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

It's to decrease the perception of click fraud.

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.

From your other posts you seem to have a very good sense of social responsibility, so I'm surprised at this comment.

Multiple identities are incredibly important to anybody in a minority that is threatened by their local mainstream culture. Black people in may areas (even today), gay or lesbian people in many parts of the world, and trans people just about anywhere[1] are some obvious examples. There are numerous others, which bring varying amounts of risk if exposed publicly.

These people are often forced to put on a facade when in public, to avoid the risk of being fired (only a few of these are protected classes), beaten, or even killed. The internet has created a space where these people can be themselves... as long as it doesn't connect back to their real name and identity.

Yes, leaving a job is a good way to avoid a bigoted manager, but that isn't an option for everybody. Your boss isn't the only threat, either: it wasn't that long ago that being openly gay could get you lynched in some areas.

This comes down to the basic concept of privacy. I recommend Dan Geer's definition[2] of privacy in light of modern technology:

    Privacy used to be proportional to that which it is impossible to observe
    or that which can be observed but not identified.  No more -- what is today
    observable and identifiable kills both privacy as impossible-to-observe and
    privacy as impossible-to-identify, so what might be an alternative?  If you
    are an optimist or an apparatchik, then your answer will tend toward rules
    of data procedure administered by a government you trust or control.  If you
    are a pessimist or a hacker/maker, then your answer will tend towards the
    operational, and your definition of a state of privacy will be my definition:
    the effective capacity to misrepresent yourself.

Real name policies are, de facto isomorphic with banning privacy. It is saying that people must never experiment with how they present themselves to the world. It's saying that anybody who fears repercussions if they act like themselves must stay in the closet.

It is nice to believe that we are past these problems. I'm often thankful that I have the privilege to live in California, which has been very accepting of diversity. Unfortunately, we haven't solved all of these problems, and they are not going to be solved in the near future. Sometimes an optimist or apparatchick insists that forcing everybody into the public so nothing is hidden and privacy no longer exists will somehow eradicate bigotry and discrimination. Well, bigots are often proud of their beliefs, and most people don't consider the consequences anyway; these problems are not solved by magical thinking.

[1] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/90519/t...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpI#t=2415

These discussions remind me of the debate over caller ID in California. California was one of the last states to have Caller ID.

On the opposing side were battered women's advocacy groups arguing that Caller ID would make it impossible for a woman to hide her location from her tormentor.

See http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/15/nyregion/popularity-of-cal... for a general discussion about this.

the most vehement opposition has come from advocates for battered women and other victims whose safety might depend on being able to call help lines or domestic-violence shelters anonymously. One Caller I.D. option lists numbers for calls that have been made as well as for calls received; thus an abusive husband, for example, could tell if his wife had called for help. And if such a victim has left home, Caller I.D. might help the abuser track her down if she or her children called. 'A Step Backward'

And among the groups that wanted it were, you guessed it, battered women's advocacy groups who argued that Caller ID would put an end to harassing phone calls!

Both sides gave tearful testimony to the California PUC.

This is absolutely not true historically. I don't know what their privacy policies are now, but they have a track record of changing them with very little fanfare.

In Germany, making a copy of your own ID is probably legal but requesting a copy is illegal, as is making a copy if you are not the owner, with only very limited exceptions (e.g. some parts of government, for some financial transactions).

(Completely ignoring the fact that real name policies are legally dubious as well)