Exactly, I completely don't understand those complaints.
> 'There are lots of places where you can be anonymous online,' Betanews' Joe Wilcox notes. 'Google+ isn't one of them.' Got it. But if online anonymity is so evil, then what's the deal with Google's newly-awarded patent for Social Computing Personas for Protecting Identity in Online Social Interactions?
Because they didn't say it's "so" evil, they didn't even say it's just evil, nor did they ban it, they just want you to use your real name on G+. You're still free to post on 4chan from behind two proxies, to write on reddit and traverse irc under your pseudonym, even get a random gmail address, or send encrypted posts to alt.anonymous.messages. Does every community online have to be the same?
> 'There are lots of places where you can be anonymous online,' Betanews' Joe Wilcox notes. 'Google+ isn't one of them.' Got it. But if online anonymity is so evil, then what's the deal with Google's newly-awarded patent for Social Computing Personas for Protecting Identity in Online Social Interactions?
Because they didn't say it's "so" evil, they didn't even say it's just evil, nor did they ban it, they just want you to use your real name on G+. You're still free to post on 4chan from behind two proxies, to write on reddit and traverse irc under your pseudonym, even get a random gmail address, or send encrypted posts to alt.anonymous.messages. Does every community online have to be the same?