The road to fame is always a bumpy ride but until now Google+ has been enjoying a halcyon honeymoon, with few pundits saying anything worth reading and plaudits simply piling up like so many laurel wreathes bestowed upon a victor. Until now.
In what is turning out to be a very heated debate Google announced that in order to make "using Google+ like the real world" they will be clumping down on the use of pseudonyms on their network and offering offenders a four day grace period to set it right before being banned.
As expected, the move has created a storm of protests turning the Google-luv the youngest social network has been enjoying into a torrent of suggestions from annoyed users which is far from the restrained, polite social intercourse Google fans usually indulge in.
The intention from Google, as always, is good, but we know fully well where a road paved with good intentions leads so let's examine how this has come about, the response it has received and where it may lead us.
It is an immutable law of the web that the success of any social network depends upon the feeling it generates in its members' base. Facebook became the world's favourite social network because it managed to create a feeling of comfort and fun in its huge membership base. It became the place where they went first to check out what their friends were doing, peep on the newly posted pics of women from half way across the world, discuss the previous night's game with people across the country and, generally, create an online experience that was the digital equivalent of that of their favourite watering hole, without many of its hang ups regarding social status, dress code and race.
This translated into 750 million profiles representing almost 10% of the planet and a steep income growth rate from businesses who hastened to put up shop in the form of a Facebook Page and buy ad space to help promote it.
Google is savvy enough to not want to copy Facebook. Google+, though often hailed as a Facebook or Twitter 'killer' is not a true replacement of either. It takes instead the best features of each, mashes them up in a clean, stable interface that loads fast and works like a dream and dresses them both with Google's user-centric focus which puts you, the user, in complete control of what you share, when and with whom.
So why the sudden hiccup? In what must be a lesson to any online startup it is an axiomatic principle of business that your strengths are also your weaknesses. Facebook, for instance, was able to innovate and extend functionality by applying the top-down, campus-style autocratic approach which served it well during the early stages of its development. The moment however it got past the sophomore-based membership, content to be dictated to regarding privacy or have accounts deleted without explanation it ran into a public outcry which has allowed Google+ to benefit from.
Similarly, Google, has a web-savvy, user-centric approach which makes so many of its products and services adorable. It fails, however, on occasions to fully grasp the complexity of certain issues regarding the way its fans use the web and the way they feel about it.
This is one of them. Google's public explanation is that it wants to make Google+ a safe, trusting place to be in, mirroring the ease of contact of the real world. While this may smack a little of a Stepford Wive's image of the burbs, the real reason behind it is that Google is aware of the massive spam issue regarding fake accounts on Facebook and is keen to avoid the experience right from the start. Its proposed solution, simplistic, as it may seem, makes perfect sense at a logical plain which is hard to refute (and Google is driven by logic). Your real name is your 'signature' or your brand, so what's the issue?
The issue, as the vociferous critics have pointed out is that in the real world you can go by any name you like as long as you do not break any laws or hurt anybody. There are also countless instances where a moniker (like Lady Gaga) is better known than Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, which is her real name, so the logic there does not apply and the moment we start to create exceptions we open the door to a case-by-case approach which means increased administration costs and frustrating delays - clearly not the Google approach.
Those who have made their displeasure known on Google+, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have also pointed out, correctly, that there are many instances when you would prefer to have an online handle to using your real name, these range from socially-shy people venturing out to online interaction to whistle-blowers who, understandably, want their identities to remain hidden, to vulnerable individuals who for any number of reasons may not want the world to know they are online and what they do when they are there.
Should Google go ahead with its plans it is likely to come up against several issues including the first amendment in the US and the fact that in Europe it may be breaking the law for Google to force members to use their real names. There is also the question of just how would you enforce the policy. What could prevent me, for instance, from registering a profile under Dennis Potter (a common enough name in Manchester, UK) and conducting any number of activities under it? Enforcing a policy in such a way that it becomes just for all would require more manpower and resources than Google is willing to invest and, in the process, create the online equivalent of a Police State, exactly the opposite of what Google+ is and what Google wants it to be and, hardly an attractive option for businesses.
My guess is that this first hiccup is nothing more than a storm in a teacup. The issue happens to be a sensitive one and Google is thinking aloud and working things out as it goes along. As its social network develops however it is likely to encounter many more issues and some will be potentially more serious. Google is a data-driven company. It does nothing without testing, looking at data and getting feedback. It once famously conducted over 3,000 field tests on a variation of the colours on its logo. This means that it does not handle sentiment well unless that sentiment can be counted in statistical data of satisfied and dissatisfied users.
How it handles this first stumble will be indicative of how well it handles future adversity and on that, ultimately, will hinge a large part of the success of its social network.
Update 23.01.12: Just over nine months later Google has finally decided to maintain a pseudonym culture in its social network, making a public U-turn on its "real names only" policy. Details here.