No one wins in a "Real Names" policy; those who follow it are vulnerable and those who don't care about their reputation or the consequences of their words will be jerks and then find ways to spoof their identities after such a ban.
And it isn't just blog comments; it's everything. If people here were using their real names and weren't allowed to create sockpuppets for one-off posts, we wouldn't see nearly the honesty and humiliation we do. People being fearful of their reputation just leads to less communication, particularly on topics that are controversial but need to be talked about. You don't need to look far to see how successful communities that embrace pseudonyms are. The argument that it leads to just as many trash posts might be true (although I see just as many idiots using their Facebook accounts to post bile on news sites); but that's why voting exists. Shame the comment, not the commenter.
> And it isn't just blog comments; it's everything. If people here were using their real names and weren't allowed to create sockpuppets for one-off posts, we wouldn't see nearly the honesty and humiliation we do.
But this isn't about making the Internet as a whole non-anonymous. I realize that Google is a rather large entity, but I put a lot more trust and faith in them than other big internet players.
> don't need to look far to see how successful communities that embrace pseudonyms are.
I don't find a community where some people can say immensely hateful things as all that great. Sure, they can regulate and ban the user, but there is absolutely no responsibility taken for the aggravator's actions.
In my opinion, I'd rather there be several levels of anonymity available. Competition will drive each platform and with any luck, some semblance of a standard practice may come out of it.
I personally want people to be responsible for their actions on the Internet, until it has been completely proven it won't help, I don't see a reason to do away with a "Real Names" policy.
>> "I don't find a community where some people can say immensely hateful things as all that great. Sure, they can regulate and ban the user, but there is absolutely no responsibility taken for the aggravator's actions."
But what action would be taken if you actually knew who they were in real life? You mentioned "hateful" comments, but assuming that isn't actual threats to someone, there is no accountability beyond banning the user, pseudonym or not.
This of course also assumes people aren't faking out the "real name" restriction to begin with...
> This of course also assumes people aren't faking out the "real name" restriction to begin with...
I'm not talking about a service that half-asses the feature. I'm talking about a legitimate link between my online persona and my actual real name. G+ doesn't nearly meet my demands for this service, but at least they're trying it and hopefully making progress on legitimacy.
Besides that, the internet benefits from pseudonyms; http://readwrite.com/2012/01/16/people_using_pseudonyms_leav...
And it isn't just blog comments; it's everything. If people here were using their real names and weren't allowed to create sockpuppets for one-off posts, we wouldn't see nearly the honesty and humiliation we do. People being fearful of their reputation just leads to less communication, particularly on topics that are controversial but need to be talked about. You don't need to look far to see how successful communities that embrace pseudonyms are. The argument that it leads to just as many trash posts might be true (although I see just as many idiots using their Facebook accounts to post bile on news sites); but that's why voting exists. Shame the comment, not the commenter.