There are so many issues here, and a big one is the misconception that forcing people to use their legal name (or in Google's case, their "name-shaped name") will somehow improve the "quality" of comments. Not only has that been demonstrated to be untrue[1], but it also hurts people who have quite valid reasons (including personal desire) to keep their names or personas separated.
One other thing to keep in mind: it is not the name which is used that changes how you speak, so much as the context in which you speak. For example, a lot of sites started forcing "Facebook only" and noticed a change in user discussion/comments; I'd argue that this change was less the display name someone used, and more the fact that their discussion became viewable by people outside the scope of the non-Facebook website. Think about how context matters: if you are (for example) homosexual and closeted to your family, would you change what you wrote, knowing it could be shared with them?
There are many many more elements to this, and yet the bottom line is I think that not only do these moves by Google reflect incompetence at the executive level and a clear disconnect with the real needs of real people, but they also demonstrate a lack of respect for the things people need most online: agency and free speech.
I've spoken publicly at several conferences about this, and am now working to establish a "NymRights" working group within NSTIC, an online standards organization. If you're interested in this issue, volunteer!
There are so many issues here, and a big one is the misconception that forcing people to use their legal name (or in Google's case, their "name-shaped name") will somehow improve the "quality" of comments. Not only has that been demonstrated to be untrue[1], but it also hurts people who have quite valid reasons (including personal desire) to keep their names or personas separated.
One other thing to keep in mind: it is not the name which is used that changes how you speak, so much as the context in which you speak. For example, a lot of sites started forcing "Facebook only" and noticed a change in user discussion/comments; I'd argue that this change was less the display name someone used, and more the fact that their discussion became viewable by people outside the scope of the non-Facebook website. Think about how context matters: if you are (for example) homosexual and closeted to your family, would you change what you wrote, knowing it could be shared with them?
There are many many more elements to this, and yet the bottom line is I think that not only do these moves by Google reflect incompetence at the executive level and a clear disconnect with the real needs of real people, but they also demonstrate a lack of respect for the things people need most online: agency and free speech.
I've spoken publicly at several conferences about this, and am now working to establish a "NymRights" working group within NSTIC, an online standards organization. If you're interested in this issue, volunteer!
-aestetix
[1] http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/12/30/2011...