Side note: I respect jwz, but I can't take anyone who says "Fuck those guys, seriously" seriously.
Twitter does this much better. They allow people to be whatever/whomever they want. But in case YOUR identity is important to you and your following, then you can get your account verified: https://support.twitter.com/groups/31-twitter-basics/topics/...
Well, Twitter isn't providing this to the public anymore. Mostly because they are saying that the surest way to prove legitimacy is to link to your Twitter account from your website, or other properties.
Isn't this so much better?
It is better and I'll tell you why. This G+ policy won't stop bogus accounts because Google can't verify all the accounts created. But guess who'll get hurt - it won't be the spammers that sell viagra.
1. Spammer signs up with fake name (something like John Smith) and either has no profile picture or some picture pulled off Google. 2. Spammer adds users to their circles. 3. Users see the circle request, but, since this is just some random person adding them, they don't reciprocate.
In this interaction, spammers don't have an avenue of communication except via their username. If they could use a pseudonym, their username could be www.getcheapp1llz-ezi.ly, which would be as effective a way as ever to get people to go to their site.
On a site like twitter, where usernames are not limited by any criteria that I'm aware of, the spammer would have the medium of username as a communication method.
Now how much of this is relevant to modern times, where spammers are mainly working on SEO for spam websites? I don't know.
For what it's worth, I know a few people on G+ who clearly have a pseudonym as their name and they haven't been banned yet.
1) spammer picks someone popular, signs-up with
similar name + similar picture
2) spammer starts following the same people and
some of those people will follow back
3) spammer starts spamming
4) Google notices and bans account after some time
5) repeat from step 1
Unverified usernames do not inevitably result in a site that is overrun by spam. Time-tested methods of downvoting, flagging, reporting, and semi-automated filtering can quickly dispatch such shell accounts. You only need to look to reddit for proof of this--a site where users sometimes employ their username as the punchline to the joke. That's right, a username can be an avenue of communication in itself that carries positive, non-spammy (and dare I say fun?) results. Another example: would @shitmydadsays have caught on fire the way it did if the account was named +Justin Halpern instead? I doubt it. The final obvious example: HN, which thankfully does not require "verified" identities.
When I read discourses from Google like the OP's it reminds me how right moot is when he says that creativity is only preserved in a culture that values privacy and anonymity. When everybody is permanently attached to every action, nobody bothers to test the norms, and all that's left is consumption of "safe" content from centralized producers. Of course that's what Google and Facebook, being glorified advertising networks, actually want. Your anonymous account has no money to buy anything, no predictable real-world holdings or credit score or behavior, and therefore no value to an advertiser.
It would help with data hygiene. It would also integrate nicely with a no-keyboard computer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA "The aardvark admitted its fault."
What should they know better? What's the downside to Google from any names policy they've stated or implemented since they started? None to their bottom line is my assumption.
How does a few disgruntled hippies (I'm one) with non-Wasp names compare against the bottom line value of total information awareness?
Systems are "ripe for abuse" in proportion to their expressive power. Consequently, any really great system will have this property.
Google understood this when they went into the Gmail business and found a place where their analytic talent was well-employed.
Google should focus on finding ways that they can contribute to others' success (their billions of users, current and potential) instead of trying to find ways to corral and leverage their users as part of a grand strategy.
As for squatting, that only works if you assume the real names are enforced to be unique, which I don't think anyone has suggested will happen. The only group that does that (as far as I know) is SAG and similar unions.