I've written before about the and how people hide behind anonymity, using it to spread invective without fear of retribution. When I first heard about Google knocking people off Google+ and the company's other online services, I thought this was another story about the tension between people's right to privacy and a company's—and the online world at large's—need for transparency. Now I'm not so sure.

Starting last week, Google conducted what could best be described as a bit of digital house-cleaning. Numerous people on Google+ were reporting that they had been kicked off. Some were even asked to prove who they are. The controversy continued throughout the week and into the weekend and reached a sort of crescendo with a reported conversation between Blogger Robert Scoble and Google employee (and apparent Scoble friend) Vic Gundotra. Gundotra is also Senior VP of Social for Google, so what he says about the company's intentions, especially in this space, matters a lot.

Gundotra apparently explained to Scoble that Google is worried about common names and weird characters or even "obviously fake names." Okay, I get that; maybe a Google+ full of nonsensical handles could confuse people. Common names are a problem, too, I guess, but then only if the common name is already used up. So "John Smith" on Google+ is likely gone, hence the need for "John Smith 1," "John Smith 22," and so on.

As I noted in my own Google+ post, the need for name transparency on this new social service struck me as a good thing. I want people to be who they are and stop hiding behind masks. Many people replied that this is Google's service and the company has the right to set the rules. Not everyone agreed with that sentiment, though.

A Google+ member named "Johnny Graterol Guevara" asked me to think more deeply about this:

"Lance, think about this... What about users in countries that penalize freedom of expression, or dissent? Here in Venezuela, you can face legal prosecution for 'divulge information that incite, or tend to spread fear among the country's general population'... What if a censor is monitoring my name, and my thoughts in Google+? If I use Tor It won't matter, I'm being forced to use my real name."

I've heard this argument before and it is a fair one. On the other hand, the people in repressive regimes who will actually step forward and say something on public social networks is relatively small. Is that the group that should hold sway over these policies?

A number of people reminded other conversation participants that when you sign up for a Google service like Google+, you agree to the company's Terms of Service. I know, no one reads these TOSes. I know I don't. I have signed up for dozens of online services—pay, free and social—and usually check the "I agree to the Terms of Service" without even glancing at them. I do tend to assume, though, that the companies hosting my activities have the real power, and not me.

The conversation on Google+ continued for almost an hour, with many saying they wanted the "freedom" to be whoever they want to be online, and then petered out. In the meantime, I finally sat down to read Google's Terms' of Service. As one might expect, they're lengthy (there are 20 sections and many more subsections) and full of stuff only a lawyer could love. For a while, I found it hard to locate anything about the use of real names on Google's services. Then, finally, I came across this under a section called "Proprietary Rights:"

9.6 Unless you have been expressly authorized to do so in writing by Google, you agree that in using the Services, you will not use any trade mark, service mark, trade name, logo of any company or organization in a way that is likely or intended to cause confusion about the owner or authorized user of such marks, names or logos.

I'm no lawyer, but I was stuck by the words "trade mark" and "confusion." The TOS says nothing about "brand names," though I think you could fairly wrap up "trade mark, service mark, trade name, logo of any company or organization" to mean roughly the same thing. Likewise, some celebrity names are brand names in and of themselves (think "LadyGaga").

Google' may have inadvertently swept up some users and handles that were legitimate or simply too innocuous to cause any brand any kind of harm, but I think the intention is clear: to protect brands and businesses from everyday Google service users who might infringe upon their trademarks and brand identities.

Google's Gundotra already admitted to Scoble that the company may have handled this whole business clumsily and it's obvious Google will eventually allow some sort of Google+ handle pseudonyms to persist. Yet, make no mistake. This house cleaning was not about freedom of speech or individual rights, it was about brands and brand owners, and ensuring that only those who actually own the brands (or anything that sounds remotely like the brands) has the right to use those Google+ handles first.

So you can put away your first amendment flags, freedom of speech banners and speeches about oppressed nations. The Google+ user name controversy is about business, nothing more and nothing less.