Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 266 posts

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#61

Post by TeMPOraL »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #47
toomuchtodo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (…

What I don't get is why Facebook's users don't just disengage. Instead, Facebook is treated as some basic human right. Here, with some vague "responsibilities akin to a utility, but not quite that far". I mean, that really sounds kind of, well, made up. Who's defining these responsibilities? In fact, Facebook is not a public utility, but a private company. And, unlike with a public utility, the public to which they a…

For the same reason people uncomfortable with phone companies don't ditch their phones - added value + network effect.

For Facebook users (of which I am one), this service is an extension of our real-life social circles. We have (most of) our families, friends and colleagues there. Facebook Messenger is probably the primary IM for personal communication these days. You may dislike aspects of it, but there's no denying that Facebook is the best way of keeping the weak ties[0] (and turning them into strong when needed) that exists today.

We may bitch about the specifics, but the truth is - it enhances life too much to just leave it.

Ditching Facebook is not impossible though. The younger generation seems to be migrating towards Whatsapp and Snapchat.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#62

Post by gurkendoktor »

morgante wrote: post #21

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…

> 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.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#63

Post by JoshTriplett »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #59
JoshTriplett wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm saying if users use Facebook, regulations should be in place to dictate to Facebook how those users should be treated. As much as I hate what Facebook is doing, I don't think this is anywhere near the right answer. Besides, do you really think governments want to see less information collected, when having that information makes it so convenient for them to obtain?

> As much as I hate what Facebook is doing, I don't think this is anywhere near the right answer. That's how regulations work. You dictate to a private business its responsibilities to its customers or users. I don't understand why that isn't the right answer (although Europe seems to do far better about this than the US). > Besides, do you really think governments want to see less information collected, when having…

> That's how regulations work. You dictate to a private business its responsibilities to its customers or users. I don't understand why that isn't the right answer (although Europe seems to do far better about this than the US).

You should, at the very least, already know that this is not a universally held position, but rather one that many people oppose as vigorously as you support it. Without descending into politics, suffice it to say that doing so has no particular guarantee of solving more problems than it creates. Quite apart from the people who work at and run Facebook having rights, too.

People use Facebook voluntarily. "Facebook but not evil" is a viable business model.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#65

Post by [deleted] »

morgante wrote: post #21

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…

[deleted]

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#66

Post by TeMPOraL »

gorena wrote: post #34
jawns wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like this sort of privacy control could be put in place without resorting to pseudonyms. For instance: you register using your real name/"authentic identity", but you select a restrictive privacy option that says that your profile won't show up when people search for your name on Facebook; nobody can friend-request you; and all your posts and other info is visible to friends only. Voila, you now have a priva…

I'm pretty sure that you can already do all of this. I can't currently find the option to entirely de-list from search, but I thought I had it on before.

You can de-list pretty much all information about you - without a publicly visible profile picture and your current location (city/country), you're pretty much impossible to find among others who share your first and last name. And yes, Facebook has enough users now that if you live in a big city, it's likely you'll find a few people sharing your first and last name in the same city.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#67

Post by gknoy »

acabal wrote: post #16
vectorjohn wrote: post #6

I don't understand why people make anything of "real names" policies. They just want the users to have real looking names. They don't actually have any way to force real names. So it's a non-issue. There's no oppressed person in a police state signing up for Facebook that reads a EULA and concludes "well, Facebook said I have to reveal my true identity, I guess that's the way it is."

Exactly! I have a similar policy at the community I operate. Members have to sign up with a real- sounding pen name. I'm very flexible on that too. All that means is you can't sign up with a pen name like "CRaZzE BlOgGeR". I don't care if your pen name is your real name or not--it just can't sound like a dumb made-up internet username. And yet people still email me daily, enraged that they can't sign up for a profess…

> This kind of policy goes a long way towards the perception of professionalism at any web site.

Does it, though? Looking at HN usernames, some are clearly names (mine, yours), and many are probably not (patio11, JupeterMoon, hackuser, on__3, to use some from the comments of a neighboring thread). I don't think this detracts at all from the professionalism of the discourse here, nor from the perception thereof.

Similarly, I wouldn't weigh the professionalism of a hypothetical StackExchange user differently if their usernames were 'SparkleMermaid', 'ArmadilloRocketeer', or 'Iheartpython' -- I notice the content of their writing before I notice their name. Heck, the sandwich-themed name of your company shouldn't make one pre-judge the communities you've built, or the perception the work you've done to build them.

Am I that much in the minority that I don't care if your username is your initials + favorite 3 digit number, your real name, or a reference to your favorite Star Trek episide? Is this because I grew up in a time when handles were either assigned-by-name or completely made-up, depending on what system you had joined? Maybe it's the influence of having been a lurker on Slashdot and HN, where clever nicknames were commonplace, yet one's choice of nickname nearly never was the basis for judging value of contributions.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#68

Post by bradjohnson »

jawns wrote: post #7
1ris wrote: post #3

And in fact illegal in Germany and probably a hell lot of other places. I wonder if that gets enforced anytime soon.

I'm sincerely curious ... how is a social network like Facebook, which is built around connecting you with your real-world friends and acquaintances, supposed to work if you can't require users to identify themselves in a meaningful way? The little "people you may know" widget is really useful, because it shows me names I recognize from my offline life. If it's just a random stream of pseudonyms and online handles, t…

You're being obtuse. Ask your friend their facebook name or send them a friend request + message rather than requiring the service to verify with certainty that they are who they claim to be. How is it supposed to work? Exactly how it has for the majority of users for 10+ years. If your long-lost friends and former co-workers and classmates wanted you to find them then they would make it easier to do so.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#69

Post by bradjohnson »

morgante wrote: post #48
greggman wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know several people online by pseudonyms only. If I wanted to add them on facebook I'd add their pseudonym. I also know people who don't go by their real name in real life. I know John's that go by Sean. I know Richard's that go by Dick. I know another Richard that goes by Greg. I suspect that 95% of his friends don't know his "real" name is Richard. I also know 2 Cyrils that go by Rocky and I suspect only their ve…

> I know several people online by pseudonyms only. Facebook is explicitly designed to primarily be a platform for "real world" relationships, not digital connections with strangers. There are plenty of other places on the web to talk to strangers. > I know another Richard that goes by Greg. Then that's the name he can and should use on Facebook. Facebook's policy is not that you have to use your legal name. It's that…

>Facebook is explicitly designed to primarily be a platform for "real world" relationships

Good thing the developer can't control how people decide to use their software. I don't understand this obsession with wanting to force people to not use a pseudonym and only add friends who they know in real life. How does it affect you negatively to know that others use the service in a different way than you?

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#70

Post by jleader »

Karunamon wrote: post #22
cableshaft wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every teacher I know either doesn't use Facebook at all, or if they do, they don't use their real name. Why? Because they know that their students are going to look for them on Facebook out of curiosity and gossip amongst themselves about any detail that's on there (or if it's locked down, try to sneak onto their friends list and then gossip). They often have to be very careful or else they could easily get in troubl…

So the idea is we give up social networking entirely because a small percentage of people are jerks? Doesn't that seem a little defeatist?

No, we require our social networks to provide us with meaningful, usable, robust privacy controls. When they don't do well enough at that (difficult) task, we insist on our own privacy measures, such as pseudonymous use.
Post reply on HN