In just 24 days, Google+ amassed 20 million users, yet its choice to remove accounts lacking real names has sparked frustration. So what drives social networks to require the use of actual names?
Many individuals opt to hide or modify their identities in the online arena.
If you explore various forums, aliases like “Jboy72” and “NYgirl” vastly outnumber users who display their true names. Nonetheless, this practice is generally frowned upon by social networks.
Recently, Google has implemented its real name policy on its new platform Google+, resulting in the suspension of several accounts.
Those whose accounts were affected expressed considerable discontent. Blogger GrrlScientist, valuing her privacy, deemed the deletion of her account as “gormless.”
“I have crafted an identity and a persona and built a world both online and offline with this name,” she comments. “To me, it’s the finest part of myself, and I’m not willing to relinquish it now.”
So, what is the reason behind social networks’ insistence on real identities?
According to Google, they are responding to genuine grievances, but they argue that for users to navigate the network effectively, it is essential that they can locate friends or family members quickly and easily. This, they claim, necessitates the use of real names.
The policies mirror those of other social media giants like Facebook and LinkedIn.
“By using your real name, you enable those you know to easily find and connect with you online,” stated a Google representative.
Using real names is said to help in curbing spam. MySpace faced challenges with this in the past, and Twitter occasionally encounters “spambots.”
Furthermore, some view the requirement to use real names as a solution to the negativity that occasionally arises in forums.
The idea is that when individuals participate online under their real names, they are more inclined to act responsibly and engage truthfully with the community.
“There is a problem with trolls,” remarks Benjamin Cohen, Channel 4 News’ technology correspondent.
“Authentication is crucial; it’s a significant issue on the internet, and social networks make it less likely for someone to impersonate another user.”
Indeed, discussions can escalate quickly when anonymity is allowed. The messageboard community 4Chan has garnered considerable media attention for its postings, often containing adult themes, which afford users complete anonymity. However, founder Chris Poole maintains that such anonymity is crucial for fostering honest perspectives and is a key factor in the site’s popularity.
Opting to use a pseudonym goes beyond instances like GrrlScientist’s.
Some individuals prefer to conceal their identities to steer clear of unwanted contact, while others reside in nations where revealing their identity could result in severe consequences for expressing political beliefs or associating with certain groups.
Numerous users in China — a country where access to Google+ is hindered due to restrictions imposed by authorities on certain websites — have urged Google to reconsider its stance.
A Twitter user identified as Newsinchina — who uses the English name Richard Zhang — expressed in Chinese on Google+ before his account was deleted: “Please Google+, when formulating regulations, you must take into account the needs of Chinese users, especially those in mainland China.
“Be sure to consider the actual circumstances of users. Please do not impose a real-name system on them. Otherwise, I’m afraid Google will be contravening its ‘don’t be evil’ principle.”
Indeed,The motto “Don’t be evil” by Google has appeared in various posts; however, some analysts believe that the suspension of accounts on Google+ is more of an oversight than a deliberate action.
Robin Grant, managing director of the social media agency We Are Social, states, “They’re still in Beta [test] mode and perhaps been too strict in enforcing the rules.”
According to him, “They are most probably going to change it to allow human rights activists, for example, to hide their identity. They’re not going to leave themselves open to that sort of criticism.”
In his opinion, “It’s not a fully fleshed out product, and they made a mistake, but I don’t think it’s sinister.”
Nonetheless, whispers in the blogosphere suggest that the primary motive for social networks insisting on real names might be their financial benefit. Real names tend to attract more advertisers.
Nate Elliott, vice-president principal analyst at Forrester Research, notes, “The more Google knows about its audience, the better it can target adverts of interest and therefore make more money.”
He adds, “That said, it’s very unlikely that people would focus on the first name or last name fields to target people.”
He emphasizes, “Of all the ways Google has to connect your profile with your other behaviour on Google, that’s by far the least exact.”
Others concur that demographics and interests data are much more critical to revenue than just the name itself.
Grant highlights, “It’s not really about being able to sell someone’s name but their intent – people’s search and social behaviour.”
He continues, “It doesn’t matter if you know their name or not; what matters is the connection between what they say they do and what they actually do.”
Regardless of the motivations, many will continue to advocate for the right to use pseudonyms.
by Jeff Millins