The Nymwars
rage on. Much has already been said, and I'm not sure how
much this will add to it. However, there are a few things
I really want to get off my chest about G+.
The importance of the ability to choose your own name, psuedonym,
or other identifier has been extensively covered by the tireless work
of
skud, the contributors over at
My Name Is Me,
the crowd at Geek Feminism,
Botgirl Questi,
Identity Woman,
and
many
other
folks.
But -- I just want to state how insulting, how infuriating,
how incredibly patronizing and condescending it is for
someone to tell you that they know better than you do
what your name should be.
And how belittling, how othering is it to have someone tell you
that there is something wrong with your name; that your name is not
right; that your name and the identity tied up in it are
invalid, or not adequately "real"; in need of alteration or repair?
IMNSHO, this kind of behaviour -- coming from an impersonal service
like Google, no less -- is the height of disrespect and impudence,
and it most certainly merits a rousing "fuck you".
How dare someone tell you that they know what your name is
better than you do.
Second, in this video,
Brad Horowitz mentions that minors (under 18 years) aren't
allowed to use G+ yet, and says (jokingly or not) that there
are no minors on the service at all. In the offline world,
we all know how effective age controls have been at preventing
determined underagers from getting hold of things like alcohol,
tobacco, and porn.
I'm sure keeping them out of G+ will be a veritable cake walk.
Good luck with that.
Third, one of the arguments most frequently trotted out is that
G+ is a private service. If you don't like it, don't join;
they don't have any obligation to serve you. While this may
be true after a fashion, think about how many private services
you have to use in your day-to-day life to really function
as a full member of society. Banks, telecom companies,
couriers; hell, even retail stores. How would your life look
without a bank account; without a phone, or internet access
in your house; without the ability to easily buy products
or services you need or want. While any private business
can refuse to serve you for no reason whatsoever, in most
jurisdictions anti-discrimination laws or human rights codes
get created so that folks with unpopular attributes
(you know, like being black, or queer, or an immigrant)
can, at least in principle, access the private services
they need to get by in day-to-day life.
We're not there yet on the frontiers of the Internet.
We don't yet know what combination of private services will
become well-nigh mandatory to fully participate in our
digital society. Google Plus could very well
end up being one of these, especially since it's now being
touted as an identity service, and could eventually
end up being a key part of things like job hunting or
online payment.
Finally, the language that Schmidt and others use
seems to
suggest
that they think of anyone who doesn't have some kind of strong
identifier bound tightly to them as being "fake"; translucent;
somehow less than a real person.
This not-so-subtle implication is a crock of shit.
Humanity's got on for thousands of years without
wallet names;
even more telling are the fleeting encounters you have with
strangers every day.
You may chance to exchange a smile, a scowl, a knowing
glance, or a passing kindness with dozens of folks who
are anonymous, or nearly so; and they are just as real,
if not moreso, than some faceless executive who sits
in an office and dictates policy about identity.