Do you like or agree with Google+ real name policy? – a quick poll / survey!


We have earlier covered about Google+ real name policy and also wrote a detailed post about Google+ is an identity service.

You can also read about our coverage on google+ deletion warning or profile suspension. Despite numerous explanation from Google, we are seeing plenty of evidence that people are not happy or convinced about the google+ real name policy.

So we thought of rolling out a poll or survey about google+ real name policy to get some numbers behind it.

Do you agree with Google+ real name policy?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

We appreciate your help, so please take a moment (just one question) to submit this simple survey.

5 Comments

Add yours
  1. Anonymous

    The people who do like it, are you of the opinion that it will increase civility? This is not really a matter of opinion, there have been several studies over the past decade that show that it is not ‘real names’ that increases civility. We’re not asking for fly-by-night anonymity, that clearly does increase nastiness. It is persistent pseudonyms that will allow people like teachers, social workers, psychologists, doctors (as if they have time for social media!) and many others. If you have a private life, do you really want everything you ever said online to be available to a stranger’s search? To the next person who will decide on hiring you? 

    Pseudonyms are not anonymous. Please don’t kick out Superman because you think Clark Kent is more civil. 

  2. Anthony

    @AmyRedstone:disqus – If you don’t want your life public on Google+, then don’t post it publicly.  If there happens to be something you want public every once a decade then you are in luck because you can do that also.

    I really do not understand this issue.  You can’t really want people to know how you feel about certain things if you refuse to reveal who you are.  In my opinion it also loses a lot of value when someone says something but hides their identity – Even if I agree with it.  It makes me wonder what secrets they are hiding.  For example if someone that works for Planned Parenthood makes a remark that’s fine, and their opinion is whatever it is.  However if that same person makes a comment secretly, and later I find out they work for Planned Parenthood their opinion just became worthless.  With the same token if Jane Doe decides to make a remark on the topic, than it better be pretty good because they have displayed no insight to show why their opinion is of any value.Of course you can look at commenting histories of people that hide their identity, but why should I have to look at that when in reality John Doe is John Kerry?  His commenting history (presumably) is the same as what he says publicly, but he is hiding his ID?  Why is what I want to know.

    Of course all the examples are fictional and when I used real names I only do so in order to establish a famous person who would have a strong stance on certain subjects.

  3. Bruce F. Donnelly

    I like “real name” policies on listservs I’m on, and it increases civility. However, people often need to use a persistent alias–meaning not for a single post, but routinely. For instance, a gay teen who isn’t “out” may need to. As long as the alias is identified as such, has a profile, and is linked to a “real” name behind the scenes, that might work.

+ Leave a Comment