Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Youtube Google

Google Wants You to Use Your Real Name on YouTube 602

Posted by samzenpus
from the what's-your-handle dept.
Google has launched a pop-up dialogue box on YouTube that urges you to use your real name when trying to make a comment. From the article: "When you try to comment on a YouTube video, a box will pop up that displays your username as it’s currently seen, along with a side-by-side comparison to what it will look like if you let YouTube pull your name from Google+. You can choose 'I don’t want to use my real name,' but that will lead to another dialogue box that basically guilts you into agreeing. If you still insist on remaining anonymous, you have to tell Google why: 'My channel is for a show or character' or 'My channel name is well-known for other reasons' are two options. 'I want to remain anonymous, is–unsurprisingly–not one."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Wants You to Use Your Real Name on YouTube

Comments Filter:
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday July 23, 2012 @11:36AM (#40737791)

    So if you don't have a Google+ account, would it bring up any warning?

    At first I didn't join Google+ because Google literally would not let me - I had a paid Google Apps account and giving them money meant you were dirt as far as they were concerned, they wouldn't let you join Google+ for months (I guess they figured they were already collecting the personal information they wanted from you through your account so strip mining your Google+ data was irrelevant).

    After paid accounts could join, I thought - why should I if they didn't want me at the start?

    Turns out to have been a great choice, getting better by the day.

    Really makes you think twice about having a Google account for anything, although there's really no great replacement for some of the services they offer...

  • by Skarecrow77 (1714214) on Monday July 23, 2012 @11:38AM (#40737821)

    I know I should be annoyed at the elimination of anonymous options, and in most any other setting I would be, but youtube? yeah I think I'd like to see this play out. just don't make a universal case out of it google.

  • by ZackSchil (560462) on Monday July 23, 2012 @11:38AM (#40737827)

    Is Google seriously trying to use the power of Google+ to twist people's arms on a real name policy? Google, you can't do that until the service is actually popular! My Google+ profile is just some bullshit I made to check out the service. I can delete it or fill it with fake info any time I want. It means nothing to me. If you insist on linking it to services I don't want it linked to, I'll just stop using the service I like less. Which is gonna be Google+!

  • Why Google Why (Score:5, Interesting)

    by magsk (1316183) on Monday July 23, 2012 @11:39AM (#40737849)
    I have historically been a believer in google, and thought they where one of the few companies who put principles like free information etc ahead of profit (my naivety). But moves like this are further cementing my belief that something is rotten at google, and it started to get real bad once Page became CEO. The one good thing about this is that it opens up the doors for competitors to take business from google imho, creating competition.
  • by cayenne8 (626475) on Monday July 23, 2012 @11:49AM (#40738015) Homepage Journal
    Isn't it just simple to by pass this...by not having a Google or FB account...or at the very least, NOT telling Google about a G+ account when creating a new YouTube account?

    Hell....my YT account is with a non-gmail, throw away account...set up with another throw away acct...etc.

  • I had a paid Google Apps account and giving them money meant you were dirt as far as they were concerned, they wouldn't let you join Google+ for months (I guess they figured they were already collecting the personal information they wanted from you through your account so strip mining your Google+ data was irrelevant)

    Actually, there were technical challenges with enabling Apps accounts. I don't know what they were exactly, but I think they had to do with ensuring that nothing broke for big enterprise users of Apps.

    When Google+ came out there was huge internal demand for Apps-enabling it -- I'm sure it wouldn't surprise you to know that many Google employees have their personal domains hosted on Apps -- and if it could have been done any faster, it would have. For those intervening months the question was raised in virtually every TGIF (weekly company-wide meetings during which, among other things, employees have the opportunity to question management in front of the whole company) and the Google+ team was getting really apologetic by the time it finally rolled out.

  • by modecx (130548) on Monday July 23, 2012 @12:22PM (#40738499)

    As of today I found if you have a google+ account and opt to not use your real name in lieu of a username, you can't post replies to comments, even to your own videos. They didn't warn this would happen when you denied to use your real name, and it was immensely frustrating to not have a working reply button, and more so to not know why. Well, there it is.

    While I have no habit of spewing vitriol, and write every comment as though I am accountable, I also have no want or desire to make it easy for any number of stalkers to come straight to my own front door; and without compromising their anonymity! Even if I were comfortable with putting my real name out there and associating it with my YouTube content, there's such a small handful of people in the world with my name that it's effectively unique. Talk about opening yourself up to ambush.

    What did I do, you might ask? I deleted my G+ identity, and nothing of value was lost. I can now keep in touch with my subscribers. If they keep this up, I will have to abandon their services, and I won't feel the least bit of remorse.

  • by sarysa (1089739) on Monday July 23, 2012 @12:35PM (#40738705)
    I know you're joking, but I'm actually going to defend 4chan here. Yeah it's anonymous, and there's lots of things going on there that'd make a soldier who has done two tours in Iraq blush, but their culture of anonymity is surprisingly more mature than YouTube's. Everyone knows what's going on and why they're there, and that mutual understanding makes it somewhat civilized.

    YouTube, on the other hand, is full of generally "normal" people with little to no internet savvy who spew bile from the heart. They're generally not trolling for shock value, they have hearts full of hate.

    I'm starting to see why various powers rose up throughout history under the banner of controlling the populace. It never works, but I can see why...
  • because, as a look at youtube posts, or slashdot browsing at -1 proves, it destroys the forum

    a communication channel will be abandoned by serious people if there is no signal and just a lot of useless noise. tragedy of the commons. so you need to police the commons

    perhaps youtube could embrace moderation instead, but either way, you WANT to squelch, aka, censor, useless anonymous speech

    i would be posting anonymously if i were in syria

    but in the usa, if i post anonymously, my intentions are not in the interest of a good forum, but just abusing the forum for some antisocial problem of mine

    there's always 4chan. for everything else serious, you need moderation or integrity of word and speaker with real life ids

  • by Plunky (929104) on Monday July 23, 2012 @12:42PM (#40738807)

    You could create more accounts and constantly log in/out to avoid it but that's a pain in the ass.

    You can do youtube in one browser and G+ in another... but it's still a pain in the ass.

    Surely if this becomes a significant problem, an extension could be written to allow a browser to have a unique set of cookies per page-domain? Such that a page loaded from www.youtube.com would look like a different user from the one who loads www.google.com.. of course, there would be tricks to get around that, such as tracking referrerals and such, but a privacy extension could handle that too.. I guess even 'Private Browsing' mode could be extended along these lines.. I don't think this war will ever end, and there will be many gains and losses along the way.

  • by steveg (55825) on Monday July 23, 2012 @12:53PM (#40738949)

    My real name is probably more anonymous than my Google gmail address. I use the gmail username in a number of places, but it's relatively unique -- I don't think I've ever seen anyone else use it.

    My real name, however is incredibly common -- no one would *ever* be able to tell it was *me* from the name. Which is one of the reasons I came up with the name I use for for gmail -- there's no way I could ever find a name relating to my real name to use on any service that has more than a few people on it. It's always taken. I got away with it on Slashdot, but that was on a much smaller Internet.

  • ... on this issue and say that I actually don't have a problem with Google doing this.

    This is *NOT* because I believe the premise that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, because, in fact, that premise is wholly specious (anyone who claims to genuinely believe that statement is true must be either a liar or else a public nudist).

    Rather, I don't have a problem with Google doing this simply because I firmly believe in the principle of personal resposibility, and if a person is not prepared to be held personally accountable for the things that they do, then I'm afraid I'm just going to have a hard time recognizing any alleged right that they might have to do it. That's not to say that I don't think that people are entitled to privacy... giving people privacy shows them respect, and I resolutely believe that every human being is entitled to that level of respect. There is, however, a distinct difference between privacy and public anonymity. I don't see how not giving people anonymity in public disrespects them as individuals, so I simply don't see the importance of it.

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Monday July 23, 2012 @01:21PM (#40739333)

    Try running firefox with these options:

    -ProfileManager -no-remote

    That will let you have separate profiles within firefox. You'll have separate configurations for each profile which means things like different extensions, different bookmarks and different skins (I use different skins to make it easy to tell what "task" instance of firefox is the current one).

    One flaw with both your multiple-browsers and my multiple-profile approach is flash cookies - if you use flash in any browser, they all use the same cookie storage. I work around the problem by using the BetterPrivacy plugin to delete flash cookies after 5 minutes.

  • by tlambert (566799) on Monday July 23, 2012 @02:20PM (#40740255)

    The part the summary left out: If you refuse to use your real name, then you can no longer reply to youtube comments. The option is disabled.

    This is false, I've logged in, told it I don't want to use my real name, and am still able to comment.

    He's talking about replying to comments, not making initial comments. So for example, if you post a video, and someone makes an asshat comment on it, you can't call them on it by replying, it just sits there being an asshat comment until it bothers you so badly that you relent and give out your real name.

    Basically, it's a form of emotional blackmail to get you to reveal your real name, which is what they wanted in the first place. ...now waiting for the conspiracy theorists to will claim Google hires people to make asshat comments on videos posted by people who refuse to use their real name...

  • by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Monday July 23, 2012 @02:35PM (#40740463) Homepage Journal

    Because it's on your sidewalk? Because it's a neighborhood, trying to show their dignity, civility and decency - in the face oppression?

     

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23, 2012 @03:25PM (#40741269)
    So what's your real name?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 23, 2012 @04:15PM (#40742013)

    It is a common reaction, but it's wrong -- it validates the assumption in the question, that there is something to hide.
    This. is. false.
    The question is not whether or not I have something to hide. The question is with whom I choose to share what.
    Hence, my reaction usually is along the lines of "If I have something I desire to share with you, I'll let you know."
    PS: delicious to post this as AC...

Save gas, don't use the shell.

Working...