Google's abhorrent new action on using absolute names in Google+ finer agency that the account is now a crisis to absolute people. You accept to ask yourself why a aggregation that apprenticed to not be angry would do this.
Google has said that if you don't "use your abounding aboriginal and endure name in a individual language" you're in abuse of it's agreement of service. If it flags you, you'll accept four canicule to change it or it'll cossack your ass. You can't use brand (even that's what you go by). You can't use a pseudonym (even if that's what you go by). And you can't use numbers or symbols (even if they are allotment of your name).
Æ, e.e. cummings, Malcolm X, and T.S. Eliot would all be in abuse of Google's policy. So, too (by my reading) would be Mark Twain, George Eliot and doubly so, R.U. Sirius. I'm appealing abiding cipher whose name you in fact apperceive in the bandage U2 can use Google+ or, by extension, Gmail.
It's harder to accept why Google would commence on such a arbitrary policy. The a lot of acceptable acknowledgment is that this is a authentic character play. Forget amusing networking, the big goldmine of the approaching is online character verification. This could be Google prioritizing accepting advanced in that chase over its users' preferences and safety.
In added words, it's Google putting money and acquisitiveness over humanity. It's Google getting evil.
Last week, Danah Boyd very eloquently laid out the case adjoin a absolute names requirement. In short, if you don't let humans use pseudonyms online, you're putting humans in danger. Real, physical, danger.
Let's say you are a gay boyhood considering suicide who wants to ability out online after abhorrence of your ancestors award out. Or maybe you are a bigmouth who fears retribution. Or a being of acceptance who could be accountable to religious persecution. Or a agitator who fears imprisonment. A aged wife gluttonous shelter.
Or maybe you're somebody whose absolute absolute name violates Google's policy. For example, it doesn't acquiesce any numbers or symbols. So, sorry, Jennifer 8. Lee. I apperceive you're a highly-respected and acclaimed journalist, but your name has a amount in it so you've got four canicule to change that or you can fuck off aback to Facebook.
And I don't apperceive what the heck Prince is traveling to do about this.
The simple answer, of course, is artlessly to not use Google+. And I'm absolutely abiding some humans will apriorism that as a solution. But there are two affidavit that's not the answer.
First, Google is too big and too important. As goes Google so goes the Web. It is one of a scattering of companies that has absolute ability and influence, able of alteration the cachet quo all on its own. If this becomes Google's accepted policy, anon it will be that of the Internet itself.
Second, and this is accompanying to the first, is that Google+ is a community. And we as a association we accept a assignment to plan to accomplish our communities chargeless and open. We accept a assignment to change what is wrong, rather than to artlessly say "move along." Imagine, for example, if instead of alive to change civilian rights laws in the American South, the abandon riders had just offered one-way bus tickets to Massachusetts. If you don't like it in Birmingham, you should just move to Boston.
Google is one of the better companies in the world, it touches billions of people. Governments consistently amendment abstracts from it. The things it knows about you matter. A lot.
Of course, Google does accomplish it simple to abdicate Plus. It does action a abstracts liberation service that lets you yield aggregate you've done on Google+ and put it on your harder drive.
Yet while it's admirable that Google is alms means to deliver data, it aswell care to be alms to deliver its users from abhorrence of persecution. Sadly, appropriate now, it's accomplishing just the opposite.
You can accumulate up with Mat Honan, the columnist of this post, on Twitter, Facebook, or Google+.
No hay comentarios :