In the Dark

Google+ has arrived. So I’m told. It’s meant to be a rival to Facebook, I think, and it is described as “making sharing online more like sharing in real life”. Um.

Membership of Google+ is apparently by invitation only and, although I’ve received a few invitations, I haven’t taken the plunge yet. I’m not sure I ever will. I already waste so much time on Twitter and Facebook that I’ve scarcely got time to write my blog keep up with work.

Despite not actually being on Google+, I still feel the urge to comment on an issue that I’ve picked up via Twitter. And why not? Complete ignorance of subject matter has never stopped me from commenting on things before.

The problem, it seems, is that, unlike Twitter, Google+ does not allow users to hide behind a pseudonym. One influential blogger describes  Google’s policy as “gestapo-like”, “narrow-minded”, and “big brother” . Another suggests that it indicates that Google hates women. Both have been banned from Google+ for using aliases rather than their actual names. These and other reactions have developed into a fully-grown to-do accompanied by a not inconsiderable hoo-hah.

At the risk of being controversial, I have to say I think Google’s policy is actually quite reasonable.

There are of course many reasons why someone would want to use a nom de plume instead of their real name either on the net or elsewhere. I’ve done so myself, as a matter of fact (and I don’t mean the thin disguise I use on here, which simply demonstrates that I’m overly fond of anagrams).

The use of a pseudonym is by not illegal, neither does it imply some nefarious intent. However, I find it hard to understand the logic that removing the right to remain anonymous (or pseudonymous) is the violation of some fundamental human right.  I’ve blogged about this issue before, so won’t repeat myself here.

I also don’t understand the argument that allowing people to use Google+ incognito will do anything whatsoever to prevent harassment, stalking or bullying. The point is surely that allowing users to conceal their identity allows miscreants to do so too. Far better in my view to police misconduct by naming and shaming those responsible for abuse.

It’s an interesting coincidence that Sunday’s Observer carried a long feature about internet trolling which makes a persuasive case that the cloak of anonymity actively encourages obnoxious behaviour on the internet. People will say and do things when their identity is concealed that they wouldn’t dream of when out in the open. Allow pseudonyms on Google+ and it will be an even worse environment  for those likely to be victimised.

As another blog post explains, Google’s policy is not in any case based on it being some kind of public service, motivated by the ideals of free speech and mutual respect. It’s a business. The reason it wants people’s real names is so that it can target them with advertising.

My policy on this blog is a compromise. I allow commenters to post comments provided they give me a genuine email address. These addresses are not visible to the outside world but they reassure me that if the commenter engages in abuse or harassment then I can identify who they are and take action if necessary. I automatically check IP addresses too. I can tell you there would quite a few surprises if I revealed the identities of certain prominent individuals who have posted or attempted to post comments on this blog. In fact the biggest problem I have on here these days tends not to be abusive comments but spam; tedious automatically generated messages with links to dubious websites outnumber genuine comments by about 5 to 1.

But I digress. It seems to me that the main point is that nobody has to sign up for Google+. If you don’t like their anonymity policy then just don’t go there. Simples.

Follow @telescoper