"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).
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).