![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elke_tanzer posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
googleplus(cross-posted to https://plus.google.com/107619776564880847214/posts/Cg4RGwi5HD7 and http://elke-tanzer.dreamwidth.org/1082873.html)
I've just posted the following as a comment to https://plus.google.com/104013835962992611989/posts/GuDVrkAdmTy (edit: because of a technical glitch, John has moved the post to https://plus.google.com/104013835962992611989/posts/j7w3CmpSUo4)
Hi John... The post you have linked to here is from July 9th; I have in fact posted more recent information, and respectfully request that you take a careful look through my more recent posts.
The fact that official Google documents are not internally consistent is a serious problem, and one that in all of my information-gathering I have not seen satisfactorily addressed anywhere.
This sentence is very unclear:
Google services support three different types of use when it comes to your identity: unidentified, pseudonymous, identified. Google Profiles is a product that works best in the identified state.
When I activated my G+ account, it was with the understanding that while G+ might work "best" in the identified state, it was also quite acceptable to participate in G+ in the pseudonymous state, and frankly, that is an important differentiating factor between G+ and Facebook for me.
Until http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271 is clarified, it is my understanding that my pseudonymous account conforms to G+'s naming requirements, because those requirements are nebulous and unclear.
However, just in case you have not figured it out from my Profile: Elke Tanzer is a persistent pseudonym which is not the name on my passport; I have been online as Elke for over a decade. I go by my legal name in certain settings, and I go by Elke in other settings, and I have maintained that separation for over a decade.
If Google officially clarifies the naming policy such that it is clear that pseudonymous use of G+ is disallowed, I will be Data Migrating and Downgrading my account (so that I can continue to use Gmail), to comply with a clear policy. I will also have decided that G+ is quite the equivalent of Facebook (which is to say: completely insufficient for my social networking needs, because half of my social graph knows me as Elke and half of my social graph knows me by my legal name).
By speaking up about this names policy problem (rather than bowing to the chilling effects and silencing that Google's lack of clarity is causing in all of these discussions), I am facing increased risk of spurious suspension of my G+ account, until the G+ policy is clarified.
Side note: If anyone wants to save a local copy of the G+ Orientation Linkspam post I made (which many have found useful: https://plus.google.com/107619776564880847214/posts/9DqSD5QFVx1), now might be a good time to do so, because I do not know what happens to reshares while an account is suspended. I strongly suspect that someone malicious will be trying to make a test case out of me; Elke has had confrontations with misogynistic men online who I never, ever want to allow access to my legal name, and they may still be stalking Elke's online presence.
EDIT: Additional technical information from Liz Fong in the comments on this post over at G+: "while a profile is suspended, all top-level posts by that profile temporarily 404. The person's G+ profile 404s as well. However, comments that person has left on other peoples' posts, and reshares of that person's posts remain intact."
I've just posted the following as a comment to https://plus.google.com/104013835962992611989/posts/GuDVrkAdmTy (edit: because of a technical glitch, John has moved the post to https://plus.google.com/104013835962992611989/posts/j7w3CmpSUo4)
Hi John... The post you have linked to here is from July 9th; I have in fact posted more recent information, and respectfully request that you take a careful look through my more recent posts.
The fact that official Google documents are not internally consistent is a serious problem, and one that in all of my information-gathering I have not seen satisfactorily addressed anywhere.
This sentence is very unclear:
Google services support three different types of use when it comes to your identity: unidentified, pseudonymous, identified. Google Profiles is a product that works best in the identified state.
When I activated my G+ account, it was with the understanding that while G+ might work "best" in the identified state, it was also quite acceptable to participate in G+ in the pseudonymous state, and frankly, that is an important differentiating factor between G+ and Facebook for me.
Until http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?answer=1228271 is clarified, it is my understanding that my pseudonymous account conforms to G+'s naming requirements, because those requirements are nebulous and unclear.
However, just in case you have not figured it out from my Profile: Elke Tanzer is a persistent pseudonym which is not the name on my passport; I have been online as Elke for over a decade. I go by my legal name in certain settings, and I go by Elke in other settings, and I have maintained that separation for over a decade.
If Google officially clarifies the naming policy such that it is clear that pseudonymous use of G+ is disallowed, I will be Data Migrating and Downgrading my account (so that I can continue to use Gmail), to comply with a clear policy. I will also have decided that G+ is quite the equivalent of Facebook (which is to say: completely insufficient for my social networking needs, because half of my social graph knows me as Elke and half of my social graph knows me by my legal name).
By speaking up about this names policy problem (rather than bowing to the chilling effects and silencing that Google's lack of clarity is causing in all of these discussions), I am facing increased risk of spurious suspension of my G+ account, until the G+ policy is clarified.
Side note: If anyone wants to save a local copy of the G+ Orientation Linkspam post I made (which many have found useful: https://plus.google.com/107619776564880847214/posts/9DqSD5QFVx1), now might be a good time to do so, because I do not know what happens to reshares while an account is suspended. I strongly suspect that someone malicious will be trying to make a test case out of me; Elke has had confrontations with misogynistic men online who I never, ever want to allow access to my legal name, and they may still be stalking Elke's online presence.
EDIT: Additional technical information from Liz Fong in the comments on this post over at G+: "while a profile is suspended, all top-level posts by that profile temporarily 404. The person's G+ profile 404s as well. However, comments that person has left on other peoples' posts, and reshares of that person's posts remain intact."
