I’ve done another round with Google PR, because what they told me last time didn’t make a whole lot of sense with what Google was doing with Google Plus/Profiles users at that time. What they told me now makes even less sense, because things are increasingly weird, and Google is giving me the same line.
Here’s the quick bullet list of what Google has been actually doing over the course of this week.
- Google Plus and Google Profiles users continue to be suspended for pseudonyms/impersonation. The exact number seems to vary a lot from day to day. Some of those suspended are using pseudonyms (eg: Strawberry Singh), some are using their own names (eg: William Shatner).
- Google is also reinstating a number of these users. Some of them are using the pseudonym by which “they commonly go by in daily life”. Some are not – and have told Google that this is no such name, but were reinstated anyway.
- Google has demanded government issue ID from one user on the basis that: “uncommon names need to be confirmed with a government issued ID.”
Okay, so that’s what Google has been busy doing this week.
Now, what does Google say about it’s policies this week? Is this all reflective of some sort of policy change?
A Google spokesperson responds:
Our position on The Google+ Project using common names hasn’t changed: you can see profiles like this one, for example, where most people wouldn’t call this person Curtis Jackson. But the name that he does go by, his common name, is allowed. Mark Twain is an example of someone who, if he were alive, would be entitled to have an account in that name, as it is the name he is known by: his common name.
While Google supports different types of use of its products, as you pointed out in a previous email, the value in The Google+ Project lies in precisely the fact that it allows flexible sharing around your real identity. We don’t support pseudonymous use in Google+: we support the use of whatever name you use in your life. [Emphasis mine –Tat]
That isn’t in tension with the above blogpost, which doesn’t say that all Google products should work in the three states, only that Google does support those three states. Even though Google+ isn’t pseudonymous, a lot of Google products are, and as a company we still support pseudonymity on the Internet and think it’s valuable.
To me, all of this says that whatever Google might intend it seems that nobody’s over there seems to be on the same page with this.
I care less about what the policy is than that it is stated clearly and applied consistently. Google shouldn’t be the one going in circles.
A close friend of mine currently has his account suspended. He’s already had to go back and forth with their reps; with the predictable inconsistency they’ve demonstrated, his case seems to be overly scrutinized despite:
His name is no “weirder” than a lot of SL users.
He has far more web history and documentation for his identity than some SL users who have been suspended then re-enabled the same day, without email interrogation or any contact from the Google policy review staff.
I told him that if he they stonewall him and he decided to chuck it rather than bow to the rep’s demands, I’m gone too. Public beta, public beta, yadda bing yadda boom; I actually can’t afford to invest more energy, content, and time into a service that seems set up to be hostile and capricious towards users who’ve done nothing more disruptive than enter their preferred social identity into a text field.
The phrase used by the Google mouthpiece:
“the value in The Google+ Project lies in precisely the fact that it allows flexible sharing around your real identity”
should be questioned. Exactly why does “flexible sharing around your real identity” add value to Google+, and what does “flexible sharing” mean?
“going in circles”…oh, I see what you did there…very punny
My interpretation would be that the flexible sharing is a matter of the dynamics available via the circles thingy. (O.o)
Still, their flaky interpretation of ‘real’ and general lack of clarity is quite baffling. (._.)
Pat: Even by PR standards, there has been a LOT of double talk about what Google+ “is” that doesn’t really explain what it “is” since the beginning.
Which I find curious. Usually, you want everyone to be hyped over exactly what your social networking product claims it can do for you, that nobody else can match. IMO, most of the crazy blogosphere hype around G+ has come merely from the fact that it’s a Google product… and not from people titillated over a wholly new social paradigm Google+ ushers in.
The longer the situation persists it becomes harder to not read things in. Now, to get real a minute, let’s assume that pseudonymous users such as we consider them are such outliers that Google wasn’t even thinking of them. If Google wasn’t using weasel language to mess with say, Second Life users personally… who are they messin’ with?
Maybe it’s just damage control after Buzz. Perhaps Google wants a system full of 1:1 Real Identities ™ but is afraid of deploying a Facebook-like statement up front. “G+ is a profile of your real life and requires your real name.” So we get the undefined “flexible sharing” and “use the name you’re known by”. They could generally assume *most* users would unthinkingly type in their real first and last name. The mainstream has wholly adopted the Facebook paradigm. And people in general are sloppy with their internet habits anyway. They don’t think before typing stuff in.
I’m a “benefit of the doubt” kind of guy, more apt to attribute this sort of thing to incompetence than to malevolence… but Google are stretching the limits of credulity.
“That isn’t in tension with the above blogpost, which doesn’t say that all Google products should work in the three states, only that Google does support those three states.”
It may not be in outright contradiction as, as they point out, they have not said *all* Google products should work with all modes, but for Google to try to enforce a certain use in one of their high-profile products which also apparently functions as a master account for other products certainly is “in tension”.
At this point I am wondering if this is in violation of their settlement of the class action suit brought against them by the FTC, because they are repurposing as the core of Google+ the formerly pseudonym-allowing Profiles, which were formerly also allowed to be set private as a part of Buzz.
Summarized here: http://mashable.com/2011/03/30/google-buzz-ftc-settlement/
The quote that makes me wonder:
—–
“Essentially Google must demonstrate how it will maintain reasonable privacy protection for each piece of information they collect from consumers for the next 20 years,” explained Jessica Rich, deputy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a press conference call.
This is the first time the FTC has mandated such a program. In addition, Google will be required to ask users to opt-in every time it makes a change to one of its products that may result, as Google Buzz did, in sharing their data with third parties.
—–
Longer (4-part) explanation from the FTC starts here: http://business.ftc.gov/blog/2011/04/ftcs-google-settlement-whats-buzz
A person’s full name _is_ personal data, which they should explicitly have to consent to be revealed in public, and it should be no more required to reveal this data than it is to reveal in public one’s phone number or home address.
I was also sent this link just now.
Slightly – but not entirely – tangential. You’ll see why.
My Google+ profile has been suspended for but I signaled the problem and after short time (a couple hours) it’s back…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dd_ra/5964393909/
I have seen the google+ profile of Miss Ordinal Malaprop seems to be disabled.
@taturu. Thanks for the link.
It concludes, and these are the definitve wise words. Googles behaviour has brought this to the everyday user in the here and now.
“As more and more of our lives migrate to various clouds, remember: that can all be taken from you in a few errant keystrokes or a glitch. Make your own backups when you can.”
Just an idea: will virtual names of Googles upcoming Virtual World have no problems linking to all Google Services?
(I do not know if they have another Virtual World in the pipeline, but it would not surprise me)
What I find bizarrely unthought out about this policy is that Google is implicitly saying that Google+ should not be your first social network. Where do they *think* a blogger or anyone else who uses a pseudonym online gets their name? I got mine on Twitter, and expanded from there to my blog and other sites like Flickr. Apparently you are never supposed to establish an online identity using Google+, you are supposed to arrive with one already established.
Google+: Your second social network.
Tateru, keep up the great investigative efforts here. You keep writing, I will keep reading.
Breen, I am dubious that Google will make another foray into virtual worlds after their embarrassing attempt with Lively. Unless you count 3D Warehouse in Google Earth.
I don’t.
I just today created a G+ account for Marcus. Waiting for the ax to fall.
Add Alyssa Milano to the list of real name people who were suspended without inquiry, just as William Shatner was. This despite Google’s “hey celebrities! Come be cool!”
It appears as if Google is simply suspending any account they think is “suspicious” without even contacting the owner of the profile. Bill’s pissed; so’s Alyssa. There’s others popping up now with the same story… real-life, real people with real, provable names…
Others, of course, with non-simple real life names are having this problem too. So what the heck is going on at Google?
FYI, users CZ Unit and Kryptyk Physh just got their accounts unsuspended…
… no idea if there’s a policy change in progress but as of the last public update, CZ Unit showed email from the CSR that suggested he was being stonewalled.
Not steal his thunder, but… Crap Mariner (@isfullofcrap on Twitter) reports his G+ account, which is in his certifiably official name, has been suspended.
Some of us who have been suspended are not being offered any way to submit any proof of ID. You can only request a review of your profile. Since no one should publish their ID information, this is yet another strange response from Google. Disappointed in Google, Avatars are part of the world’s information. If they really want to organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible, they need to deal with avatars and people’s want for privacy. My full name is unique and makes finding me online a far too easy prospect. As one of the few females in my industry, I don’t wish to be Googled by anyone who can type my name.