People are claiming that is straight, undeniably evil of Google to merge identity systems. I say that those commenters don't really know what evil is and their priorities are way off.
No, but I might have previously liked or commented on a vlog by another gay or transgender person which is suddenly publicly tied to my regular Google account. Or I might have expressed a political opinion which isn't going to get me persecuted but might alienate a manager at work or a relative.
And yeah, there's ways of preventing this but they're pretty difficult to figure out (the Google+ page route) and it's fairly easy to make a mistake. Especially if they keep changing things.
I don't work at Google, so you won't see any proofs out of me (nor of course you'd see any if I did work at Google).
But sooner or later, the browsing habits out of the two active accounts are bound to converge pretty well. Remember you've been tracked not just when you post comments, but on every page out there that has a "+1" button. Then, there will be some close friends who'd be connected on both accounts.
In addition both your real and fake account are very likely to be accessed from the same set of IPs or subnets, locations and time slices.
This may sound complicated, but this sort of mining is just an extension of spam filtering techniques (to which at this point Google invested many millions), and requires zero human intervention. And since it can be done and there is an incentive for Google to do it, it will be done.
btw, I agree that Google will try to correlate account data. That has obvious business value. But it is not obvious at all that Google will flag accounts based on this correlation. That was your statement I was arguing against, not practical possibility of matching various accounts to the same owner.
I could be wrong, but I think Greame is talking about the concept of Pages to create an pseudonym for individuals, not for (small) companies. Apparently you can create a pseudonym on Google+ with Pages, but Pages are mainly marketed towards brands and companies [1], not individuals. It's confusing even for Google employees [2], let alone users.
A support page on YouTube tries to explain the difference between Google+ Profiles, Google+ Pages and Google Accounts [3]. But the fact that a Page can be managed by up to 50 different people suggests, at least to me, that the use of Pages to create and manage your pseudonym is more incidental than intentional.
I did successfully create a page. The problem was that it's still not clear to me how to keep identities separate.
I previously worked for a startup, and had a google apps account. It was impossible to convince Google that the account shouldn't have a Google+ profile, or that it should be the same profile as my personal profile.
And to date I'm still not sure if my page is a youtube account page, a page on my personal account page, or both.
I'm sure there are answers to these questions. I'd say most of my research time was spent making sure that the page wouldn't do something I didn't want it to do, because Google+ burned me repeatedly by unintended behavior.
Google also tends to make things permanent, such as the capitalization of my Youtube account channel. So it's not as simple as "follow the instructions on the page".
If you care about identity, you have to follow the instructions on the page AND make sure the instructions won't lead to something permanently wrong.
That is a good thing when creation of an anonymous account takes some time and/or proof-of-work. That limits spam while providing an opportunity for legit uses of anonymous accounts.
I already had two separate identities. I repeatedly told Google I wanted them kept separate. Google merged them.
There's no clear way for me to undo the damage. Screenshots I've posted for my YouTube configuration preferences don't show what other's equivalent shots do. I'm, frankly, not interested in jumping through hoops to get what Google might offer by way of account segregation now, and change its mind on in another 3, or 6, or 24, or 72 months. Clearly I cannot trust it to respect my specifically indicated wishes, and clearly, the company doesn't respect its users (in many ways, I've detailed these elsewhere including on HN).
Oh, and both identities are pseudonymous. And I studiously avoided circling anyone I knew IRL to avoid outing myself. Never posted photos I'd actually taken, carefully edited screenshots to avoid showing revealing information (though I likely left in a few clues that would help narrow down my identity). Don't mention where I live, where I work, or how I spend my time.
Simply because my preference is to be able to speak freely and discuss things, though really, the "why" shouldn't matter. I simply prefer it this way.
This amounts to saying "You should not participate in society".
Yes, everyone is free to avoid using Google/Facebook/Popular Service X/. Now, which group are you advising to avoid using Google accounts? Members of marginalized groups are often those who must keep their identities private.
I don't understand that argument.
If I use Facebook, it's easy to see when I log on/off to profile my usage (and possibly employment / holiday trends). If many of the people I speak to are young or gay or work in finance, doesn't that imply something about me?
I am not a fan of this Google policy (it leaves me very uncomfortable) and I support the protests. But, as far as I can see, I can opt out without being marginalized. That's the bit of your argument I cAnt understand.
Your argument, to me, appears to be that Google shouldn't be allowed to link you and your opinions to your real name. I'd argue "why not?" I don't use Facebook, etc for this very reason - I don't want to be profiled with the depth that Facebook allows. Am I marginalized? Not that I'm aware.
I didn't say everyone who opts out is marginalized. I said that people who are marginalized are more likely to want to be anonymous.
Google and Facebook are infrastructure. We seem to be moving towards some version of "You can't be gay on google without telling THE WHOLE WORLD you're gay". Then your options are:
1. Tell the whole world you're gay
2. Don't be gay on google, pretend you're straight
3. Don't use Google services
The way to not marginalize minority groups is to leave in the fourth option:
4. Be gay on google, but without being forced to reveal it to the whole world.
Some people, for example, want to post on youtube in ways that reveal their sexual preferences without linking it to their real name. For instance, maybe they are commenting on videos related to gay rights, but their parents are homophobes and they haven't revealed their sexuality to them.
A person in that situation has to choose one of options 1-3 above. Whereas I, as a white, straight, male, can post publicly about most things without fear of anyone knowing. That's how this policy effectively marginalizes already certain already marginal groups.
Edit: To make things perfectly clear, I'm suggesting that access to Google services is about as important in our society as, say, banks.
Anonymity can be used to stalk but it can also be a necessity to be able to use the internet WITHOUT being stalked for a lot of people. That's not a bland case.
I seem to have accidentally inverted my real point. Anonymity will always be possible for a dedicated stalker no matter what these jokers do to eliminate it. My concern is removing it as a straight forward option for the stalkee (which I was.) We're on the same side.
