The title should be clear that the advocate or advocates in question here are Google employees. That doesn't make any gag right, but it is vital context.
And it should also be clear that it's not even clear any gag orders have occurred. The entire evidence to support this thesis is:
> @Skud: ok, unless someone tells me otherwise, it looks like google employees who don’t support the names policy have been gagged. #nymwars
> @Skud: @lizthegrey this is your chance to tell me i’m wrong, btw.
Somebody not responding to your tweet is hardly proof employees are being gagged. Here's one idea: maybe Liz doesn't want to be the center of attention on this anymore.
Maybe I misread this, but this seemed the basis for assuming it was a gag order:
>On July 25th (four days ago) she stopped posting on the subject altogether. Looking at her stream, though, I see that she did post, without any comment, a link to a Wikipedia article talking about gag orders.
Further, the poster says liz is a friend, so it seems likely they'd get some response to a direct question if she wasn't gagged.
She posted 46 articles on the subject in less than a month. If you don't call that a crusade, I don't know what is.
Of course, if you're suggesting that she simply got burnt out, that's a possibility. I could understand decreasing the number of essays written on the subject, but responding to a tweet seems like something that she'd do, given her previous crusade.
The 'gag' in question doesn't apply specifically to this matter, employees usually aren't allowed to discuss this sort of stuff, they let PR handle it.
I wonder if this is related to Steve Yegge standing up in front of the entire Internet and saying that Google+ is a huge waste of time. That happened on the 25th as well, and could easily have annoyed a VP to the point of prohibiting negative comments by Google employees.
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 would imagine a large part of this is that if someone launches a lawsuit, anything said will be twisted into an admission of guilt or at least knowledge of the offense.
This is getting silly and borderline paranoid.
I think this whole pseudonym thing is an overreaction, and an unfair criticism to an incomplete project.
As for the this 'gag' stuff she offers no proof and seems like she is just conveniently picking narrative to complement her disapproval.
Well, the pseudonym thing was a valid complaint, and it is a genuine issue for some people.
Though I don't think it's an issue that deserves the sort of day-after-day-after-day-after-day-after-day-after-day nonstop coverage it's getting. It's a minor-ish problem some people have with a new product or service, though, and for some reason the tech press loves to latch onto those and make them into OMG ONLY THE BIGGEST PROBLEM EVAR (see: "antennagate").
Though even there, the difference between this and "antennagate" was that Apple shipped a finished product. Google+ is decidedly in field test beta (and did not cost $200-$600).
I agree, most people use their real names (see: Facebook), and a new service should focus on the majoring or its users first get that right then address the statistically less significant (but evidently very loud) segment.
1. When a project is incomplete is _exactly_ the time to raise a fuss about something being wrong. Acting like we should excuse Google because it's incomplete is completely missing the point.
2. The gag stuff sounds pretty well confirmed by Skud's contacts at Google, a company she was until very recently employed at and knows a lot more about the internal machinations of. Where do you work, exactly? (And by the way, why are you posting under a pseudonym?)
There are no valid reasons for this policy, and after weeks of criticism, Google ought to realize it. This would not be an "immediate fix", this would be a "month or more in coming" fix.
As for "proof", either you haven't read Skud's entire post, or you're just calling her a liar. Oddly enough, I trust her up-front statements more than your vague intimations.
You using a pseudonym has a lot to do with the present issue. The entire issue revolves around pseudonyms. You apparently have no objection to forcing people not to use pseudonyms, but use one yourself. I think that's needs to be explored if you're to have any credibility in a debate about Google's policy on pseudonyms.
You still haven't said where you work.
The headline isn't at all misleading. It is slightly vague, but the vagueness is resolved simply by clicking the link. Vague headlines are nothing new.
Of course there are valid reasons for the policy, Facebook's growth is proof enough. Real names carry more weight and I doubt it's more than a handful of self-described activists who are whining about nyms.
I'm saying that she is on a crusade and she might be interpreting things from that prospective.
I use pseudonyms where they are allowed and don't go on a crusade when they aren't.
I don't work for Google if that is what you're asking.
