It has been much talk about the choice of which Google did require real names, rather than pseudonyms, for users of Google +. It has been speculated that Google did this to increase the value of a user for advertising purposes. Although I agree it was done to increase the value of a user, I do not agree is simply about advertising (although there is that).
For starters, let's talk a bit about reputation. Considers that the following diagram of a document by Mui et entitled computational trust and reputation model:
We define the reputation as the perception that a person creates actions past on his intentions and standards. The trust is a subjective expectation that a person gets another future behavior based on the story of their encounters. Reciprocity is an exchange of shares (as a favor or revenge). Social benefit (or harm) is derived from this Exchange.
If you want to build a system where institutions cannot trust each other, have a system where you can create reputation reputation since the foundation of trust. And reputation depends on the identity. You may not have privacy and reputation already necessarily establish one decreases the other. If we are to build a perception on the actions of a person, we need to know who is that person.
You're probably thinking, "Yes, but I can build a perception about a pseudonym, as well as a real name" and would be suitable. There is a problem. In an article entitled the Social cost of cheap pseudonyms, Friedman and Resnick argue that the pseudonyms are one side: no stick but negative reputation of positive reputation. You can see why: people just dump any pseudonym that has a negative reputation.
Real names are more valuable than pseudonyms because most encourage people to behave well and the result is a greater social benefit. In the case of a platform like Google +, users perceive that their system is to create social benefit more if there is more strong reputation that lead to greater confidence to promote the mutual positive acts. For example, real names reduce spam because its reputation as an identifier is going to follow you. They can not only create identifiers willy nilly, use them to acquire much baggage and dump them.
There are disadvantages, of course. Negative reputation did not adhere to pseudonyms because just "fresh start" is easy. Heaven knows that Internet has helped many people to be someone in line who could never be offline. There are discussions that people are more likely to perform when they are pseudonymous.
I think that Google's policy requiring real names is an architectural decision to promote a particular type of social interaction and to the exclusion of others. They can change at any time, but for now they require real names will probably make Google + a different place of Twitter though both allow asymmetrical follow. The overall value of the platform, not only for the advertising, but in how people use and use it for - will be greater due to the policy.
Posted by windley on July 28, 2011 10: 46 AM
没有评论:
发表评论