perspectives from the Second Life realm

[elke_tanzer]

(I originally posted this in my G+.)

Oh, this is just getting messier and messier... (disclaimer: I know very little about Second Life culture, but I respect and acknowledge that it's a common practice there, similar to in media fandom culture, to go by a pseudonym both online and offline in "daily life".)

Opensource Obscure (who was apparently TOSed from G+), and plenty of SecondLifers seem to be in the middle of another epicenter of discussion activity about the pseudonym issue. I started following some of these threads and blogposts late last night, and wow, some of the comment threads are getting toxic... a quick few links to check out:
http://dwellonit.taterunino.net/2011/07/08/google-seemingly-split-on-pseudonymous-google-accounts-and-google-profiles-its-okay-until-it-isnt/
https://plus.google.com/113892479804684135897/posts/FSsd9ePQZi7
http://www.thinq.co.uk/2011/7/8/google-starts-account-cull-google/
https://plus.google.com/102942054433646692990/posts/7u2H9RyDiPB
https://plus.google.com/107316733400561258834/posts/CWqCjXho2M7
http://dwellonit.taterunino.net/2011/07/11/follow-up-google-confirms-real-names-a-requirement-for-profilesplus-mostly/

it looks like I'll be leaving G+

[elke_tanzer]

(I've just posted a similar version of this post in my G+, and the following is crossposted to my DW.)

I had been looking for an official confirmation from Google that both Pseudonymous and Identified use of the G+ service was fine, as I had understood the TOS I signed up under. This appears to be clear indication that Pseudonymous use of G+ is unwelcome and/or against the TOS.

I'm going to give this situation a couple more days, hoping that Google as a company will catch a clue. If not, then I'm out of there.

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2011/07/google-profiles-pseudonym-avatar-names-suspension-policy.html is not good news. Google as a company appears to still NOT understand the fundamental notion that some people have persistent pseudonyms which we absolutely require to NOT be associated publicly with our legal names.

Google, how is it that such a smart company does not understand these basic concepts of identity and safety concerns? How many times do people need to send feedback linking to http://geekfeminism.org/2011/07/08/social-networking-requirements/ and
http://geekfeminism.org/2011/07/08/anti-pseudonym-bingo/ ?

Sigh, indeed. More news on this can be found at http://geekfeminism.org/2011/07/10/the-status-of-pseudonymity-and-privacy-on-google/

(And oh, look, I have a tag already in use in my journal for how I feel about this: google can eat my shorts)

Reinstated. :)

[ex_rising236]

As I've updated https://sites.google.com/site/rowanium/ to reflect, my profile has been reinstated. Just thought I'd post here and let everyone know as well.

The legality of pseudonyms

[xenacryst]

There's a post and discussion here regarding the legal status of using pseudonyms and avatar identities to enter into contracts:

http://cityofnidus.blogspot.com/2011/07/google-and-future-of-avatar-identity.html

Shortly, it may be the case in the US (and possibly other countries with similar common law regarding name changes) that it is illegal to require the use of a "real" name in any sort of contract, as long as the pseudonym/avatar identity is not used with fraudulent intent.

I'm not up to thinking through legal machinations tonight, but I put this out here as a way of getting the word out and keeping conversation going. G+/FB/others may be skirting shaky legal ground with their ToS policies.