Well, we were warned this was coming.
Google has begun culling accounts from its Google +. First to the chopping block were businesses and publications, who found their Google + corporate accounts shunted off the site. According to Google, they’re trying to keep Google + as a service for individuals only, at the current juncture. Okay. That’s fair, I suppose. They’re just emphasizing the ‘social’ aspect of social networking. It’s rather difficult to interact on a meaningful level with an entire corporation or website, isn’t it? And even if a business or publication is booted, there are still individuals within said organizations that still have accounts, in any case.
What’s causing far more of a stir is the fact that Google’s also taking out accounts that don’t contain personal information- for example, people who prefer not to give out details of their personal lives. Want to be known by a handle or avatar on Google +? Google would rather you didn’t.
thinq_-whose own G+ account was just booted-interviewed a Second Life user who goes by the handle of Opensource Obscure; who today logged in to find that their account was among the first to be cut free of Google’s new social networking platform. Oh, don’t get me wrong- the account’s still there. It’s just that Obscure can’t actually do anything with it- it’s listed as suspended. The reason Google gave for the move?
“After reviewing your profile, we determined that the name you provided violates our community standards.”
That’s right, the name. For their part, Obscure is being very reasonable about the whole situation, and claims they’re waiting for a reply from Google before passing judgement on the situation. In the interview with thinq_, Obscure explained their reasons for the name- and why they believe the suspension is either unjust, or simply a mistake. Seems pretty likely they’re giving Google the same explanation.
“I usually don’t publicly associate my real name to social networks or on-line services for privacy reasons.” Obscure told thinq_. And it’s not like Obscure’s some random spammer or bot, either. “On Twitter, I currently have 1,100 followers- and that’s legit followers, as I block spammers and SEO-people. After I started using Second Life I became quite competent about some of its aspects- mostly technical. This gained me a good reputation in the community.”
So why is Obscure’s name a problem?
Google’s Community Standards
“Your profile should represent you. We don’t allow impersonation of others or other behavior that is misleading or intended to be misleading. To help fight spam and prevent fake profiles, use the name your friends, family, or co-workers usually call you. For example, if your full legal name is Charles Jones Jr. But you normally use Chuck Jones or Junior Jones, either of these would be acceptable.”
And what if you normally use a name like “Opensource Obscure?” True, at a cursory glance, the fact that the account features a second life avatar and an obvious handle makes it appear as though it does violate the terms. But at the same time, Obscure’s really well known in the Second Life community, and their profile leaves no doubts as to the fact that this is them- they are a real person; not a spammer, and not a fake. It wouldn’t be all that difficult to determine who Obscure is, with a bit of research. Yet Google- who has a reputation for not making snap decisions- has still suspended the account.
It’s a rather grim and unfortunate stance to take, but one has to wonder if Google’s new policy is somehow connected to their advertising business. See, they can’t really drive that business with fake accounts. If someone signs up as “Charles Foster Ofdensen,” that doesn’t really give their agencies much to work with, does it? It’s a cynical standpoint, and one that’s echoed by the thinq_ article. And for my part, I hope that’s not the case.
The Potential Backlash
Obscure’s got a very reasonable idea. Some people, for whatever reason, wish to keep their personal information private. Maybe they’re a role player, and they’re creating a Google + account for their persona. Maybe they’re putting together an account that pays homage to their favorite character from a book, movie, game, or TV series. Or, like Obscure, maybe they simply prefer to keep their real life separate from Social Networking, and would rather be known as their character. And honestly? I don’t really see a problem with any of those reasons.
There are other reasons people might want their data kept secret online, as well.
Perhaps they’re trying to escape a digital stalker- or stalkers, as it were. Let’s face it, there are a lot of unsavory characters on the world wide web; a lot of folks who most people would rather avoid. It’s not just stalkers, either. What’s to stop a spammer, or a scammer from creating a Google + account, and then mining for the personal information of users on the site? Remember, Google’s aiming to pretty much eliminate private profiles from the website altogether. Now, I’m all for social interaction and open communication, but seriously…Google is playing with fire.
They run the risk of shooting themselves right in the foot here.
“I already had hundreds of ‘virtual persons’ in my Second Life circle on Google+,” said Obscure, “and I think most of them are using my same approach with regard to username,
picture, and identity. So, we’re probably going to hear soon from them if their accounts get locked.” And it’s not just Second Life players, either. Fact is, Google’s ‘no-privacy’ approach to social networking runs the risk of alienating a lot of potential users. And as I’ve said before, you’d be stupid not to think Facebook isn’t going to capitalize on that fact.
“Want privacy? Facebook lets you set your profile information to private, unlike certain competitors.”
How many people do you suppose will be swayed by such a statement?
Via thinq_
If you want to be Obscure there are sites you can be ‘obscure’ on or play out your life as an avatar. I applaud Google’s efforts. You want privacy? There are privacy settings.