The pejorative "Lynch Mob" description is a red herring because Google+ is the aggressor. The Nym-Warriors in this #NymWar are not technically participating in a lynching. Our response to Google+ user-name fascism is self-defence but now the lynching descriptor has been raised by Tim O'Reily I feel we shouldn't shy away from the label.
When G+ refuses to enter into dialogue, and appeals aren't possible, and justice is reserved for rich people who can afford expensive lawyers, lynching can be valid. Aliases are allowed for famous people on Google+ but, non-famous aliases are generally prohibited on Google+. Vast monetary wealth associated with fame is a key part of the issue here. We are seeing a persecution of poor people. The only difference between famous and non-famous aliases is one of monetary power. The user-name policy by Google+ is anti-equality, anti-freedom.
We must protect freedom and democracy. If a corrupt social system fails us we must then take action via lawful protest, free speech. In a previous blog-post I described the G+ user-name policy as "Digital Genocide" because G+ is killing virtual identities. A virtual lynching of Google is therefore a valid response, it is self defence to lynch Google+.
Some Google executives insist the pseudonyms issue will eventually be solved to support anonymous users. They insist user-name problems are a problem associated with the current G+ limited field trial. Due to evidence I will soon present in a follow-up blog-post, I think Google has already shown its true colors. I think we shouldn't expect change from Google unless we force the change. I think Google cannot be trusted.
We are legally entitled to virtually lynch Google+, this is a right protected by democracy and freedom. Our free-speech is protected by law therefore I say: YES, THE PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD, and with our words we can virtually lynch Google+.
Google+ has shown no valid attempts to modify its totally unacceptable behavior. Google+ is acting in an autocratic, dictatorial, fascist manner therefore it is clear we must put an end to Google+. We must campaign for nothing less than the virtual death of Google+ because via killing Google+ we will send the strongest message to any other businesses who want to consider trampling over our freedoms. Our message to Google+ and other similar ventures is that anti-freedom businesses cannot be allowed to continue.
Let's virtually lynch Google+. NO MERCY! This is what the NymWars are all about. This is a WAR and Google+ must be defeated.
Someone asked me why there's excessive focus on Google+ when LinkedIn and Facebook also have wallet-name rules for users. The reason for vociferous reactions to the G+ user-name policy is because Google is bigger, more powerful, more widespread than Linkedin or FB.
Google is also the straw that broke the camel's back. Furthermore many Google services did not require a "real name" profile thus people feel Google is moving the goal posts midway through the game. People are upset because they have invested time and effort in an anonymous Google experience and now it seems Google is beginning to change. An important reason for objecting to G+ is because a trend has now become clear regarding real names on the internet, and people foolishly expected better from Google. When only Facebook and LinkedIn enforced wallet-names they could be dismissed due to being in a minority but Google is a industry leader in cyberspace thus the time has come to fight back regarding anti-freedom user-name rules. People had the illusion that Google was more tech-savvy, a friend of the cyber community, thus people feel betrayed by Google. Everything has crystallized with Google. It is now becoming apparent our internet freedom is under attack.
I only advocate legal protest via incisive logical expositions. Words are far more powerful than actual violence or destruction. I vigorously condemn actual violence or destruction. My warlike aggressive terminology is a literary device to evoke strong emotions within cyberspace (virtual reality). It would be a severe misunderstanding of my words if people assumed I advocate actual violence or destruction. My words are emotive, but it would be a gross misconstruction of my intentions if people assumed I wish to incite illegal behaviour. Intelligence is the way forward therefore amidst my righteous anger my message is clearly one of law-abiding peacefulness. Anti-freedom ventures such as Google+ are a serious threat to our peace of mind, therefore via the legal expression of our powerful minds we can destroy Google+ thereby restoring freedom and peace to cyberspace. We must fight for freedom. DEATH TO GOOGLE+. Peace and freedom to everyone. Spread the love.