There's a large enough class of people that would tone down what they say if they were tagged about what they say ( what if I could link you back to some posts on Stormfront?), or if the person they were wishing to die had a name.
The bigger chilling effect is my situation. I would love to comment, but I'd rather not create potentially incriminating or embarrassing ties back to my personal life. People may think this is exclusively limiting trolling, but for me, it limits me discussing economics, politics, and controversial events that usually 30% of the population is always creating bad opinion about.
At least with pro username websites, you can opt into real names. I feel like this is the optimum approach, and that all others are subversive to a completely free conversation, which is what the internet first championed.
So, you posted this (at least, at time of me writing this) twice in this thread. I disagree and would like to provide a counter argument below at least one of your submissions.
1. You mix pseudonym and anonymous (your other post says "They do officially support anonymity").
2. The Real Name™ BS is still binding for the main G+ account. I have to tell Google my name, then they are kind enough to allow me to enrich their knowledge about me with all the online handles I use...
That _might_ be enough for the use case the GP described, it very much isn't 'anonymous', not 'pseudonymous' if you tell name and handle to the biggest ad company on this planet and still a real name policy that is utterly broken and stupid.
(Minor G+ rant follows)
People like me are seeing the technical proficiency of the G+ system every day. If my GMail tab (for whatever reasons) logs me out I can log in again - just to be sent to my 'suspended profile'. Note that I was looking at GMail moments ago and certainly would like to see Gmail again.
Instead of G+ I get this:
Your profile is currently suspended
Until your profile is unsuspended, you will be unable to use this feature.
Visit your profile to learn more.
where 'profile' links to https://profiles.google.com/me?hl=en - which goes in a loop (url again plus.google.com/something/foo, same text, no way out).
Creating G+ Page's for Youtube isn't tied/doesn't require having a G+ Profile. If you don't have one on an existing gmail address it just creates a disembodied Page while your main account continues G+-less. Granted new @gmail's come with G+ profiles so someone who wants to be anon has to go through the effort of putting in a fake name/DOB then deleting the profile. But fake name/DOB were required for a @gmail.com even before G+ existed, so the only thing which has effectively changed is the busy work of deleting the profile. So I stand by the statement that Youtube anonymity is in reach.
As for the rant, random brokenness/inadequate customer support is hardly a trait limited to G+, it extends to all their products.
I'd like a pseudonym system curated by me, in which I'm the only one linking up my various identities, not one curated by Google, where they, selected advertising partners, and the NSA, do the link-ups.
There is always a possibility to create a pseudonymous G+ account with a fake name. Its not like Google requires an ID to create an account. I don't get it, completely free conversation quality on youtube is abysmal. Why do you want that on Youtube?
Google has a real name only policy on Google+. This does result in accounts being suspended and all sorts of weird interactions with google staff/robots. For instance I have a friend who's last name is Love but created a google+ account using a pseudonym. Now she wants to use her real name but despite several attempts, they refuse to accept the change since the GOOG doesn't believe that it's real sounding enough.
And yet it's allowed me to call myself 'Bruce Wayne' ever since they started with this real-name crusade.
Honestly, the chilling effect worries me. I appreciate that a lot of people would rather just not deal with the like of Stormfront, and simply pretend to themselves that people like that do not exist, and that those views are not held, but this is a harmful way of dealing with anti-social views.
Even if we argue that a real-name policy would totally kill off all hateful comments, we have to consider if this is even a good thing; hateful comments should be met with rational arguments that undermine them, and show them to be incorrect. If someone says "all [people of some class] are evil", then one solution is to shame them into shutting up by linking their comment to their real name, but this just allows them to continue to think this way without ever hearing a dissenting opinion (I mean, they're hardly likely to bring this up in public, are they?).
The internet has a wonderful power to throw people of contrasting views together, and get them to show each other how they think, and allow them to change their minds. The mere fact that this process may sometimes result in offense isn't a good enough reason to stop it. If someone's views offend you, then it is your duty to prove them wrong and -- if you cannot do so -- consider that your own views might be incorrect.
I know I've personally debated with others online and learned from the experience, and I also know that I'd never have done so were it the case that I would have had my real name linked to the views I was espousing. It strikes me as incredibly harmful for society in general to attempt to silence offensive speech, not only because it means that those who hold offensive opinions can never be proven wrong, but also because it means that unpopular, yet true, opinions have no platform to be proven right.
It just hurts me to have activities getting logged into two different places, or always logging in and out depending on what I am doing at the moment.
If say I am watching a clip on guns, and then I make a comment on the clip, against or for, people will realize I watch clips on guns which I'd rather not share.
> Its not like Google requires an ID to create an account.
5 out of 7 times I've tried to create a Google accounts over the last years I was asked for a mobile number (that an SMS was to be sent to) before I could register. Given that a huge chunk of android users synchronizes their address books with google my mobile number is effectively as good as my ID.
Unfortunately those 3 times I actually needed the account I was trying to create all required my phone number, so they are all tied to my real name (and address and birthday, etc.).
Google requires you to identify yourself with a telephone number. Unless you find some anonymous number(s) to use, you cannot hide your identity from it.
