Skip to main content

For better or worse: Google+’s anti-anonymity policy

+youIt’s that time again: A new Google+ controversy has struck, this time in the form of its anti-anonymity policy. Over the weekend, Google deleted the profiles of users who were not using their legal names. Some had used nicknames, maiden names, or pseudonyms, while others had chosen completely different monikers. Regardless, the accounts were pulled without explanation.

Google+ VP Bradley Horowitz has since clarified the policy and said the team would be revising those terms over the next few weeks. “We’ve noticed that many violators of the Google+ common name policy were in fact well-intentioned and inadvertent and for these users our process can be frustrating and disappointing,” he said. “So we’re currently making a number of improvements to this process – specifically regarding how we notify these users that they’re not in compliance with Google+ policies and how we communication he remedies available to them.”

Recommended Videos

No (major) harm, no foul. Google plans to implement a Facebook-like notification system where you are given the chance to correct names instead of be subjected to a terminated account. There will also be an “Other names” section so you can use an alternate name if you want. So the problem has been identified and remedied – but the larger concern remains that Google is sort of trying to change how Internet identity works. Is it for better or worse?

For better

Google+ is doing something important here, and it’s reminiscent of the now-extinguished uproar Facebook Comments caused when they first launched. Earlier this year, various Websites began integrating Facebook Comments so that when you posted on their respective pages, you automatically did so using your Facebook ID. There was some initial backlash, particularly from users outraged that anonymously commenting was disabled.

It’s easy to say anything you want when you’re hiding behind letters and numbers. If you take a look at any Internet news publication, any mildly controversial story will be flooded with vile, horrible comments from readers–most of whom aren’t using their real names. In no facet of our lives are we allowed to put on a mask and do or say what we want without consequences. Using the Internet to be anonymous has been so abused by these types of trolls that we can’t blame a site for suspending the option.

Google+’s real name policy means you will be held accountable, and that this particular social network simply doesn’t tolerate certain behaviors. Google+ is a social network that holds its users to a different standard than most do, and if you don’t agree with that, then don’t be there.

For worse

But there are two sides to this argument. The Internet and anonymity go hand in hand. Part of the reason people took to socializing and communicating via the Web was that it offers a security blanket, or a shield of sorts. You get to pick and choose what about yourself you share, and that includes your name.

There are plenty of reasons a person might want to use a fake name. Some are especially worried about Internet privacy and security. It’s not unheard of for determined individuals to pair your legal name with your location, and the particularly cautious take every step to protect this information.

We also know why exactly social networks want our data, including real names. This information benefits advertisers and is worth a lot of money. Sites that have actual identities are an attractive thing to marketers. Facebook users know this well: There are targeted ads everywhere you look.

In addition to more practical reasons, the Internet also gives users the gift of limitless creation. Want a new name? You got it – as long it fits within X amount of characters. The Internet is supposed to be about freedom and giving everyone who wants it a voice. And sometimes people are just more comfortable expressing themselves or participating so long as they have the security of anonymity, to varying degrees. Maybe it’s a clever play on your last name or perhaps it’s indecipherable numbers: The point is that it’s up to you.

Topics
Molly McHugh
Former Digital Trends Contributor
Before coming to Digital Trends, Molly worked as a freelance writer, occasional photographer, and general technical lackey…
Google will charge law enforcement and government agencies to access user data
Google's Logo

Google has begun charging law enforcement for access to user data, according to a report by the New York Times. The company is levying fees of $45 for a subpoena, $60 for a wiretap, and $245 for a search warrant, according to documents reviewed by the NYT.

The company receives a high volume of requests from law enforcement agencies to hand over data about its users and has therefore decided to bring in charges to "offset the costs" of compiling this data. According to the report, Google is legally allowed to levy these charges but traditionally big technology companies have handed over data without any charges.

Read more
Google CEO Sundar Pichai warns of dangers of A.I. and calls for more regulation
Google & Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai

Citing concerns about the rise of deepfakes and the potential abuses of facial recognition technology, Google CEO Sundar Pichai declared in an op-ed in the Financial Times that artificial intelligence should be more tightly regulated: "We need to be clear-eyed about what could go wrong" with A.I., Pichai wrote.

The Alphabet and Google executive wrote about the positive developments that A.I. can bring, such as recent work by Google finding that A.I. can detect breast cancer more accurately than doctors, or Google's project to use A.I. to more accurately predict rainfall in local areas. But he also warned that "history is full of examples of how technology’s virtues aren’t guaranteed" and that "[t]he internet made it possible to connect with anyone and get information from anywhere, but also easier for misinformation to spread."

Read more
PayPal vs. Venmo vs. Cash App vs. Apple Cash: which app should you use?
PayPal, Venmo, Cash App, and Apple Wallet apps on an iPhone.

We’re getting closer every day to an entirely cashless society. While some folks may still carry around a few bucks for emergencies, electronic payments are accepted nearly everywhere, and as mobile wallets expand, even traditional credit and debit cards are starting to fall by the wayside.

That means many of us are past the days of tossing a few bills onto the table to pay our share of a restaurant tab or slipping our pal a couple of bucks to help them out. Now, even those things are more easily doable from our smartphones than our physical wallets.

Read more