I'd be surprised if lawyers were involved, even if the 'gag' description is accurate. The most likely 'gag' would probably just the woman's boss pulling her aside and saying "you can say anything you want internally, but when you badmouth the company in public you are hurting the company".
I mean we really have no idea, but it seems far far more likely something like that occurred than Google sending a formal C&D to one of it's own employees.
One might say that being evil is hurting the company more, especially when knowledgeable employees quit rather than being associated with such actions. People who push back on such things actually care about the company they joined, not the company it has become.
so offering a web service, any web service -- that requires using real names is evil. Now and forever. Is that right?
Are you sure it's not just a service that some people won't want to use, because of this design decision? Or is it fundamentally evil to offer a web service some people might not want to use?
I have no argument whatsoever that services should not exist that not only allow pseudonyms but where pseudonyms are embraced and expected. I love many of these services, and would defend their right to exist to no end.
But I do not even remotely understand what seems to be a prevailing argument here that there must not exist any service based on real names.
All of the argument in favor of pseudonym is really an argument in favor of those types of services existing -- which they do, in spades. Millions of them. No one is, or has, killed anonymous or pseudonymous interaction on the web. No one is, or has, hindered the ability of a person seeking such cover from the ability to publish anything on the web and to be found.
Its an additional service offering, its not a subtraction of what already exists (rampant, multitudinous options for anonymous and pseudonymous posting which can and are being used by folks seeking avenues for anonymous and pseudonymous posting and sharing and community building).
Offering a web service and ignoring the pleas of those who know a minefield when they see one is evil. Launching it anyway despite unprecedented pushback is evil. Pretending it's somehow new and unexpected, like wow, we didn't think anyone would care... is evil.
Also, right now, you're right, this doesn't matter. You can just ignore their dumb little toy and go on with life. Trouble is, future services are planned to be integrated. That means you either suck it up and create a profile (thus running into the Real Name fiasco) or opt out of anything which needs one.
Using one thing to force people to do another thing. Where have we seen this before?
If you're inside the company and you care about this stuff, you're probably freaking out because it reflects on you, too.
From a business perspective outside of the company, it's brilliant. It means there will be a lot of people looking for alternative ways to do things where they were previously relying on the big G since it was good enough. I guess I should just shut up and let them keep digging that hole. It'll mean more business for the rest of us.
"Offering a web service and ignoring the pleas of those who know a minefield when they see one is evil. Launching it anyway despite unprecedented pushback is evil. Pretending it's somehow new and unexpected, like wow, we didn't think anyone would care... is evil."
You and I have dramatically different definitions of evil. Basically you are saying that yes, launching a service that some people, in your eyes (or in someone's) will not like, is evil. Pretty narrow little circle of goodness you've left yourself with, one that likely encompasses nothing.
"Using one thing to force people to do another thing. Where have we seen this before?"
Except there exists no force.
"From a business perspective outside of the company, it's brilliant. It means there will be a lot of people looking for alternative ways to do things where they were previously relying on the big G since it was good enough. I guess I should just shut up and let them keep digging that hole. It'll mean more business for the rest of us."
That is why anonymous and pseudonymous activity will exist and thrive as it always has, because there is a market for it.
Funnily enough that also roughly describes the effect Facebook is having on the broader web, in many ways. Hundreds of millions of people prefer the safe confines of Facebook to the broader web. They have found it to be the better alternative way to do things. Apparently, there is a very strong consumer demand for that market, as well. Real names is not a hindrance to Facebooks success with that specific market, it is central to it. Facebook is not a small community.
What your argument boils down to -- is that Google is both stupid and evil for wanting to serve both markets, to have two types of services. EVIL, mind you.
It just seems an odd criticism that is far over-the-top, relative to the actual situation of offering a web service to compete for a market that is obviously huge, in demand, and dramatically underserved (choice of 1 real name social network, basically, vs in essense hundreds of thousands of anonymous networks).
I mean we really have no idea, but it seems far far more likely something like that occurred than Google sending a formal C&D to one of it's own employees.