NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Google's "Custom/Vanity URL" Controversy
Google's "Custom/Vanity URL" Controversy
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000983.html
Matters surrounding our personal and corporate "identities" on the
Internet are among the thorniest concerns that face us today when we
use the Web. All sorts of complicating factors -- many of them
emotionally laden -- come into play, including complexities involving
pseudonyms, anonymity, commerce, law enforcement, and many more.
After Google+ launched, identity issues quickly became a matter of
some controversy, which regular readers will recall I discussed in
considerable depth at the time.
As the G+ platform evolved, Google (as they had promised) implemented
various changes that satisfied many (but not necessarily all) parties'
complaints in this area -- keeping in mind that G+ with its view of
identity is not meant to be a platform aimed at all possible forms of
communications. There are some communications for which a social
media system like G+ is ideal, and others for which (by design) it is
not necessarily best suited.
When Google recently announced the initial rollout of "Custom URLs"
for G+ (these are more popularly being called "vanity" URLs by many
observers), it apparently triggered some echos of the original G+
identity controversies, though in reality the actual issues are
different in key respects.
The vast majority of G+ profiles are currently identified via URLs
using a long string of numbers. Obviously, this isn't ideal to
include on a business card, and is not particularly memorable for most
of us.
Custom URLs change this so that "THE" Albert Einstein could have a G+
URL that includes his name, rather than the numbers.
Naturally, if we're strictly using the name there can only be a single
G+ URL for Albert Einstein, and given multiple people with that name,
only one (the most "famous" one?) could be assigned that URL.
This takes us toward the heart of the current controversy -- namely,
who deserves to get these URLs when multiple users share the same
actual name? Is it appropriate for "celebrities" to always get
preference over "ordinary people" in such circumstances?
To really address this aspect, we also need to explore what "verified
names" mean on G+, because at the moment, it appears that verified
names are first in line to be offered custom URLs (though this linkage
seems likely to loosen over time).
A G+ profile with a verified name gets a little gray check mark on the
associated profile page. But what does it really signify?
Essentially, it says "this is probably the one you're looking for."
That is to say, the vast majority of people looking for the person of
that name will be looking for that particular profile. That's why at
the moment G+ verified names are mostly (with some exceptions)
restricted to celebrities or other well-known persons, companies, and
brands.
These verifications are performed by Google pretty much on an ad hoc
"as needed" basis currently, though they're working on more formal
mechanisms to expand this (along with the offering of more custom
URLs).
At this point, don't be too concerned if you're feeling at least a bit
confused about this.
After talking to folks at Google, it seems clear that their goal both
for verified names and custom URLs -- for right now -- is to help make
it easier for most people to find the well-known personages and
companies they're looking for, without users being misled by possibly
faked or misleading false profiles.
Within this limited context, the relatively ad hoc mechanisms Google
is currently using for these purposes seem to serve adequately.
Once we move beyond the realm of A-list celebrities and well-known
brands though, both verifications and custom URLs are going to
represent much more intriguing questions, both from policy and
implementation standpoints.
And given how much investment we have in the emotional, personal, and
business aspects of our online identities, an awful lot of people
around the world will be very interested in how this is worked out
over time.
I conducted a (rather hastily arranged, so most of the technical
glitches are my fault) Google+ video Hangout On Air on these topics
for 45 minutes yesterday afternoon, where we discussed many of these
issues in more detail:
http://j.mp/OAC1l5 (YouTube)
As always, your comments and questions on these topics are very
welcome.
Take care, all.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info
Founder:
- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
- Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org
- Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
_______________________________________________
nnsquad mailing list
http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad