BREAKING NEWS: No News on Google+ Pseudonyms
Yesterday, the EFF reported on comments that Vic Gundotra made at the Web 2.0 Summit. I call BS on the EFF report. Click here for the full video of his interview, along with Sergey Brin.
The EFF Report
The EFF report was christened with an attention-seeking headline: “Victory! Google Surrenders in the Nymwars“.
The article begins by saying “Proponents of pseudonymity scored a major victory today, when Google executive Vic Gundotra revealed at the Web 2.0 Summit that social networking service Google+ will begin supporting pseudonyms and other types of identity.”
However, it’s unclear what changes Gundotra’s comments referred to, and I believe the EFF is either jumping to conclusions, or intentionally trying to apply pressure to Google by pigeonholing the decision makers there into providing something that the EFF would consider a victory.
In contrast to the aggressive and crystal-clear headline, the EFF report ends with an almost complete flipflop — a much more watered down “hopeful” comment: “Though it is not yet clear what those features will look like, we are cautiously optimistic that Google+ will do the right thing to ensure that all of its users feel free to express themselves on the site.”
Mashable’s Reports
Furthermore, the EFF report is based on an article on Mashable, with a much calmer and accurate title “Google+ to Support Pseudonyms”.
Like the EFF article, it also ends with a cautionary note: “Gundotra didn’t go further into how Google+ will support pseudonyms.”
I say that both the EFF and Mashable articles are wishful thinking. Here’s why, in Mashable’s own words: “Why Google+ will never back down on real names”.
What Was Actually Said
The question regarding pseudonyms was: “Eric (Schmidt, CEO), in the press, defended that as ‘We are an identity company, and therefore we want to have the right identity.’ Will you reconsider that?”
Gundotra replied: “We plan to support pseudonyms… in the future… we’re working on it. So it’s coming.” “It was largely an issue of development priorities. It’s complicated… to get this right.” “It doesn’t mean that we’re not going to support… uh uh… other forms of identity… it’s coming… it’s just that this is the way we wanted to roll out the service; this is the atmosphere we wanted to set” … “we’ll add these features.”
I Call BS
I call BS on the EFF article. First, this is old news. Gundotra is just reiterating what he said months ago.
Months ago, during the closed beta, when I had a Google+ account, I begged for them to add support for a separate per-circle identity — a kind of per-circle display name — so that Google could know my wallet name, but other users in different circles would know me by my online name, or possibly different online names. Then just as I was deleting my Google+ account, Gundotra claimed that Google would be adding support for this, but it was a significant development undertaking and it would take time. The impression I got from his comments was that it would take 6-12 months, and that in the meantime, the policy stands: Google+ identities would be required to be wallet names. Even once this work was complete, the Google account itself would represent a wallet name person, not an online identity. To understand why, again see that Mashable article.
But such a promise is not enough for me. After further thought, I decided that I used an online identity for a reason, and I did not want anyone, certainly not Google, especially not through my own direct application to them, to be able to connect my online identity with my offline (wallet) name.
When Google+ allows me to create a pseudonym-based Google profile, and use that as my Google+ account, then I will claim victory in the Nymwars. However, that would be a much smaller technical change than what Gundotra claims was required here. Until I see that, my belief is that they are doing what I originally suggested; they are adding support for one or more “pseudonyms to be supported” under an account based on a wallet name (only).
The Place For Optimism
From my perspective, the most positive comment was not the one regarding pseudonyms, but rather the question near the end, when a man from the audience asked about allowing Google Apps user accounts to have access to Google+. Gundotra claimed that the only reason this was not available was due to the “large body of technical work to enable Google+ to work with Google Apps”. In the long run, if Google wants to see continued growth of Google+, they will need to pull in the millions of existing accounts in use by other Google services. To limit Google+ use to new Google+ specific accounts is to sign the Google+ death warrant. So this begs the question: will they just do the technical work to let those millions of accounts in, with pseudonyms? Or will they also update the usage policies on those accounts to force a similar real-name policy? My personal bet is that they will eventually open Google+ to all Google accounts, including pseudonyms. Otherwise, we will all watch Google+ die a slow horrible death.
Other Notable Moments
There were some interesting quotes in that video interview, as well as some funny awkward moments. Here are some quotes from Vic Gundotra:
Questioned about Facebook and the challenge: “The incumbent has a huge advantage. And if you play the same game, that’s a hard game to win.”
Regarding a misguided interpretation of online identity: “It turns out that your friends, your mother, your cousin, they’re already on Google. They use it all the time. We’ve never given them a reason to express their identity and their relationships. And we’re going to do that.” Apparently he believes that your cousin isn’t using an online identity, but a wallet ID. And yet: “We do not believe in oversharing. We have a different philosophy.”
There were some funny moments too:
“I’ve been with Google for approaching five years.” Q: “Where were you before that?” A: “I used to work… with Steve… at Microsoft.” (laughter) “Wow. That was hard to get out.” (laughter) “Um…” (more laughter)
My favorite line however was this one: “There is a reason why every thought in your head does not come out of your mouth.” (laughter)
sorry, but I don’t believe any of them, and I have good reason to; I have been monitoring the creeping “papers,please” movement over the net for the last 10 years, as this is the SECOND push for this kind of tracking; the first was in 1993-1997, before everyone relaxed and started carving hunks of money off the nets. Now that they have, they’re starting this crap again.
I don’t particularly view it as “harmless” or “uninformed” or “not understanding of net culture;” I believe they know exactly what they are doing, in concert with Obama’s “I never met a whistleblower i didn’t try to have thrown in prison or assassinated” position.
Update: It seems the one moment of optimism in my article able may be short-lived. Google Reader is being integrated into Google+, as announced here. (The comments are a good read of reactions.) It fairly clearly implies that there will be some merging of accounts. But there is some question as to what that means for Google Reader users with pseudonyms. One Twitter user, maymaym, lamented his fate in a tweet:
#Google #Reader's being integrated w/Google+: goo.gl/Qviyz But I'm banned. :( Damnit, this is exactly what I was afraid of. #nymwars
It seems the attacks against other Google services may already be coming true.
Another update: Just like Google Reader, it looks like Blogger is the next Google service that will fall victim to Google+ real name profiles witch hunt.
Blogger to Integrate With Google+
Don’t you just love how they use positive sounding words like “integrate” to make it sound like a good thing? Well it is a good thing… for Google.)
They said they would, all along… it just took them longer than I thought it might. But that’s why I removed myself from G+, and moved my blog to another service. Not quite sure yet what to do about Picasa, which is also on Google’s hit list… I mean, “integration roadmap”.
I know they’ve talked integration but they have claimed that other Google services would not be affected by the wallet name policies. I doubted that all along so I’ve done the same thing: deleted both of my G+ accounts (wallet name and online name) and moved my blog from Blogger to here (my own domain hosting). WordPress is an upgrade from Blogger anyway. :p
The thing is, I was an early adopter and proponent of G+. Not only am I now an outspoken critic after their ongoing attacks against my friends, but it’s worse. Now I don’t even trust Google enough to use G+ even if they support per-circle display names. I want a pseudonym friendly account/profile or it’s of no use to me. Going on a witch hunt against early adopters is not the way to grow a social community. But then again, G+ is not social software; it’s an identity service that happens to let you communicate.