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?
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.
The real names policy on G+ is a load of shit… none of my accounts bar Amazon or Paypal have my real name.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 : )
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.