doctorow at May 7th, 2014 21:00 — #1
jlargentaye at May 7th, 2014 21:42 — #2
It came to my attention recently that Google's reason for the "Real Names" policy is cash.
"Duh", you'd say but it's not that obvious: Facebook revolutionized advertising (or so people thought), precisely because it was the first large-scale network that had people using their REAL NAMES (naively, because back then it was more private). Since all money on the Internet came from advertising, and advertising is addicted to getting your info (for targeting), people realized what a goldmine Facebook was. And Google wanted to get on that train.
Of course, those high-and-mighty folks figured that the only people who really wanted to use pseudonyms were internet trolls and the likes of 4Chan (but I repeat myself). They didn't care for those types, so what was the harm?
bbwawb at May 7th, 2014 21:50 — #3
I wonder where BoingBoing.net will wind up in Google searches now...
dalesat at May 7th, 2014 22:03 — #4
RIght, because suggesting that a government might have a legitimate interest in keeping secrets makes you a Nazi.
...and real names that they never see let advertisers exploit people...ummmmm...somehow.
...and Google changes ranking punitively.
teapot at May 7th, 2014 22:06 — #5
1) He's making a generalised statement about the legitimacy of information classification which, I think most of us would agree, is necessary in some cases. He can believe however much he wants that it's a bad model but he's gonna be annoyed time after time since whistleblowers and the tech that can help keep their identity secret will always exist.
2) The real names policy on G+ is a load of shit... none of my accounts bar Amazon or Paypal have my real name.
3) Any company you use for email is going to know your real name, unless you're magnificently careful to exist solely as an alias which is hard/impossible if you want to buy things on the internet. They didn't have to change any policy to know your name.
4) I feel like this is the first time the post link to a source is for an illegal .epub version? Seems unfair to the author, though I do find it amusing.
mark_sabalauska at May 7th, 2014 22:17 — #6
While I believe Schmidt is wrong both in his deference to authority and his simplistic view of privacy, it seems overblown and silly to advance the claim that advocating that classification is a legitimate function of government is tantamount to being a war crimes apologist.
Regardless, Eric Schmidt is the ex-CEO of Google, unless one is of the opinion that CEO is a title of such distinction that it follows one around for the rest of one's life, like "Senator" or "Colonel" in a southern potboiler.
nungesser at May 7th, 2014 22:22 — #7
Cory sure loves his knee-jerk reactionary clickbait headlines!
captainpedge at May 7th, 2014 22:43 — #8
Amazon, Paypal and boingboing BBS...
samthebutcher at May 7th, 2014 22:48 — #9
This just in: Schmidt thinks Doctorow is a dick, too. Film at 11:00...
retepslluerb at May 8th, 2014 02:09 — #10
No, but it makes you a hypocrite, when you claim that you shouldn't be doing things that you feel you should keep secret.
goodpasture at May 8th, 2014 02:11 — #11
That's a lovely bunch of strawmen, but just to be clear:
No one thinks the government shouldn't keep secrets; they think it keeps too many secrets, often to cover up blatant, ugly crimes.
Google will use your real name to make money.
Google does, in fact, punish groups by downgrading search results.
Schmidt spouts his bullshit to maintain his bottom line, which is disgusting, but understandable. I can only hope you're trolling -- badly -- because if you actually believe this crap, that's the saddest part of all.
cowicide at May 8th, 2014 05:13 — #12
Of course, the Google douchebaggery goes deeper than most Americans are aware....
Emails reveal close Google relationship with NSA
National Security Agency head and Internet giant’s executives have coordinated through high-level policy discussions
kimmo at May 8th, 2014 05:17 — #13
When you put it like that, it sounds pretty reasonable IMO.
Schmidt's not just advocating some secrecy; he's straw-manning whistleblowers and anyone else who cares about transparency as extremists who deny any need for secrecy; effectively advocating the current level of attempted secrecy despite the litany of atrocities it's failed to conceal.
@doctorow Mad props for linking to the epub; neat combination of a gesture of disrespect and a subtle bit of evidence demonstrating the futility of persisting with a mindset and economy that's in denial of digital reality. Well-spotted, @teapot : )
cowicide at May 8th, 2014 05:19 — #14
suggesting that a government might have a legitimate interest in keeping secrets makes you a Nazi.
Good thing nobody remotely suggested that. Anything else you've hallucinated lately, socky newcomer?
Shill in hell.
cowicide at May 8th, 2014 05:43 — #15
Cory sure loves his knee-jerk reactionary clickbait headlines!
There was nothing knee-jerk about it, but your inane, hollow posts are another story:
If you and your sockpuppets don't like Cory's posts and his headlines attack your fragile sensibilities, then I suggest you avoid them at all costs before you end up with a full-on hissy fit.
nungesser at May 8th, 2014 06:10 — #16
My previous comments on an unrelated story have anything to do with this how?
And in what way is name calling appropriate?
If you don't like my comment, that's OK, but this is an incredibly weak rebuttal.
cowicide at May 8th, 2014 06:19 — #17
this is an incredibly weak rebuttal.
Agreed, and even after you ninja-edited your post, your rebuttal is still weak.
I also need to work on my rebuttals, though. Maybe some day I can reach the level of that other poster here that had that strong rebuttal to Cory that said, "Cory sure loves his knee-jerk reactionary clickbait headlines!". You know, that other poster here with the strong rebuttals? I can only dream of being that strong of a rebutter someday.
Name calling is in what way appropriate?
nungesser at May 8th, 2014 06:25 — #18
I've tried that procedure, and it's super uncomfortable. Again, not sure how it relates to Cory's click bait trollish post, but hey, thanks for the fun image.
cowicide at May 8th, 2014 06:27 — #19
Thanks for your informative and damning post. It's interesting after how after one slams down these type of hyperbolic posters with facts, they go slithering back under the rocks whence they came.
To expand on what you said, there's also this:
cowicide at May 8th, 2014 06:27 — #20
I've tried that procedure
next page →