July 20, 2011 update: Berry's Google+ account has been restored without comment. My latest thoughts are here and I will be exploring these issues in greater depth in an upcoming edition of The Social Media Monthly. I believe it is important to continue to push for individual control of identity on the web - including on the large and general community socnets.
When I first began exploring Google+ as it opened up over the July 4th weekend, one of the things that fascinated me was the activity of Second Life participants. Other than a bit of Gov 2.0 crossover - such as public works applications for SL and the City of Edmonton build - I admit to not knowing much about Second Life. I learned a bit more over the past year as a significant Second Life community set up on Empire Avenue, the social stock market. Second Lifers, it is clear, have a strong tech early adopter community. They were very prominent in the first iteration of my Google+ stream, and seemed to quite enjoy the new social network.
One of the Second Lifers I met on Empire was Strawberry Singh, a Second Life blogger and photographer who makes her living in distance education. One of my first interactions with her was in context of blog posts she wrote about the Second Life community's response to the March 2011 Japanese quake and efforts by various avatar "skin" and apparel designers.
Yesterday, Google+ suspended "Berry," as she is known, for violating its policies against using "fake" avatars to represent oneself on the service. Berry and other Second Life folk had seen this coming from the onset, and slowly they either reverted to "real" identities or were picked off by the Google police.
Of course, any service is free to set its terms of service. But what troubles me is the power that corporations like Google, Facebook and others have to force a standard of identity on individuals. And it got me thinking about what constitutes an identity as Google+ also looks to bring "business" profiles into its fold. A corporation - a concept taken legal form to sell services or products - will be accepted by Google. But not an individual who chooses to represent themselves outside Google's defined norms.
It is easy to mock Second Lifers. But I have to say I am coming to value more those who recreate themselves online than those who accept a life in which too many of us devote the majority of waking hours to jobs that we hate. And I don't want a world where "Google" is more real than "Berry."
Showing 81 reactions
Sign in with
A little story, My Dad served as a soldier in WWII, fighting the Japanese in the islands above Australia. All the Men knew each other by nicknames… Bluey, Curley, Jonesey, Ginger and so on.
After the war ended, they were in line waiting to be called to collect their papers, and they all heard their real names for the first time, Nobody knew that Curley was Roger, or Ginger was Graham.
This was a story Dad told for years.
I am not a blow in on the internet, a lot of people know who I am, especially people in the media.
This identity I have cultivated since joining the internet in the 90’s is as recognisable to those who know me, as a Coke logo identifies that particular product from another.
I have considered changing my name legally to Wolfie Rankin, and then, I most certainly could use it on a Visa card.
I’m not crying about it, if Google wishes to act this way, that’s fine, next stop, Diaspora.
Haha, am I the only one that thinks that you sound like an 8 year old? Crying because a company wont allow you to give them a fake name.
“Uh yeah, Visa. I want to open a card.” “Sure, what is your name?” “Uh……. Wolfie”.
If you still want to pretend, that is fine. Heck, I use an alias when I play games. But then there is whole other world out there, the real one, that Google is trying to graph with Google+. Fake names are contrary to their attempt to do that at the core of the project. It is simple, Google+ isn’t for fake things by definition.
But good luck with whatever you choose to use. Cheers!
I could be wrong on all of this and it will probably be possible in the near future for us to actually change our image and name as we walk down the road. That seems really strange and almost frightful to me to think about what that would do to my relationships. Just don’t know.
Until then, I don’t like the internet enabling or pretending to create a fake layer in my social network.
Yet another question: When you pay any of their services under a pseudonym with a real credit card, does that count as fake account and will that person lose the real money they have spent when they block the account for “Fake ID” reasons?
Plenty of people who use their real name are happy to behave like jerks.
How could you have failed to notice that John?