I wish the EFF and others who are against using real names would at least acknowledge the drawbacks of pseudonyms and the proliferation of fake accounts and fake names which comes with them.
The real name policy has huge benefits. I'm not constantly bombarded by fake friend requests like I am on Twitter, Skype, or any other platform which allows random usernames. Even more importantly, I can easily find the people in my life without having to go through an awkward song and dance. If I'm working on a project with someone, I can immediately find them and message them without worrying that it's some random imposter or some such.
Facebook is a platform designed for digitizing your real world relationships, not for accumulating thousands of "followers." There's a reason they limit you to 5,000 friends. People who are trying to disconnect their Facebook identity from their real world identity are not using Facebook the way it's meant to be used and should probably just leave it.
That being said, Facebook could definitely do a better job of making it easier for people to prove that a name is their everyday name even when it's not their legal name.
I fully expect to lose a lot of karma over this comment, but I'd love to hear an argument over why access to Facebook is a right together with your down vote.
> People who are trying to disconnect their Facebook identity from their real world identity are not using Facebook the way it's meant to be used and should probably just leave it.
Some people use their pseudonym (usually a nick name) in real life as well, except for work, and I think separating work from Facebook is exactly how Facebook should be used. (There's always LinkedIn for work...)
Another thing I see a lot in Germany are (heavily) abbreviated names, so that all your friends know who you are in their stream, but stalkers/your boss cannot find you as easily. Tellingly, my female FB friends are much more likely to obfuscate their names (and get blocked for it).
> I'd love to hear an argument over why access to Facebook is a right together with your down vote.
Complaining about bad policies is how public discourse works, no matter if one has a right to better policies or not.
No downvote even if I disagree. Once your platform begins to become ubiquitous (Facebook Messenger), it starts to have certain responsibilities, similiar to a utility but not quite that far.
Now I'm prepared for the downvotes, but I don't think its wrong to expect certain behavior from tech companies in certain segments once they reach a particular size.
A compromise would be to allow Facebook users to get verified (similar to Twitter's verification), and then groups and communities could exclude non-verified profiles by default while allowing those non-verified accounts that they'd like to on a case by case basis.
Real-name internet identities have some drawbacks compared to their real-world counterparts:
1. In real life its fairly easy (and I would say healthy) to have multiple "identities", say your workday exquisitely professional identity and weekend identity which enjoys goofy antics with friends. In infinitely googlable internet - not so much. I guess mitigating this is the idea behind google+ circles but I have never used them so can't say much.
2. In real life past events tend to diminish in significance after some time passes. So someone who had committed a misstep can atone himself over time. Not so on the internet - what happened on the internet stays on the internet ... like forever and also infinitely googlable. This is less relevant to the walled garden of facebook but relevant to the internet at large.
Considering the difficulties with friend requests - you are usually connected to the people you want to befriend through other means (e.g. in real life). So use that channel to communicate your pseudonym! I guess real-name policy had sense when facebook was being discovered by former classmates who wanted to be in touch over the internet for the first time but these days are long gone.
Most people have a partitioned identity. There is a side you show to your friends, a side you show to your colleagues, a side for your parents, for your significant other and even one for your kids.
An online persona is just another partition that whilst you may don't want to hide, you probably want to keep the intersection with most of the rest of the partitions to a minimum.
In real world there is a physical separation. All your contacts know you by your real name but only interact with a specific partition. On the other hand, in the virtual world, all your contacts will have to interact with your one online persona.
A pseudonym is an easy and practical way to have more than one online personas or keep your one persona limited to a certain group of people in your life. The people you want to interact with a certain part of your identity, are easy to reach; online nicknames are part of everyone's life. For the rest, they will have to search a bit more to find you and even then, they will be less imposed to take into account that part of your identity due to the use of a pseudonym.
What about people who don't want all of their real life relationships to be able to follow them online? For example, suppose someone has a restraining order against a stalker, so they don't want to be findable online. Does that mean they're "not using Facebook the way it's meant to be used and should probably just leave it"?
Online interaction has very different affordances than off-line interaction (for example, the ease of searching, the indefinite persistence of communications, etc.). Pretending that saying "Facebook should be just like real life" erases those differences is naive.
There's a cost to allowing pseudonymity, but there's also a cost to its lack, it's just that the latter cost is distributed very unevenly.
> If I'm working on a project with someone, I can immediately find them and message
Interesting, that is exactly why I don't use my real name on Facebook. I don't wont everyone I work on some project with to be able to find me and message me outside of the established conversation channels from within the project. And even less am I interested them to be able to learn about my private life.
All my friends do find me with help of the friend of a friend feature on Facebook and the Picture I have there. Everyone else should never try to contact me there, I will block them anyway.
If you're not being bombarded with friend requests by bots on Facebook that just means none of your friends have accepted a friend request from a profile with a picture of a young asian woman as its avatar (and an authentic-sounding name) yet...
You can validate your name on Twitter if you want to. You don't have to though.
Access to Facebook isn't a right (although in countries where it is the only net presence that may become more of an issue).
But Facebook's mistakes (and Real Names policies are a mistake) affect a lot of people, all of whom have the valid use case of "using Facebook as a platform".
So the argument is you're creating a false dichotomy between using Facebook to get "5000 followers" and wanting to use Facebook under your legal, European-sounding, name.
The valid use case you're missing is using Facebook under the name you generally go by without this being a problem if it's not a name Facebook thinks is valid.
Even I go under an informal version of my legal name - it's not the name on my birth certificate, passport, or bank account. So it's not my Real Name. And I'm not any of the groups that get hit hardest by this.
There would be no problem, perhaps, if Facebook allowed you to compartmentalize your relationships like you can in the real world, but it doesn't as far as I can tell.
In the real world, the fact that I need to communicate with my children's teachers has no bearing on the fact that I need to communicate with my co-workers, which has no bearing on needing to communicate with my family. I can use different e-mail addresses, different phone numbers, and even different postal addresses (P.O. boxes, say) for these separate groups, and people often do. This is most prevalent with e-mail, but not uncommon with phone numbers and I know several people who have a P.O box or two for some parts of their correspondence. On Facebook, these all get hopelessly conflated, which is great for Facebook but not necessarily great for users.
> I'd love to hear an argument over why access to Facebook is a right
If your child's teacher sends all communications via Facebook (which is true of some of them), then Facebook access becomes rather required just so you know when little things like parent-teacher conferences are and whatnot. Yes, the teacher shouldn't be doing that. Good luck convincing them.
Agreed. I run a small-town community website. Instituting a real-name policy stopped the trolling overnight: people behave much more reasonably if they know they might meet the person they're yelling at in the street tomorrow.
The key is that our site aims to be solely a resource for the existing community (where people relate to each other through real names), not a virtual community in itself.
I certainly wouldn't argue that the web should be real-name only, but nor do I believe everyone always has an automatic right to post on privately-owned websites using pseudonyms.
This reminds me of the meme of first world problems versus third world problems.
Essentially, you are saying that because it saves you some annoyance, it's a good tradeoff, even if that means that a few others face not annoyance, but actual existential threats of death, violence, imprisonment, dismemberment, etc.
Edit: and yes, participation in Facebook is somewhat optional, but there's a larger price to be paid for not participating than the price of any of the annoyances you mention.
> I fully expect to lose a lot of karma over this comment, but I'd love to hear an argument over why access to Facebook is a right together with your down vote.
Effectively banning political dissidents and victims of abuse, stalking, and harassment from using the world's largest communication platform is a shitty thing to do. Mentioning "rights," or--the other popular approach--saying "it's their website, they can do what they want," is a non sequitur and dishonest besides. You're trying to imply that people saying "Facebook should do this" are actually saying "Facebook should be forced to do this."
Personally, I am more than willing to acknowledge that allowing pseudonyms on Facebook would cause some inconvenience, just as--for example--I acknowledge that allowing government organizations the control they want over data, crypto, and personal devices would, indeed, make it easier for them to catch some criminals. I would like you to acknowledge that some things are more important than those things.
(Do bear in mind, when you respond, that Facebook has reversed users' privacy settings with no notice before and reserves the right to do so at any time, and that "they probably won't do that again" is a slim fucking hope for someone whose life could be endangered.)
This particular statement from the EFF is not in any way trying to convince Facebook that they shouldn't have a real names policy.
It's simply saying: Okay, you've got a real name policy. You should reform it in a few ways so that people can't use it for targeted silencing and harassment of groups they dislike.
I didn't downvote you, but I'll play devil's advocate and make an argument over why access to Facebook is a right.
In the normal course of events, a non-government company is free to decide who it does business with. But there is a case to be made that this changes if society reorganizes itself so that use of a particular service is no longer optional.
For example, insurance companies would a priori be free to decide who they do business with. Except that it's illegal to drive without liability insurance, and in some places, either because of the physical fact of distance or bad town planning, it's effectively mandatory to drive if you want to be a functioning member of society. Therefore in some jurisdictions, you do actually have the legal right to buy insurance.
There are social circles these days in which you effectively cannot participate without having a Facebook account. There is therefore a case to be made that Facebook is obliged to either make sure people aren't excluded from having accounts, or set up some kind of federated system whereby you can participate in Facebook circles from some other social medium.
I myself don't use Facebook, so I don't have a dog in that fight either way, but I think it's a valid argument.
> People who are trying to disconnect their Facebook identity from their real world identity are not using Facebook the way it's meant to be used and should probably just leave it.
The way Facebook is "meant" to be used is to maximize their revenue from data mining.
This is clearly not something we, the users, should be caring about.
> That being said, Facebook could definitely do a better job of making it easier for people to prove that a name is their everyday name even when it's not their legal name.
How is that even possible? There's no authority for "proving" nicknames, and I highly doubt Facebook is going to bother hiring judges to evaluate non-standard evidence. Not when it's easier, and more profitable, just to demand everyone's legal name.
> but I'd love to hear an argument over why access to Facebook is a right
> The real name policy has huge benefits. I'm not constantly bombarded by fake friend requests like I am on Twitter, Skype, or any other platform which allows random usernames. Even more importantly, I can easily find the people in my life without having to go through an awkward song and dance. If I'm working on a project with someone, I can immediately find them and message them without worrying that it's some random imposter or some such.
This sounds like a little inconvenience. Hypothetical, at that. I use email and at least half my contacts have some made-up username that doesn't relate to their real identity. It works very well. I'm not so familiar with Skype, but how do "fake friend requests" work on Twitter? You decide who to follow, and that's it. The list of followers is not a very useful source of info and never was, even without bots, you can't know if that old friend in your followers list even uses Twitter regularly.
But the real question is, I don't believe for a moment that (the possibility of) a little inconvenience should in any way weigh in against the certainty of real physical danger that is happening right now to (I don't have the numbers but I'm sure it has to be at least) 1000s of individuals. I mean this side of the argument is very much not a theoretical or hypothetical scenario. There are many, many people on FB with abusive exes, with or without restraining orders, or perhaps parts of their families that they don't want to know certain aspects of their lives in fear of being ostracised (sad as that may be). You hear about these cases all the time, and you can expect that's only a fraction of the cases that actually speaks out (for obvious reasons).
And on the other side, you may get a little spam.
And on the other other side, we should all just get off Facebook, but that's another topic.
> I'm not constantly bombarded by fake friend requests like I am on Twitter, Skype, or any other platform which allows random usernames.
I don't see how "real name policy" would prevent that. What's stopping people from creating fake accounts with real-looking names?
> I can easily find the people in my life without having to go through an awkward song and dance.
But maybe some of those people don't want you to find them? And if they will want you to find them, they will let you know of their username.
> Facebook is a platform designed for digitizing your real world relationships, not for accumulating thousands of "followers."
Yea, nice, but that is irrelevant to the real name policy. I can very well digitize my real world relationships without using my real world name. People that know me in real world, know me on Facebook by my nick, even if I don't use that nick in real world.
> I wish the EFF and others who are against using real names would at least acknowledge the drawbacks of pseudonyms and the proliferation of fake accounts and fake names which comes with them.
Facebook's Real Name Policy isn't actually effective. I've got ~15 accounts with fake names [but "real sounding" in that they are real names].
> The real name policy has huge benefits. I'm not constantly bombarded by fake friend requests like I am on Twitter, Skype, or any other platform which allows random usernames.
That isn't related to the real name policy, sorry. If it was, I wouldn't have ~15 accounts with different names.
> People who are trying to disconnect their Facebook identity from their real world identity are not using Facebook the way it's meant to be used and should probably just leave it.
I've successfully done it and each account is a silo by interest.
One of the best commentaries I've seen on the matter of "authentic" or "real" names policies comes from Yonatan Zunger, chief architect of Google's Google+ social network.
I've had plenty of disagreement with Google and Yonatan over many aspects of G+, and have given both the company and him much grief on multiple counts, including Real Names (Google's varient of Facebook's policy), though I'll also note that Yonatan's generally heard me out quite patiently. But his comments strike me as wise and hard-won, painful knowledge:
In practice, the forced revelation of information makes individual privilege and power more important. When everyone has to play with their cards on the table, so to speak, then people who feel like they can be themselves without consequence do so freely -- these generally being people with support groups of like-minded people, and who are neither economically nor physically vulnerable. People who are more vulnerable to consequences use concealment as a method of protection: it makes it possible to speak freely about controversial subjects, or even about any subjects, without fear of harassment.
That's quite an evolution of opinion. I respect Yonatan deeply for both conceiving of, and publicly stating it.
Not to trivialize his opinion, but I always thought it was a wide spread notion that not allowing anonymity will lead to only "politically correct" or "harmless" opinions to surface.
I made the same argument when one of the Norwegian newspapers I somewhat read regularly (online) started requiring full names in the comments sections. The comments sections are now completely boring and predictable, and any really important but sensitive issues that would really need a minority voice in the debate are just not debated at all.
At least not on a civil level. There are always those who blurt out anything even under their full name (although possibly fake), but these tend to be the same people who are not really able to articulate a sensible and constructive argument for their case.
Personally I have opinions I would not like to link to my real name, since I need to work for a living in a place where we have customers and such...
FWIW, despite the "chief architect" title, IIRC Yonatan Zunger didn't actually join the G+ project until well after the initial launch. That is to say, the real name policy predated his involvement. I suspect he was always opposed to it.
I use Facebook as a developer using a completely fake but real looking identity. I have to have a developer account because of my job. Otherwise I wouldn't touch the site with someone else's bargepole.
I was recently kicked off of Facebook for lack of an "Authentic Name." Humorously my name was my legal name.
Getting kicked off of Facebook was the best thing to happen to my productivity and mood. My only frustration is that there are several people on Facebook I have no easy method of giving alternative contact info to.
While I sympathize with the underlying sentiments of this, I have to disagree with what it actually says. If the EFF were really trying to help users, it wouldn't be trying to get Facebook to change; it would be trying to get users to stop using Facebook. The problem is not that FB needs to improve its name policy; the problem is that we have a single centralized social network for everybody. What we should have is a way for people to build their own independent social networks, so that someone who wants to be able to connect online with friends while avoiding their creepy ex can do so. Why isn't the EFF pushing for that?
Facebook's real name policies have to do with how people perceive the plausibility of the numbers reported for their a-la-cart paid advertisement customers.
This policy doesn't actually decrease fake shell accounts. It's an intentionally ineffective ceremonious anti-fraud campaign.
Facebook knows that third parties conducting click and follow fraud for paying advertising customers brings them a lot of money.
They came up with a policy that gives the perception of combating it ... actually closing real human accounts. However, all the fake bot accounts are and have always been named like "Jane Doe" and "Bob Smith" ... they remain untouched.
What's the effect? The paying customer thinks that Facebook is making an effort to combat fraud but in truth they have every interest in keeping the fraud around and creating a false perception that things are changing - like the oil and tobacco companies; like nike and nestle; like fast food - like every other billion dollar company ever.
You don't amass $30 billion by being an honest Joe.
I hate Facebook, but I think they are right about this policy.
If you're a person at risk due to many of the issues described here, you don't belong on Facebook. If you're a domestic violence victim avoiding a dangerous person "liking" the wrong thing or somebody's innocent repost can put you in danger, pseudonym or not.
The transgender situation is similarly tragic, but it's an issue that trans people run into when presenting ID to buy beer as well. We should get states to provide some sort of transitional ID or something.
So if you're the victim of abuse or a member of a persecuted minority, you should hide at home with your shame and not participate in the social aspects of society?
What is this, the 18th century?
You claim to only be suggesting opsec, while ignoring that such extreme opsec (aka, not participating in many aspects of society) wouldn't be necessary if Facebook didn't insist of removing privacy (aka "the effective capacity to misrepresent yourself").
The power of the internet is that it lets you publish what you want, when you want. This should enable people to act like their true self or seek the support of others. Facebook seems to think that these are bad things that need to be prevented by forcing everyone to id themselves.
Blame Facebook for creating this hazard instead of blaming the victims for wanting to participate in social activities like a normal human.
I'm stunned by the defenders of this policy I'm seeing here.
Not singling you out in particular this is for everyone who doesn't seem to get it due to youth, lack of experience, very privileged life, complete inability to empathise, I'm not sure what exactly in each case but it's ugly at times and Hacker News seems to be ground zero for a lot of this stuff.
I suspect like many things I see on here there is a huge lack of life experience informing opinions.
Luckily on HN you don't have to use your real name so these immature opinions won't come back to bite you as a well adjust adult with life experience.
> If you're a person at risk due to many of the issues described here, you don't belong on Facebook.
Including the "issues" of: being a "Native American...using traditional Irish and Scottish names...[being a] LGBTQ [Facebook] user"? Including the "issue" of just having an unusual name, like Violet Blue?
This is online. We shouldn't HAVE the same tragedies of discrimination as someone buying beer. We definitely shouldn't be promoting requirements that increase the likelihood of those tragedies.
> We should get states to provide some sort of transitional ID or something.
The fact that identification is difficult to change for transgender individuals is an enormous fractured problem. Also consider that Facebook is used around the world in various political climates. Even in the state of California it is necessary to go through treatment and get a doctors note and pay several hundreds of dollars and wait several months (You can forgo the doctors note if you're willing to publish it in the local newspaper a few times).
> The transgender situation is similarly tragic, but it's an issue that trans people run into when presenting ID to buy beer as well.
That is different than a name you are seeing in front of your face, every time you say something. Imagine trying to talk to a friend and cringing every time you see one of your own messages.
I don't think Facebook advertises that it's a horribly bad service for domestic violence victims, etc. If they did, this policy would be more justified.
Isn't it kinda obvious the long game of facebook is to become the single globally mandated identity service? Governments will contract with them to maintain your official citizen ID records. Game over.
I've only heard of the issue from the LGBTQ stance, and I'm not very clear here. But I'm wondering, for these people, why not just legally change your name?
Pseudonymity is a double-edged sword; it enables people to hide from abusers online, but it also enabled a lot of online abuse (Twitter is rampant with the stuff, not that Facebook is immune). I don't know which side is right, and I wish that there was some way to combine the best of both but so far nobody's struck that balance or even really come close. But if that balance is struck, I don't think the sort of stridency the EFF is engaging in here is going to be part of the solution.
TheLastPsychiatrist explains expertly why the whole form of this argument is wrong in a post questioning Randi Zuckerberg.
It's well worth reading, especially if you are considering the benefits of opting out of Facebook (and I strongly recommend you jump in, the water's find :)
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/01/randi_zuckerberg.html
I've supported everything EFF has done so far but this is a really bad idea. Have people forgotten the chaos of MySpace and other social networks before Facebook?
I wish to God that Google+ had done the right thing on names during their five minutes of relevance. They might have actually lasted as a viable Facebook competitor.
There has to be some sort of middle ground, where people who need to mask their identity for various reasons can be allowed to without tipping the scales towards platform abuse. This doesn't have to be a black or white issue.
FB simply needs to figure out a fair way to validate identity but allow a user to use a sanctioned alternate identity. I think this is what the EFF action is really about
Facebook beat all other social networks because it is the best at connecting people who already know each other. And its most effective tool to connect these people is its search functionality whose effectiveness requires that all its users use their real name. It is unrealistic to expect Facebook to risk its very existence just because the EFF demands that it do so.
How do you get blocked? I changed my account to a ridiculous name and I know a couple of people that have changed their equally ridiculous pseudonyms multiple times. Maybe they only block you if you have a real-sounding name?
I don't understand why people feel entitled to use Facebook in this way. Facebook is a place to communicate with your friends and family, not a publishing platform.
If you want to write anonymously, then get a free account on any number of other platforms that are designed for anonymous publishing.
[+] [-] morgante|10 years ago|reply
The real name policy has huge benefits. I'm not constantly bombarded by fake friend requests like I am on Twitter, Skype, or any other platform which allows random usernames. Even more importantly, I can easily find the people in my life without having to go through an awkward song and dance. If I'm working on a project with someone, I can immediately find them and message them without worrying that it's some random imposter or some such.
Facebook is a platform designed for digitizing your real world relationships, not for accumulating thousands of "followers." There's a reason they limit you to 5,000 friends. People who are trying to disconnect their Facebook identity from their real world identity are not using Facebook the way it's meant to be used and should probably just leave it.
That being said, Facebook could definitely do a better job of making it easier for people to prove that a name is their everyday name even when it's not their legal name.
I fully expect to lose a lot of karma over this comment, but I'd love to hear an argument over why access to Facebook is a right together with your down vote.
[+] [-] gurkendoktor|10 years ago|reply
Some people use their pseudonym (usually a nick name) in real life as well, except for work, and I think separating work from Facebook is exactly how Facebook should be used. (There's always LinkedIn for work...)
Another thing I see a lot in Germany are (heavily) abbreviated names, so that all your friends know who you are in their stream, but stalkers/your boss cannot find you as easily. Tellingly, my female FB friends are much more likely to obfuscate their names (and get blocked for it).
> I'd love to hear an argument over why access to Facebook is a right together with your down vote.
Complaining about bad policies is how public discourse works, no matter if one has a right to better policies or not.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|10 years ago|reply
Now I'm prepared for the downvotes, but I don't think its wrong to expect certain behavior from tech companies in certain segments once they reach a particular size.
A compromise would be to allow Facebook users to get verified (similar to Twitter's verification), and then groups and communities could exclude non-verified profiles by default while allowing those non-verified accounts that they'd like to on a case by case basis.
[+] [-] dunkelheit|10 years ago|reply
1. In real life its fairly easy (and I would say healthy) to have multiple "identities", say your workday exquisitely professional identity and weekend identity which enjoys goofy antics with friends. In infinitely googlable internet - not so much. I guess mitigating this is the idea behind google+ circles but I have never used them so can't say much.
2. In real life past events tend to diminish in significance after some time passes. So someone who had committed a misstep can atone himself over time. Not so on the internet - what happened on the internet stays on the internet ... like forever and also infinitely googlable. This is less relevant to the walled garden of facebook but relevant to the internet at large.
Considering the difficulties with friend requests - you are usually connected to the people you want to befriend through other means (e.g. in real life). So use that channel to communicate your pseudonym! I guess real-name policy had sense when facebook was being discovered by former classmates who wanted to be in touch over the internet for the first time but these days are long gone.
[+] [-] andmarios|10 years ago|reply
An online persona is just another partition that whilst you may don't want to hide, you probably want to keep the intersection with most of the rest of the partitions to a minimum.
In real world there is a physical separation. All your contacts know you by your real name but only interact with a specific partition. On the other hand, in the virtual world, all your contacts will have to interact with your one online persona.
A pseudonym is an easy and practical way to have more than one online personas or keep your one persona limited to a certain group of people in your life. The people you want to interact with a certain part of your identity, are easy to reach; online nicknames are part of everyone's life. For the rest, they will have to search a bit more to find you and even then, they will be less imposed to take into account that part of your identity due to the use of a pseudonym.
[+] [-] jleader|10 years ago|reply
Online interaction has very different affordances than off-line interaction (for example, the ease of searching, the indefinite persistence of communications, etc.). Pretending that saying "Facebook should be just like real life" erases those differences is naive.
There's a cost to allowing pseudonymity, but there's also a cost to its lack, it's just that the latter cost is distributed very unevenly.
[+] [-] jeena|10 years ago|reply
Interesting, that is exactly why I don't use my real name on Facebook. I don't wont everyone I work on some project with to be able to find me and message me outside of the established conversation channels from within the project. And even less am I interested them to be able to learn about my private life.
All my friends do find me with help of the friend of a friend feature on Facebook and the Picture I have there. Everyone else should never try to contact me there, I will block them anyway.
[+] [-] yarrel|10 years ago|reply
Requiring real-looking names therefore doesn't prevent bots.
If you're not being bombarded with friend requests by bots on Facebook that just means none of your friends have accepted a friend request from a profile with a picture of a young asian woman as its avatar (and an authentic-sounding name) yet...
You can validate your name on Twitter if you want to. You don't have to though.
Access to Facebook isn't a right (although in countries where it is the only net presence that may become more of an issue).
But Facebook's mistakes (and Real Names policies are a mistake) affect a lot of people, all of whom have the valid use case of "using Facebook as a platform".
So the argument is you're creating a false dichotomy between using Facebook to get "5000 followers" and wanting to use Facebook under your legal, European-sounding, name.
The valid use case you're missing is using Facebook under the name you generally go by without this being a problem if it's not a name Facebook thinks is valid.
Even I go under an informal version of my legal name - it's not the name on my birth certificate, passport, or bank account. So it's not my Real Name. And I'm not any of the groups that get hit hardest by this.
[+] [-] bzbarsky|10 years ago|reply
In the real world, the fact that I need to communicate with my children's teachers has no bearing on the fact that I need to communicate with my co-workers, which has no bearing on needing to communicate with my family. I can use different e-mail addresses, different phone numbers, and even different postal addresses (P.O. boxes, say) for these separate groups, and people often do. This is most prevalent with e-mail, but not uncommon with phone numbers and I know several people who have a P.O box or two for some parts of their correspondence. On Facebook, these all get hopelessly conflated, which is great for Facebook but not necessarily great for users.
> I'd love to hear an argument over why access to Facebook is a right
If your child's teacher sends all communications via Facebook (which is true of some of them), then Facebook access becomes rather required just so you know when little things like parent-teacher conferences are and whatnot. Yes, the teacher shouldn't be doing that. Good luck convincing them.
[+] [-] throwaway6845|10 years ago|reply
The key is that our site aims to be solely a resource for the existing community (where people relate to each other through real names), not a virtual community in itself.
I certainly wouldn't argue that the web should be real-name only, but nor do I believe everyone always has an automatic right to post on privately-owned websites using pseudonyms.
[+] [-] natch|10 years ago|reply
Essentially, you are saying that because it saves you some annoyance, it's a good tradeoff, even if that means that a few others face not annoyance, but actual existential threats of death, violence, imprisonment, dismemberment, etc.
http://violetblue.tumblr.com/post/130440543695/why-im-sittin...
Edit: and yes, participation in Facebook is somewhat optional, but there's a larger price to be paid for not participating than the price of any of the annoyances you mention.
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|10 years ago|reply
Effectively banning political dissidents and victims of abuse, stalking, and harassment from using the world's largest communication platform is a shitty thing to do. Mentioning "rights," or--the other popular approach--saying "it's their website, they can do what they want," is a non sequitur and dishonest besides. You're trying to imply that people saying "Facebook should do this" are actually saying "Facebook should be forced to do this."
Personally, I am more than willing to acknowledge that allowing pseudonyms on Facebook would cause some inconvenience, just as--for example--I acknowledge that allowing government organizations the control they want over data, crypto, and personal devices would, indeed, make it easier for them to catch some criminals. I would like you to acknowledge that some things are more important than those things.
(Do bear in mind, when you respond, that Facebook has reversed users' privacy settings with no notice before and reserves the right to do so at any time, and that "they probably won't do that again" is a slim fucking hope for someone whose life could be endangered.)
[+] [-] slavik81|10 years ago|reply
Really? I constantly get Facebook friend requests from pretty women in skimpy clothes with 6 to 10 friends.
[+] [-] rspeer|10 years ago|reply
It's simply saying: Okay, you've got a real name policy. You should reform it in a few ways so that people can't use it for targeted silencing and harassment of groups they dislike.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rwallace|10 years ago|reply
In the normal course of events, a non-government company is free to decide who it does business with. But there is a case to be made that this changes if society reorganizes itself so that use of a particular service is no longer optional.
For example, insurance companies would a priori be free to decide who they do business with. Except that it's illegal to drive without liability insurance, and in some places, either because of the physical fact of distance or bad town planning, it's effectively mandatory to drive if you want to be a functioning member of society. Therefore in some jurisdictions, you do actually have the legal right to buy insurance.
There are social circles these days in which you effectively cannot participate without having a Facebook account. There is therefore a case to be made that Facebook is obliged to either make sure people aren't excluded from having accounts, or set up some kind of federated system whereby you can participate in Facebook circles from some other social medium.
I myself don't use Facebook, so I don't have a dog in that fight either way, but I think it's a valid argument.
[+] [-] taswal_tmanir|10 years ago|reply
The way Facebook is "meant" to be used is to maximize their revenue from data mining.
This is clearly not something we, the users, should be caring about.
> That being said, Facebook could definitely do a better job of making it easier for people to prove that a name is their everyday name even when it's not their legal name.
How is that even possible? There's no authority for "proving" nicknames, and I highly doubt Facebook is going to bother hiring judges to evaluate non-standard evidence. Not when it's easier, and more profitable, just to demand everyone's legal name.
> but I'd love to hear an argument over why access to Facebook is a right
Why not flip it around, and ask why Facebook has the right to demand our real names? In some countries, at least, it's seeming that it doesn't. <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/29/germany-fi...
[+] [-] tripzilch|10 years ago|reply
This sounds like a little inconvenience. Hypothetical, at that. I use email and at least half my contacts have some made-up username that doesn't relate to their real identity. It works very well. I'm not so familiar with Skype, but how do "fake friend requests" work on Twitter? You decide who to follow, and that's it. The list of followers is not a very useful source of info and never was, even without bots, you can't know if that old friend in your followers list even uses Twitter regularly.
But the real question is, I don't believe for a moment that (the possibility of) a little inconvenience should in any way weigh in against the certainty of real physical danger that is happening right now to (I don't have the numbers but I'm sure it has to be at least) 1000s of individuals. I mean this side of the argument is very much not a theoretical or hypothetical scenario. There are many, many people on FB with abusive exes, with or without restraining orders, or perhaps parts of their families that they don't want to know certain aspects of their lives in fear of being ostracised (sad as that may be). You hear about these cases all the time, and you can expect that's only a fraction of the cases that actually speaks out (for obvious reasons).
And on the other side, you may get a little spam.
And on the other other side, we should all just get off Facebook, but that's another topic.
[+] [-] kruczek|10 years ago|reply
I don't see how "real name policy" would prevent that. What's stopping people from creating fake accounts with real-looking names?
> I can easily find the people in my life without having to go through an awkward song and dance.
But maybe some of those people don't want you to find them? And if they will want you to find them, they will let you know of their username.
> Facebook is a platform designed for digitizing your real world relationships, not for accumulating thousands of "followers."
Yea, nice, but that is irrelevant to the real name policy. I can very well digitize my real world relationships without using my real world name. People that know me in real world, know me on Facebook by my nick, even if I don't use that nick in real world.
[+] [-] fweespeech|10 years ago|reply
Facebook's Real Name Policy isn't actually effective. I've got ~15 accounts with fake names [but "real sounding" in that they are real names].
> The real name policy has huge benefits. I'm not constantly bombarded by fake friend requests like I am on Twitter, Skype, or any other platform which allows random usernames.
That isn't related to the real name policy, sorry. If it was, I wouldn't have ~15 accounts with different names.
> People who are trying to disconnect their Facebook identity from their real world identity are not using Facebook the way it's meant to be used and should probably just leave it.
I've successfully done it and each account is a silo by interest.
It isn't hard. :/
[+] [-] dredmorbius|10 years ago|reply
I've had plenty of disagreement with Google and Yonatan over many aspects of G+, and have given both the company and him much grief on multiple counts, including Real Names (Google's varient of Facebook's policy), though I'll also note that Yonatan's generally heard me out quite patiently. But his comments strike me as wise and hard-won, painful knowledge:
https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/WegYVNkZQqq
In practice, the forced revelation of information makes individual privilege and power more important. When everyone has to play with their cards on the table, so to speak, then people who feel like they can be themselves without consequence do so freely -- these generally being people with support groups of like-minded people, and who are neither economically nor physically vulnerable. People who are more vulnerable to consequences use concealment as a method of protection: it makes it possible to speak freely about controversial subjects, or even about any subjects, without fear of harassment.
That's quite an evolution of opinion. I respect Yonatan deeply for both conceiving of, and publicly stating it.
[+] [-] soft_dev_person|10 years ago|reply
I made the same argument when one of the Norwegian newspapers I somewhat read regularly (online) started requiring full names in the comments sections. The comments sections are now completely boring and predictable, and any really important but sensitive issues that would really need a minority voice in the debate are just not debated at all.
At least not on a civil level. There are always those who blurt out anything even under their full name (although possibly fake), but these tend to be the same people who are not really able to articulate a sensible and constructive argument for their case.
Personally I have opinions I would not like to link to my real name, since I need to work for a living in a place where we have customers and such...
[+] [-] kentonv|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] junto|10 years ago|reply
Thank you http://www.fakenamegenerator.com
If that account gets blocked then I'll just have to create another fake one.
[+] [-] otto|10 years ago|reply
Getting kicked off of Facebook was the best thing to happen to my productivity and mood. My only frustration is that there are several people on Facebook I have no easy method of giving alternative contact info to.
[+] [-] 1ris|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdonis|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristopolous|10 years ago|reply
Facebook's real name policies have to do with how people perceive the plausibility of the numbers reported for their a-la-cart paid advertisement customers.
This policy doesn't actually decrease fake shell accounts. It's an intentionally ineffective ceremonious anti-fraud campaign.
Facebook knows that third parties conducting click and follow fraud for paying advertising customers brings them a lot of money.
They came up with a policy that gives the perception of combating it ... actually closing real human accounts. However, all the fake bot accounts are and have always been named like "Jane Doe" and "Bob Smith" ... they remain untouched.
What's the effect? The paying customer thinks that Facebook is making an effort to combat fraud but in truth they have every interest in keeping the fraud around and creating a false perception that things are changing - like the oil and tobacco companies; like nike and nestle; like fast food - like every other billion dollar company ever.
You don't amass $30 billion by being an honest Joe.
[+] [-] Spooky23|10 years ago|reply
If you're a person at risk due to many of the issues described here, you don't belong on Facebook. If you're a domestic violence victim avoiding a dangerous person "liking" the wrong thing or somebody's innocent repost can put you in danger, pseudonym or not.
The transgender situation is similarly tragic, but it's an issue that trans people run into when presenting ID to buy beer as well. We should get states to provide some sort of transitional ID or something.
[+] [-] pdkl95|10 years ago|reply
What is this, the 18th century?
You claim to only be suggesting opsec, while ignoring that such extreme opsec (aka, not participating in many aspects of society) wouldn't be necessary if Facebook didn't insist of removing privacy (aka "the effective capacity to misrepresent yourself").
The power of the internet is that it lets you publish what you want, when you want. This should enable people to act like their true self or seek the support of others. Facebook seems to think that these are bad things that need to be prevented by forcing everyone to id themselves.
Blame Facebook for creating this hazard instead of blaming the victims for wanting to participate in social activities like a normal human.
[+] [-] OldSchoolJohnny|10 years ago|reply
Not singling you out in particular this is for everyone who doesn't seem to get it due to youth, lack of experience, very privileged life, complete inability to empathise, I'm not sure what exactly in each case but it's ugly at times and Hacker News seems to be ground zero for a lot of this stuff.
I suspect like many things I see on here there is a huge lack of life experience informing opinions.
Luckily on HN you don't have to use your real name so these immature opinions won't come back to bite you as a well adjust adult with life experience.
[+] [-] taswal_tmanir|10 years ago|reply
Including the "issues" of: being a "Native American...using traditional Irish and Scottish names...[being a] LGBTQ [Facebook] user"? Including the "issue" of just having an unusual name, like Violet Blue?
This is online. We shouldn't HAVE the same tragedies of discrimination as someone buying beer. We definitely shouldn't be promoting requirements that increase the likelihood of those tragedies.
[+] [-] 30183839|10 years ago|reply
The fact that identification is difficult to change for transgender individuals is an enormous fractured problem. Also consider that Facebook is used around the world in various political climates. Even in the state of California it is necessary to go through treatment and get a doctors note and pay several hundreds of dollars and wait several months (You can forgo the doctors note if you're willing to publish it in the local newspaper a few times).
[+] [-] emmab|10 years ago|reply
That is different than a name you are seeing in front of your face, every time you say something. Imagine trying to talk to a friend and cringing every time you see one of your own messages.
[+] [-] grayclhn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seiji|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] artursapek|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hellbanner|10 years ago|reply
https://www.corbettreport.com/meet-in-q-tel-the-cias-venture...
[+] [-] junto|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] personjerry|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smoreilly|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cwyers|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xacaxulu|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kiro|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rwhitman|10 years ago|reply
FB simply needs to figure out a fair way to validate identity but allow a user to use a sanctioned alternate identity. I think this is what the EFF action is really about
[+] [-] steve_taylor|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] warewolf|10 years ago|reply
"I don't make the rules, I just pick which rules I follow"
[+] [-] Slushpuppisan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] strommen|10 years ago|reply
If you want to write anonymously, then get a free account on any number of other platforms that are designed for anonymous publishing.