I tried, but I found that I can't really identify with the plights of some. Thankfully (for reasons I'd rather not be challenged to justify, except to say that it's apparently good as measured by others) I'm a fairly normal white guy with no marginal traits that might cause me to have different viewpoints than I currently do.
This means that I support the notion real names on Google Plus, and I also believe that all speech should be free, but that you should also have the courage to attach your name to it. Yes, I understand that there are reasonable circumstances in which that would not be ideal, but perhaps due to my aforementioned luxury of being a 'normal' white male, I am ignorant to how much they would matter in real life. I am neither queer nor gender-queer, so while I am empathetic to their struggles, I just can't identify with what are possibly very real concerns about losses of anonymity, and as I've met people who are public with their genderqueer status who haven't been assailed or assaulted, I can't help but wonder if the fear isn't simply perceived fear or not.
Regardless, aside from that (which again, I empathy with, but cannot relate to) the only other thing I took issue with in the article was the categorization of the autonomous vehicle as a 'geek toy'. It isn't, and that marginalizes an entire category of technology that has a very real possibility of changing the world in a very positive way to 'something SV types are wasting money on', which I take issue with.
Even if you are a "normal white male", your wife and children aren't.
It can be fairly trivial to find out family details of a target and harass the wife/children.
Maybe you don't have strong opinions that would inflame someone to the level where they would interfere with your life like that.
But it's ignorant not to have enough empathy to think that does happen in a world where a woman can be stalked/assaulted after someone sees her out jogging.
My 21 year old straight cousin was gay bashed for walking home from a bar with his equal straight friend.
I've been racially profiled even though I'm white because I have a Fred Armistan-like hodge-podge of vaguely ethnic features.
> I am ignorant to how much they would matter in real life. I am neither queer nor gender-queer, so while I am empathetic to their struggles, I just can't identify with what are possibly very real concerns about losses of anonymity, and as I've met people who are public with their genderqueer status who haven't been assailed or assaulted, I can't help but wonder if the fear isn't simply perceived fear or not.
I live in an Eastern-European country, which also happens to be an EU-member. One of my (female) colleagues told me how two or tree years ago she happened to see a trans-gendered person (I don't know what's the politically correct term) who had just been beaten up during that year's GayFest. "Blood was pouring out of his/her wounds", was what my colleague told us.
That's why I down-votted you, btw, which I only do once every 2-3 months on HN. Not because I don't agree with you, which should not be reasons for down-votting people anyway, but because you kind of choose to view things through very narrow lenses, which is what the article was writing about all the way.
I think you chose an exceptionally poor reason to downvote him. You downvoted him because you disagree with his views ("view things through very narrow lenses"), which is different from downvoting him because you disagree with him only in phrasing.
Downvotes should be for comments that do not add to the discussion. Considering that most of the comments here are in response to him, his comment clearly added to the discussion.
> Considering that most of the comments here are in response to him, his comment clearly added to the discussion.
By your criterion, how would one distinguish between someone "adding to the discussion" and a troll? Or is it your position that trolls add to the discussion, because they elicit responses?
Is this a serious question? Can you generally not tell the difference between a comment that pushes an opinion you disagree with and a comment that exists simply to push buttons? If a "troll" comment is so good that it appears to just be a legitimate comment that you disagree with, then you should probably assume that it's just a legitimate comment that you disagree with.
That's a recipe for hivemind rule: downvote everything you disagree with so that only the things you agree with show up. I think there's enough of an information bubble on HN without actively trying to create one.
That just sounds like an easy way to rationalize your counterargument while avoiding being shown the error in your thinking. If a comment is worth disagreeing over, it is worth explaining why you disagree, otherwise nobody learns anything. Save your voting for the quality of the writing, not the arguments being made.
No, actually it has been discussed elsewhere in other comment threads that downvotes are used for showing disagreement, as well. I didn't come up with this myself; rather, it seems to be convention on the HN community.
If you disagree with this, please feel free to downvote this comment. This isn't reddit, or YouTube comments, where karma is some sort of aspect of prestige. It should be freely given and taken away as part of the natural discourse.
I suppose that's fair (though I disagree with it) -- I wasn't being critical of those who are transgendered in any way. I am also speaking from the lens of my own experience, which may clearly differ from those of others. I don't choose for my views to be narrow-minded, and am in fact very open to people of all sorts, I just can't relate, and attempted to proffer justification as to why I couldn't.
I of course wouldn't want to personally be in a situation where I were beaten bloody, nor would I want to be oppressed or invite harm upon myself just to experience the other side of things. Again, I don't discount the plight of the author; I am just thankful that I don't have to live through those experiences myself, and am not personally aware of anyone who has.
Does this narrow my world view? Perhaps. But just as I can't personally relate to the plight of the Jews in Nazi Germany, that doesn't mean that I would choose to be hunted / murdered / massacred for the sake of being able to. I acknowledge that what happened there was "Very Bad", and am also able to scope my understanding as to know that nobody that wasn't there will likely fully understand the hell they went through.
Thanks for the explanation of the downvote. I obviously disagree with it as I didn't intend any malice in my post (and was in fact just stating my opinion), but c'est la vie.
This idea that there are no real concerns about losses of anonymity is to me very odd. Its odd, because its obvious that the information is valuable, and the possibility for abuse is almost unlimited.
To point to a few of them, what if, if ever time you drive to fast, your car insurance increased in costs? (already happened in sweden).
What if, if ever time you took a job interview, the company order up a complete review of your activities, actions done at party's, ups, downs, relationship, political affiliation, health status, friends and so on? (some do already, some dont't. Mostly US companies. Companies that do reviews exist but few except the military pay's them regularly).
What if, every time you bought a beer, your medical insurance company got a notice by the friendly credit company and thus added a dime to the premium? (Some credit companies do sell this information, but its not in real-time yet).
What if, at every election, you would have to attach your name to it (thankfully, I have yet to hear about a election like this. I would assume its because the output would be obviously and bad).
Anyway, the categorization of the autonomous vehicle as a 'geek toy' is wrong like you say. The opportunities for improving safety, lowering pollution and improving the traffic system is many.
Regarding the car insurance: This is happening to an extent in the US currently. There are several companies who offer discounted rates for attaching 'trackers' to your car that report your driving behavior back to the insurance company.
I have very real concerns that this will grow to becoming as mandatory as requiring seat belts while driving. I'm sort of mixed on this point because, while this is obviously a very real invasion of privacy, I also tend to drive safely, and wish that more people did. In short, I'm conflicted. That said, just as I am currently able to not use those insurance providers, I am able to blog anonymously from a variety of other sources. I don't have to blog on Google Plus if I don't want to, and I don't believe that we're in danger of any laws being put forth that require real names on every internet post everywhere. If there were, I'd agree that this is a more likely comparison than it is, but I feel it's somewhat contrived at the moment. Your argument is akin to requiring that you HAVE to blog about everything that you do, and is only a matter of whether or not it's received by troublesome parties. I still have the choice whether or not to blog about a given activity, and if I do blog about it, I have the choice of specifying who receives it (or making it altogether private).
Regarding the job interview, if that were the case for all the applicants, I'd probably fare well enough. It should be worth noting that I've opened my life to such intrusion before for a job with the federal government, but I understood that as a condition of employment. If all employers made this common practice, I agree it would be very troublesome.
Skipping a little bit, all of the examples you gave are basically those of invasions of privacy, which I don't feel fairly reflects the issue at hand. Nobody's forcing you to post things on G+ at all, but if you choose to publish something, it happens to be in your real name. Again, you can still restrict visibility, or choose not to post at all, or choose to post somewhere differently that allows anonymity/pseudonymity. As such, I feel your examples are all significantly different from my original point.
Nobody is forcing your to post on G+ or Facebook, but as large companies, their policies have ripple effects. If we accept what they do now, what will things be like in 10 years?
At least in the US, there was already political chatter about requiring everyone on the Internet to have trace-able identity, and maybe using FBConnect or Google logins to do that.
Regardless of your views, large companies implementing 'real name' social networks makes it closer to a reality. The closer we come to basically having a 'switch' that would allow politicians to turn on such functionality, the more likely it is for them to flip said switch.
The biggest issue I have with said trackers is that they don't allow for judgement calls. Recently for example I was travelling from Arizona back to my home in Colorado, and was on several single lane highways. The speed limit is set at 65 Mph, however you have some people that choose to drive under the speed limit at 60 Mph.
To pass those people you need to speed up, enter the opposite lane of travel, pass the person, then enter back into the correct lane of travel. While you are speeding up to pass the person you go above the allowed speed limit (generally somewhere around 80 Mph) to make sure that you don't stay in the opposite lane of travel to a head-on collision.
With one of those boxes your insurance could now consider you a dangerous driver since you were speeding, and could now ding you, when in reality you were simply passing a slower car.
You could now suggest that I just stay behind the slower car, but with no passing lane for the next 70 miles that would have added a not insignificant amount of time to my already lengthy travel time, and then I haven't even mentioned all of the RV's that are driving 50 Mph because they are dragging a car behind them.
--
Safe driving has to be evaluated some other way. I've been involved in only one accident, and I lost control of my car in an attempt to avoid an accident on icy roads and took out a lamp post. (A pick-up truck driver lost control over their vehicle and was sliding towards me while all four of his tires were locked up. My corrective action was an attempt to move out of the way ... ended up hitting a patch of ice instead, at which point I was no longer able to complete my manoeuvre). Even if I had that box in my car it wouldn't have had me driving any differently because I was already driving safely for the conditions present and that box wouldn't have made the difference.
The biggest issue that I have found here in the US (at least compared to Europe) is that it is too simple to get your drivers license, and you can get one at an age where you don't realise the full extent of what it means to control a 2000+ pound metal box at speed. Where you don't yet fully understand the consequences and what it means. Traffic schools/lessons in the US are a joke compared to the rigorous requirements set forth in most of Europe (I'm talking Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium as the ones I am familiar with).
Should insurance companies be able to offer such boxes to people if they want to take them? Maybe, I am still split on whether or not we should allow insurance companies to go down such a slope, because at some point it becomes too easy to then make it mandatory. I don't think such privacy invasion measures should ever be allowed to become mandatory.
I agree with everything you said. I'm not entirely sure if it was offered as a counterpoint to what I said, but if so, please know that it's just because I didn't get too deeply into it.
The pragmatist in me says that because passing on the left is often legal, surely they have some way to identify that, or at least accept it as a deviation from the mean which they would discard.
The cynic in me though believes it exactly as you suggested, that every time you break the speed limit gets added as a 'point' against your record, and enough points eventually causes your premiums to go up.
As a publishing forum, I agree that a real name policy has little effect. Sadly, I rarely see people use social network sites as a publishing forum, and more like a social space to hang around at. Its like a bar. technically, a bar is for drinking, but if bars only purpose was drinking, few would go there. An other example would be to compare Google+ and BBC opinion section. Both are technically the same thing, an publication forum. But beyond the technical viewpoint, they share nothing in common. If BBC opinion section would have a real name policy, I would not care that much.
This boring / average white guy here thinks that real name policies are very, very bad and unacceptable, while I do support limitations in free speech (Europe, Germany -> We've got a number of cases where free speech is limited and I support these in principle, while avoiding the slippery slope thing. In fact, I'm typing this while wearing a 'Zensursula' (Zensur, censorship + Ursula, first name of a weirdo/idiot - free speech! my opinion! - politician with a 'think of the children' attitude towards anything, leader of a 'censor the internet, 'cause there's porn. with children.' movement for a while) shirt.
The concept of self-driving cars might be nice, but I think she's right _for now_. The current tech is, even if they are on the road already, not ready and she thinks there are better ways to help society / the people, for all I can tell.
Overall her post strongly resonated with my views. Obviously I was already biased one way, just as you probably already leaned another (maybe even as a happy G+ user).
I feel like I unintentionally stirred things up with my commentary on empathy, so I'll skip responding to that part for now except to say that yeah, I know they're just my opinions, and they were formed from a position of relative safety.
Obviously, autonomous cars are in their infancy, but I think that to trivialize them at this point because of that is to ignore their farther reaching steps. When the light bulb was invented, it would have been easy to categorize as a more expensive candle for the rich, but it clearly brought about much more and changed conditions for the world at large.
Autonomous cars have the potential to completely reshape the commute, traffic, how and where cities are formed and function and travel. It's a bigger project than just throwing a GPS and LIDAR onto a Prius.
I agree. Autonomous cars can and will have a profound impact on society, in combination with cheap personal powered transportation like electric skateboards and bikes. The less time we spend commuting, the more time we have to care for each other, innovate, and stay healthy. When we waste less land on parking lots, and turn off lights when they're not being used, we will benefit. When goods and people are shipped autonomously in the night, we will save ourselves much stress and inefficiency. When the world is 3D mapped and sensed in realtime, we can spend less time worrying about the unknown and spend more time doing useful productive things.
>as I've met people who are public with their genderqueer status who haven't been assailed or assaulted, I can't help but wonder if the fear isn't simply perceived fear or not.
No, it really isn't. While obviously it doesn't happen to everyone, such people are at a measurably higher risk of violence; there are well-documented cases of people being killed just because of that status.
I think you're probably right, and it occurs to me that I'm thinking of the civilizations in the cities I've visited recently (SFO, DC, etc.) and are perhaps not reflective of what it's like to be a transgender in other parts of the world / nation.
And even then, there's the problem of "what do you want your family to see?"
I know a number of people who're completely open about stuff to their friends, but very carefully maintain a cis+hetero front to their family in order to avoid a complete disaster.
(psueodynoms aren't a fully sufficient solution there of course, but they definitely help quite a lot)
I think it's worth noting that in that regard, Google Plus, with its 'circles' grouping mechanism, is very good at respecting one's privacy to whatever degree that they wish and are willing to put forth the effort to implement.
Yegge infamously posted a rant publicly on G+ without intending to. I don't think I'd bet my life on circles, especially after watching how Facebook put in similar features and then capriciously violated the intent of many users.
Pseudonymity for everyone helps the ones who do need it, because then they don't stand out.
If you're not part of any minority or have no radical politics, yeah you might not need it. But even then, you would want the comfort of the advertising industry and your future employer not being able to disrespect your privacy. (Public data and privacy? Yes.)
Why then is it good to kick people out for using pseudonyms? Why does it have to be a requirement? Do the benefits of real names even compare to the benefits of pseudonymity? I don't think they do.
I didn't mean to imply that they don't have the right to anonymity, just that I don't think that Google is any less right for refusing to provide it. It is their platform, and those who feel they require anonymity are free to choose another platform (like Livejournal, Twitter, Identi.ca, etc.) to voice their opinions from.
Whether or not the benefit of real names matters, Google has decided that they think it does. I happen to agree, but even though I (obviously) disagree with the idea that Twitter allows pseudonyms, I don't feel justified in complaining that they don't require real names. That's their decision just as much as this one was Google's.
And while I realize that what I'm writing comes off as a slightly less sensitive version of "If you don't like it, then leave," type of comment, and I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I really don't understand why people who disagree with Google's real names policy can't just up and go elsewhere. This isn't remotely as serious (in my humble opinion) as mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts that we're seeing so much of lately.
Again though, that's just from my perspective, and may very well be a result of a white privilege.
I do interpret what you wrote as a slightly less sensitive version of "If you don't like it, then leave," type of comment.
That type of comment is doesn't say anything, there's no real argument in it. It's simply dismissing criticism. You can dismiss any criticism whatsoever using it.
The sweeping "if you don't like it leave" doesn't really work. There's good reasons to use a platform despite deficiencies, no platform is exactly how I'd do it. Perhaps Google+ is technologically better, or the audience on Google+ is better for what I have to say. Maybe I want to keep in touch with real life acquaintances and they are on Google+. Do I have to convince every contact I have to switch to a platform that is worse in different ways?
Even if I vehemently disagree with their stance on publishing your true identity; there's reasons to use a platform despite it and keep complaining about their bad policies.
To frame the discussion differently, I disagree with Paypal's recent mandatory arbitration clause, but I have reasons to use Paypal despite it; Namely, I have a few accounts that I pay for that only offer Paypal as a payment option.
As of this morning, I have sent emails to each of those account holders asking whether or not they have alternate payment methods available, as I will be canceling my Paypal account shortly so as to opt out of their mandatory arbitration clause.
If I choose to accept their mandatory arbitration and continue to use the platform, then that is my choice. That it causes me considerable inconvenience to opt out of their policy is my problem alone. So long as there are other ways to pay, then it isn't Paypal's responsibility to cater to me or my beliefs.
Does this mean that I might have to cancel some accounts (namely PRGMR.com, which I use and love) and replace them with other, perhaps more expensive alternatives? Yes, but that is the choice that I am making regardless.
If G+'s benefits to you are greater than your conviction against their real name policy, then that is the choice that you have made. You're of course entitled to your opinion on it, but nobody's forcing you to use it even if it is perhaps the most convenient way to do what you want.
but even though I (obviously) disagree with the idea that Twitter allows pseudonyms
I can understand not caring about pseudonymity, but I see no good reason (for individuals as opposed to corporate entities) to be actively opposed to it. Why do you think you have any right to know my name, and what harm comes from not knowing it?
I don't disagree with the premise. When I say I disagree with Twitter's choice, what I mean is that I would probably enjoy Twitter much more if that wasn't their stance.
The reason for this is perhaps anecdotal, but in my personal experience, I generally find richer, deeper and more meaningful discussion when real names are involved.
This is anecdotal at best, and HN is a notable exception to that rule, but that is my experience. If I were president of the world, I would not change Twitter's rules, as that is within their right to provide pseudonymity, but if I were president of Twitter, I might just change it. (Though from a business perspective, what they have has been working for them, and I'm profit-minded enough to wager I wouldn't mess with that.)
> I didn't mean to imply that they don't have the right to anonymity, just that I don't think that Google is any less right for refusing to provide it. It is their platform, and those who feel they require anonymity are free to choose another platform (like Livejournal, Twitter, Identi.ca, etc.) to voice their opinions from.
I try to be free, but because i have a Google account (for GMail), i keep being harassed by Google, around 10 times a week, to join Google+.
I don't want to use Google+ (by principle, because i have no problem using my real name online). But i want to keep my GMail account. And this is getting increasingly difficult.
I really don't think the desire for having the option of anonymity has anything to do with being marginalized, gay, straight, white or male.
I'm a certifiable Google fanboy, but even I don't agree with their unwillingness to enable anonymity. I'm a fairly active user on G+, but I'll never feel like I can say whatever I want on that platform (or any of the other popular ones for that matter).
I guess the main area we differ then is that I do feel like I can say whatever I want on G+. Actually, let me take that back, I feel like I can say whatever I should, and that's a fairly important distinction.
I could easily foresee some kids trampling my lawn and me writing a hasty reaction on G+ of something like "I think all children should be murdered." It would be a joke, and anybody that knows me would know that (though potential employers and the like almost certainly would not) -- but I'm free to make that statement, though I might not post that publicly. Whether or not I should make such a statement on the emotionless internet is up for debate.
While I'm open to agreement that perhaps my views are just that vanilla, I've never had a political statement or personal statement that I believed in that I didn't feel I could express on whatever forum of my choosing, while acknowledging that sure, if I say positive things about political_candidate_x, I might very well inflame my friends and colleagues who adamantly support political_candidate_y.
Not that if you establish a pseudonym another sites first, like Lady Gaga, you can use that psuedonym on G+.
You can also engage in G+ as a Plus Page as though you are a rock band, with just about all the features of a personal user.
But you do need have a person account to own the page, but I think you can make the owership a secret that only Google knows.
I once tried to downplay the expression of marginalized groups with a college professor, and they said that those who are in the groups doing the oppression are often blind to what goes on, and sort of that the group as a whole makes any oppression seem normal. There are many parts of the world where quite a lot of things are criminal, punishable by death, and sometimes there's just a social pressure for killing even if it is actually not in the law.
You're assuming that you can write what you want and get away with it, now and in the future.
But Histoy has shown that anyone can be in danger because of something they wrote long ago.
The easy rule of thumb: if you have opinions and want to post them online, be prepared to lose friends, miss job opportunities and go to prison for them, even if they're not illegal or controversial right now.
The reality is someone like bmelton probably can write what he wants and get away with it. As a normal white guy who believes in technology and etc. etc. It's very unlikely that he has, or will ever, face oppression for his views. And that's probably why he can't relate to these particular views.
If he were Arab, Black, or Latino he would probably be able to relate just fine.
I'm going to confess that I gave you an upvote because it is exactly right (even though I have lost friends over political views, that's hardly earth-shaking) while simultaneously wondering whether or not your comment was meant to be for or against me.
It's quite possible that the answer is neither, and I read in in a neutral tone and, as I stated, I think that it's spot on. My argument comes from the position of privilege. I haven't personally felt the privilege, but I acknowledge that it exists due to the piles and piles of evidence in its favor.
People like you scare me, because you are so ignorant of history. While we might be heading towards a uber-PC socialist nightmare, one could argue just as easily that we'll end up in a hell like fascist Italy, where leftists were rounded up and shot for their opinions. You also scare me because you are so sure that you're right, and those that disagree with you are not just wrong, but evil. I disagree with you, but I don't think you should go to jail for it.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
-- William Butler Yeats
What on earth provoked that random screed? Who said anything about left or right, or PC socialist or fascist? You scare me because you seem to be mentally unstable.
I think it's pretty obvious what I'm talking about. The comment I was replying to suggested that people would be imprisoned for thoughtcrime. The original comment was disagreeing (slightly) with someone that has a very left-wing view of "social justice" or whatever. People like the person above clearly haven't learned their lessons about censorship, because there is a fair chance that even those with the "correct" politics like the author will disagree with the censors at some point, which could lead to imprisonment or death. Furthermore, you illustrate my point about people viewing their political opposition as evil perfectly, because instead of responding to me in a serious fashion, you call me mentally unstable.
The comment I was replying to suggested that people would be imprisoned for thoughtcrime. The original comment was disagreeing (slightly) with someone that has a very left-wing view of "social justice" or whatever.
No, he is suggesting that historically people have been imprisoned for thought crime, been passed over for jobs, and generally shunned when social values change. Thus the whole it is OK to be yourself thing might be true right now, but could be ones undoing if things change and one is on the record as pro X.
It is obvious what you are talking about, it is not obvious why you are talking about it. As I said, there was literally zero insinuation of anything to provoke your response. And I do not illustrate your point at all, as I am neither your "political opposition", not do I view you as evil. You are acting in a manner which is consistent with mental instability. You perceive enemies and threats which do not exist, and respond with unprovoked hostility.
You wrote in another comment that you think you unintentionally stirred things up with your comment on empathy, but I'm going to pile on anyway. I didn't downvote your comment though, because even though I take serious issue with your comment, your post did foster discussion.
I think you're using the word "empathy" incorrectly. If you really empathize as you claim, you wouldn't dismiss the "possibly very real concerns" as just "perceived fear". I don't need to tell you that the people you've met are just anecdata. It's fine if you can't relate or identify, but the meaning of empathy is putting yourself in someone else's shoes. It doesn't really sound like you're doing that.
This seems to be a common reply to my statements, so I'll say it once here and link to it elsewhere.
I feel that I am empathetic (or at least sympathetic) to the plight of transgenders, minorities and others who feel that they need an anonymous or pseudonymous platform upon which to share their views.
I am substantially less concerned with those who do not see that it is Google's right to offer a platform that requires real names. So long as there are other platforms available and allowed that support anonymity/pseudonymity, I don't see it as a great concern that one particular vendor doesn't work exactly how they want.
If the discussion were framed as a matter of law, and that a new law were coming down requiring all discussion platforms / social networks / blog platforms to use real names, I would be against that law.
It is within the rights of those providing the platform to determine what policies they wish to allow or disallow. It is within the rights of the users of those platforms to use or not use the platforms they agree or disagree with.
I do not feel it is within the rights of those users to demand (or at least, to get a result from the demands) that a platform change its policies to suit their ideals.
I do not feel it is within the rights of those users to demand (or at least, to get a result from the demands) that a platform change its policies to suit their ideals.
Sure it is. The only reason for a company to exist is to provide positive social effects (and capitalism is predicated on the idea that positive social effects correlate with revenue and, less so, with profit). When you want to create an all-encompassing social network, except for people X, Y, and Z, you're not providing positive social effects. You're being a dick. And Google, through their much-trumpeted "don't be evil" policy, has put upon themselves the responsibility of being even less of a dick. They have decided to assert that they're "better," so it is completely reasonable to expect that they should be and to demand it publicly.
"Well, users don't have to use it" is a pretty shitty escape hatch that ignores that social networks only have value through the network effect--and presupposes that people who will leave the social network because of attacks upon others in their social group. This is a sucker's bet because, frankly, of people like you, who acknowledge that they would feel differently if their own ox were gored but do not care because it is not.
At the end of the day, a social network is, at best, a convenience to you. That you're unwilling to suffer the inconvenience of not having the ability to use their network in the way that you want is an opinion I do not share.
It has nothing to do with whether or not it affects me personally -- it obviously does, but whether I agree or disagree with the choice being made here. I happen to agree, and as such, I use G+ (if only rarely). You disagree, so you don't. I assume that nobody is completely friendless or in complete isolation from their friends/family/colleagues because of their decision to not use Google Plus. A social network is not vital, and even if it were, there are plenty of others to choose from. If your friends aren't on that social network, then you don't get the benefit of it, but that's true of anywhere.
Insisting that Google abide your choice is the sucker's bet in my opinion. For what it's worth, almost every social network excludes somebody. In this case, it is 'people who aren't willing to use their real names', in other cases it might be 'people who are spamming the server' or 'people who are preaching hate crimes' or 'child molesters' or 'people outside of America'. An application has policies that it abides. You happen to disagree with one of their policies, and it apparently matters to you a great deal. You can complain as loudly as you like, and you can certainly hope that Google changes their minds, and you can even hold it against them that they don't. That doesn't make what they're doing wrong in any way other than something you disagree with.
(Note -- I didn't mean to intentionally lump any of the categories of people used in network exclusions together, except to come up with examples of why somebody might exclude somebody.)
"This means that I support the notion real names on Google Plus,"
That's strange, because I'm a fairly normal white guy with no marginal traits that might cause me to have different viewpoints than I currently do, and yet I don't support the notion [of] real names on Google Plus.
One aspect of the "real names" policy you left out was the difference some people have between "name I am known by" and "legal name." The author is one such person. That's a separate issue from wanting to remain anonymous.
You aren't the first to try to attach a different meaning to the term free speech and you certainly won't be the last. That isn't what it means, though.
benatkin means that speech is no longer free if you can't express things that you're afraid to put your name to. (You clarified this even more when you said in another thread (paraphrased) that people could say anything they "should" say.)
Free speech means you can say anything. If you want to argue the contrary, that you would prefer some limits on speech, then that's fine, but it's disingenuous – well, it's Newspeak – to refer to your position as "free speech".
If that is indeed what he meant, then I should clarify my position.
Free speech may well be 'whatever you want to say', but I might often say things that I don't mean. I also might say inflammatory things that I regret. I also might say things that are insensitive to others, or are completely horrible to all people, depending on my mood. I believe that with the freedom to say 'anything' I want, I also have the responsibility to say the things that are meaningful and, at least to the ability that I can ensure, accurate.
When I mentioned filtering on things I should say, I meant that while I believe I have the right to say whatever I like, I don't feel I should make those same remarks over the internet. Just as I believe I have the right to make racist jokes, I would not personally want to be held accountable as being a racist, so I would not. If I did, I would not make them on a megaphone at a racial harmony rally. If I did, I would expect to be held accountable. While I would not expect to be the victim of violence, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if I did.
In summation, I understand that 'free speech' is not limited to 'free speech with accountability', I believe as a personal choice for myself and nobody else, that it should be. I believe the old trope goes something like "Live your life as though your mother is watching everything you do" is one that I try to live by. It isn't one that I insist upon others, and I don't want my mother peering into the bedroom often enough, but I believe that accountability adds a fair amount to controversial discussions and makes them far more relevant.
Had Martin Luther King, Jr been 'anonymous' and preached with a V mask, I don't believe we'd have made anywhere near the progress we have on racial equality. That doesn't mean that I require all others to relinquish their anonymity/pseudonymity, but I prefer it personally and I find it to be a good choice for others to make.
this is exactly why anonymity is absolutely required on the internet. Its the last bastion where anyone could promote their ideas on the idea's merits and not on appeals to social norms such as authority or ethical/moral norms.
You claim you have empathy for the group twice, but the content of your comment can basically be summed up as "I don't empathize with them, I don't know what they are going through." Maybe you mean you sympathize with them, but it's hard to tell from your comment.
It's possible that I'm misusing the term. I'll state that I am at least sympathetic, just not on the stance that not only are they entitled to anonymous/pseudonymous speech (which I feel they are), but are also entitled to having it on Google Plus specifically (which I feel they are not.)
Am I the only one that read this as a parody of Google's management? Only the last paragraph particularly autonomous vehicle part felt like a genuine argument (even that I didn't agree with).
"I am ignorant to how much they would matter in real life."
There exists only one "business model" for social media and that is to post ridiculously personal, identifiable information all on the same unifying social media site. The key is there is only one model allowed to exist at present. Forcing non-anonymity means people might have to think about the issue, perhaps fraction the model into public and private parts, or evolve new standards of their own online conduct instead of just dumping everything everywhere. People hate nothing more than being forced to think, for example, its well known that many of the general public would rather die than think. Its a direct attack against the very idea of a single unified "business model". That's the main reason why its hated. The very idea of posting different things on different sites is whats being attacked, and by banning anonymity G+ was fracturing the existing model into "only post public identifiable stuff here, and anonymity required stuff elsewhere". They're hating a move a player made and some hating by extension the player, but we're not allowed to discuss hating the game or even what the game is...
Average white guy might need his anonymity too. Don't think you or other people at Google are a representative sample of the society. The outcry is justified.
I didn't meant to imply that it wasn't justified, just that I can't identify with it.
As I said, and I didn't mean to seem oppressive, I empathize with the plight of those who wish to be able to express things in anonymity, I just personally value the kinds of conversations that occur when people are using their real names more highly. Basically, what may be a need for those in the other camp is simply a preference for me, so I get that they have their strong opinions and I have my fairly weakly-held ones, but as we're all entitled to our opinions, mine is what mine is.
Your sincerity is worrying to me. I thought Internet would break physical and mental boundaries... And indeed it's quite the opposite, I realize how different we are.
But in a way, I understand your point, it's just that the world is not ready for that. Just look how far an Apple versus Samsung debate could go on a place like HN and imagine that you're talking about serious issues in a less tolerant place. I don't want to die (or be rejected) because I said I don't like X or Y on the Internet. (And I was the first supporter of G+ until they messed up with real names policy).
So, the main question there is: Would the thread have degenerated to that point if everybody were using their real names? I suspect the answer is 'no', and that is why I prefer the use of real names on the internet.
In counterpoint, while I understand that these views are public, it is to that degree that I make sure to state them as accurately as I am able. This means that my comments tend to be a little wordier than necessary, but if (as another has suggested) employers were rejecting me from a job based on a comment I made on the internet, then I would view that as better than being hired by a company that would fire me for something I said on the internet.
I am fully aware that neither case is the ideal, just as I am also aware that there are shady companies who perform overzealous background checks. I won't comment on whether those checks are right or wrong except to say that by not hiring me based on the result of an overzealous check is perhaps as much a win for me as it is them.
An interesting question that I will admit that I haven't given much thought to. To me, I consider my real name as "Barry Melton", even though it is really "Bartholomew Melton".
I have signed contracts, purchased property and pay utility bills under the former, while the latter is relegated to a very few.
Unrelated, I think this is the first that I realized George Orwell was a pen-name.
I'm amazed and pleased at your self awareness and honesty in this thread. Thank you. If you could give some thought to the responsibility (and unique opportunity) us normals have to fight oppressive structures from within, I would personally appreciate it.
From that perspective, I think you are confusing "empathize" with "understand". If you empathized, you would be more likely to be more concerned with the needs of others than your weak preferences.
Thanks for the compliment. I honestly didn't intend to stir anything up this much, and my original statement was more of a tangent that only slightly related to the comment I wanted to make about autonomous cars.
Regarding empathy vs. understanding, I'll direct you to another comment[1] I made on the subject, but the TL;DR version is that I believe that I am empathetic to the plight of people who feel they need anonymity, but am not empathetic to the people who feel that they need anonymity and must also have it on Google Plus, despite there being other alternatives available.
This means that I support the notion real names on Google Plus, and I also believe that all speech should be free, but that you should also have the courage to attach your name to it. Yes, I understand that there are reasonable circumstances in which that would not be ideal, but perhaps due to my aforementioned luxury of being a 'normal' white male, I am ignorant to how much they would matter in real life. I am neither queer nor gender-queer, so while I am empathetic to their struggles, I just can't identify with what are possibly very real concerns about losses of anonymity, and as I've met people who are public with their genderqueer status who haven't been assailed or assaulted, I can't help but wonder if the fear isn't simply perceived fear or not.
Regardless, aside from that (which again, I empathy with, but cannot relate to) the only other thing I took issue with in the article was the categorization of the autonomous vehicle as a 'geek toy'. It isn't, and that marginalizes an entire category of technology that has a very real possibility of changing the world in a very positive way to 'something SV types are wasting money on', which I take issue with.