This morning, as I was hunting for a video on DayZ on YouTube that I
wanted to share with a friend talking about the game, I was prompted by
the site to decide whether or not I'd like to start using my real name
on YouTube. I had heard that this was coming and already knew my
answer--hell no. The options, however, that I was given as to the
reason for my decline were this: Well, my YouTube account obviously isn't for a tv show or character. I'm certainly not a music artist. Nor is my channel for the promotion of a product, business, or other organization. Is my channel name well-known? Although I did receive the "you can monetize now!" message from YouTube, I don't consider it to be "well-known". If it were such a thing, I'd probably not like it that much. What I post is primarily for my friends and family. That, in itself, falls under "My channel is for personal use but I cannot use my real name". I find the latter portion of the statement to be very odd as it would seem to imply that the content that I put up is somehow questionable and therefore, I cannot use my real name. I'm not so far off the mark on that interpretation as John Mello, Jr. at PC World stated in his blog post, "People who leave constructive comments are likely to embrace the new policy, but others will continue to hide behind anonymity and revel in their vile comments." I'm not a political activist in a repressive regime (not that I'm aware of) but I also am not someone who wants to revel in my vile comments simply because I want to preserve some form of anonymity. If I make a comment on another YouTube users' video, it's always constructive even if it is as simple as "great vid!!" or something that requires editing because I ran out of character space. I'm a writer--vile comments aren't my forte. Expressing myself through language is.
My reasons for not using my real name are simple. I know that my channel is viewable by everyone on the planet with a computer or smart phone. I don't mind the random viewer of my channel looking at my videos. I actually can rather appreciate it because I am a firm believer in the free exchange of ideas. The problem is that it is freely viewable by everyone on the planet and freely giving out my name along with the videos just spells trouble. Whereas some may argue that I'm simply paranoid, I fall back onto what one of my good friends once said, "It's not paranoia when you know there is something to fear." Once upon a time, a total stranger who also happened to be a known sociopath with a 10 year long violent criminal record found me, too, and built a shrine to me in his basement. When the man was to be apprehended and the shrine was discovered, a homocide detective was called in to interpret it. His interpretation was that the sociopath's obsession was escalating to the point where it was likely that I would be murdered if he was not stopped. Is he still out there? Yes, probably. Are there others out there just like him? Statistically speaking, absolutely.
My second bit of experience on this matter was after my PC Gamer win (which is owned by the same media company as PC World). Generally, when somebody wins a contest, their name is released so when I won, I understood what was the "norm". What I didn't expect was for the magazine to loot a picture of me from my steam account that not only gave people a look at me but also my steam account information, right alongside with my real name. Because of the sociopath, I had been warned by the local police to stay hidden for the rest of my days so once a month, I do perform a Google search to make sure that what is out there cannot be traced back to my location. What was disturbing was that my PC Gamer win actually changed my search results to find results that I had missed entirely. Hell, they even discovered that I was published in the online telephone book when I had been paying additional monies to make sure that I was both unpublished and unlisted in it. The only explanation for the change in search result--that people were trying to actively find me. That is creepy as hell. I was scampering to cover my tracks online as a result.
Although the internet is comprised of people and I try to treat others on the internet just as I would in real life, the internet is completely different from real life. For one thing, everything that one does on the internet leaves a digital trail. Having that digital trail being associated with your name allows anyone the opportunity to learn a massive amount of information about you. This gives any stalker far more access to information about you than one who exists in your actual life. Whereas my stalker from long ago knew where I lived, what car I drove, and the faces of the people that I associated with, a cyber stalker can learn infinitely more. The more they find, the greater the chance that their pathology will escalate right along with it.
I find it ironic that we have gone from looking at cyber stalking laws to a sudden push to eliminate anonymity in order to eliminate some hurt feelings due to "vile comments". I also find it ironic that we have gone from an internet society whose aim was to protect children to one that casts children's private information out into the open entirely. My 10 year old daughter had a gmail account in order to converse with family in Arizona. Just last week, I discovered that she had been responding to videos using her real name on YouTube and berated her for it. I firmly and perhaps harshly admonished the need for anonymity, especially for children, on the internet because I wanted her to comprehend the dangers. The reason why she was posting on YouTube videos under her real name? Because her YouTube account was established at the time that her Gmail was made and it was YouTube that put that information "out there". She didn't even know that she could change her account name. She's a 10 year old for God's sake.
So explain to me Google why you think putting my 10 year old daughter or myself at risk is worth assuaging some hurt feelings. It's a huge leap from a more recent opinion that upheld anonymity on the internet for the protection of the privacy of an individual, especially children, and that negative commentary was just a downside of the freedom of speech. Personally, I don't buy the rational of it being solely to "clean up comments". This, from the same Google, whose vision for its employees was "Don't be evil" and who previously made repetitive statements of how they wish to protect our privacy. I am not blind nor am I stupid. What I see is Google's former CEO Eric Schmidt, now a member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, scampering to assist the government in identifying political dissenters posting on YouTube videos by forcing them to either out themselves or flag themselves by saying that they have something to hide. It's the only rational explanation for putting people at risk and entirely foregoing previously held beliefs in regards to the privacy of their users. Forcing people to either use their real names or flag themselves simply lessens the work load on our intelligence agencies should someone being saying something that is outside of what is acceptable free speech. Criticizing the government is protected free speech--speech that incites violence is not. Whereas I fully support tracking down those who are choosing to incite violence (a small portion of the population), I do not agree in eliminating free speech as an alternative for that is precisely what Google/YouTube is doing today.
Beyond political dissenters, there is also the issue of employers. It wasn't very long ago that articles regarding employers requiring access to prospective employees' Facebook accounts hit the news and it's been a privacy issue for some time. Making YouTube users out themselves also hits on an employee privacy issue as well. Whereas an employer isn't going to know what movies their employees watch or radio shows they listen to on their free time, by forcing YouTube users to utilize their real names, they now will know all this information and more.
The alternative? Either flag yourself as someone who chooses privacy ("I cannot use my real name") or try to lie. Apparently, for some users who have chosen to remain anonymous on YouTube, they lost their ability to comment on videos. I chose to flag myself and am still able to comment. They chose other alternatives and no longer have access to speak freely. So very contrary to Google's mission statement, straight from their own Google company page:
Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.
Don't be evil, Google. Perhaps it's time to remember your own slogan and mission though I cannot help but imagine that the damage to your reputation is now done. I once really admired your company. I am not a political dissenter or someone who gets their jollies off of writing nasty things to other people on YouTube. I'm just an average human being with a healthy respect for my privacy. Shame on you for putting me between a rock and hard place alongside my daughter. Whereas most people seemed to comprehend what Facebook was all about from the beginning and, therefore, are more tolerant, people actually admired your company once as a healthy proponent for privacy and speech, a pedestal that your company put itself up on. You stuck my daughter out in the open as a 10 year old little girl and made it "really hard" for her to protect herself. How do you think this mother feels about you right now? The irony is that these kind of moves don't fix anything. The people that are the real problem will simply go underground. You should know that. Our government should know that. Such heavy handed moves only makes things look worse and can make people angry. Like this mother who also happens to need her privacy and cherishes the free exchange of information. Why even the Founders published things under the guise of anonymity...isn't that right, Publius? Or should I say James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay?http://www.pcworld.com/article/259753/youtube_asks_users_to_post_real_names_in_bid_to_clean_up_comments.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt
http://www.google.com/about/company/
