Google Plus should lighten up on its 'no pseudonym' policy

Last month, Sandra Large wrote an open letter to Google, criticising the company for insisting that she use her real name on Google+, rather than her pseudonym "Technogran". The social networking site requires users to use their real names, and accounts using pseudonyms have been suspended. (You can read aboutGoogle's justification for this here)

Large has called herself Technogran since the inception of the web, using it on her Blogger blog, Buzz, Google reader, Picasa and on the various forums that she contributes to.

She likes to operate under this pseudonym because, as she says: "I am a female. I am also a lone parent and carer, looking after my Down's Syndrome daughter. I am a senior citizen. As a member of society I very often feel vulnerable. If I say something on the Internet that someone else doesn't agree with, I need to know that they won't be able to find out where I live and cause me any trouble. I also want to be sure that no one can use my name via Identity theft. In other words, whilst being on and using the Internet I NEED to feel safe."

The point is that she has been using the web for years using the same name and can prove that she is not a spambot or fraudster. In addition to all of the aforementioned Google services she signed up to as Technogran, she even set up a Google profile in that name. But then Google insisted that all profiles have to be public and users cannot have pseudonyms.

It's clear from the countless "sexy ladies" who insist that we'll be the best of webcam friends on Twitter and Facebook that spambots can have a sensible first name and last name (if we categorise Crystal and Honey as "sensible"). So insisting on a first name and a last name doesn't verify someone as a bona fide social networker.

As Larges says: "None of us can know exactly who anyone is on the Internet, we have to take a lot in faith, and build our friendships on how that person conducts themselves online. If they are rude, aggressive in tone etc, then we simply block them or unfriend them. So for me, its how someone conducts themselves online over the years that should be the deciding factor, not the name that they call themselves."

Large believes that Google's refusal to allow her to use her Technogran pseudonym infringes her liberties. She says: "As long as my conduct is not hurtful or spiteful, cause others distress whilst I use that pseudonym and that most know me by that name, then I should be allowed to use it, as long as it is available on that particular service or social network."

The point is that identity isn't necessarily dictated by the name on your passport -- neither offline nor online. Nicknames and pseudonyms should be allowed, as long as the surrounding "circle" of friends is strong enough to validate the identify.

Karl Harvard, director of digital strategy at Wunderman, says: "Google has missed the point here. It has taken it upon itself to make this call on behalf of people and hence has removed the ability for people to make their own individual judgement. The motivation behind this is probably more akin to Google's desire to try and create a "pure" social network, but for me that isn't reality and removes a level of autonomy that people have in real world social circles. Quora tried to police a similar approach, but this has backfired and interest appears to be waning."

Harvard points out an interesting loophole in the system: rapper's names. Quora was forced to allow rappers to use their pseudonym after lobbying from MC Hammer, and somehow 50 Cent has been forced to call himself Curtis Brown.

Surely if Google suspends regular folk for using pseudonyms, it has to apply the same rule to rappers and actors? And if it does make allowances for rapper names, will we be seeing MC Technogran emerge any time soon?

Source: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-08/12/google-plus-pseudonyms