the point" its just them choosing an audience. This leaves space for another social network that supports virtual identities and/or pseudonyms to rise up along side it. Those interested in not using your real life moniker should give Diaspora a look when it is further along in development.
I do think its overkill shutting down other non google+ services for violating the real-sounding name requirement.
Posted by: Anthony Thomas | Jul 13, 2011 at 09:56
There are a couple things going on here. One, as Tateru Nino and others have already pointed out, is the difference between "anonymity" and "pseudonymity." You can have an online name and identity that's like what we used to call a "pen name." Mark Twain was not an "anonymous" moniker - would he have to be Samuel Clemens on google+ or Facebook? There's a world of difference between that and an anonymous moniker created for a single flaming posting on a website and so on. So I agree with Moses's concern here about your phrasing "irrevocably real" - the name "Mark Twain" is irrevocably real (as is, of course, the virtual more generally).
The broader issue has to do with assumptions about identity and naming that are very Euro-American and culturally specific even in that context, but are getting written into online socialities in interesting (and in some cases, disturbing) ways. In this regard a short piece I've always found helpful is:
Scott, J. C., Tehranian, J., & Mathias, J. 2002. The Production of Legal Identities Proper to States: The Case of the Permanent Family Surname. Comparative Studies in Society and History 44(1):4-44.
Posted by: Tom Boellstorff | Jul 13, 2011 at 12:30
Anyone remember the Fakesters on Friendster?
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2003/09/so_i_was_over_a.html
Posted by: greglas | Jul 14, 2011 at 00:10
Personally, I think it's great that there is a genuine attempt to force a real ID on people. I think including a 'verification you are who you say you are' would probably have caused riots. I can see them adding a system like it later once consumers are used to the +'real'.
I don't quite understand where google+ presenting and enforcing an identity from the real world is an issue. There are plenty of spaces to be disingenuous or to play as someone else around the Internet (see all of the events of anonymous, lulzsec, second life, irc, etc), but there are very few spaces where you know the person you're talking to is the person you think it is or where there are consequences for lying about yourself.
This is a murky supposition but I think it is sufficient.
Props to google for doing what they said they wanted to. Perhaps now we will finally begin to understand "online" as an extension of reality instead of a virtual reality.
Posted by: Nick LaLone | Jul 19, 2011 at 10:40
And then there is the issues of business accounts. In real life (Google+) companies are not allowed to have accounts (yet). I never understood this rule, which hold also for Facebook. Is this kind of game Google and Facebook play?
Posted by: playing games | Jul 21, 2011 at 08:31
I waited 4 years to join Facebook. I can wait that long for Google+!!!
Posted by: ecastronova | Jul 21, 2011 at 08:57
Well google plus is new search engine socialized version .
Posted by: Doctors online | Aug 13, 2011 at 15:27
Interesting article, I have never heard of the game second life.
Posted by: Alex | Aug 27, 2011 at 14:04
Essentially, all this little episode proves is that Google is bureaucracy like any other. It's not concerned with the truth value of what you enter in the little boxes; it just has to look vaguely "correct" in order to satisfy the bureaucratic mind that procedures have been followed correctly.
Though, of course, that presumably applies to eurocentric names only. Would you get kicked for entering the name "Deegeenboyah Arramagong", a perfectly respectable Australian Aboriginal name?
Posted by: Kairos | Aug 29, 2011 at 13:07
its a dilemma that google forces RL Names so strictly on their accounts, but i agree, they do not have a system to verify the name via ID, CC or similiar stuff...better add your SL Name to FB, i do not feel comfortable with Google+ at all..
FB notes in their TOS you should use your RL Name too but they do not strictly force it the way Google+ does..
Posted by: Alexander Chapman | Oct 07, 2011 at 19:23