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

141–150 of 266 posts

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

#141

Post by detaro »

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?

How is not using a real name "giving up social networking entirely"?

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

#142

Post by grayclhn »

throwaway6845 wrote: post #31
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…

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…

The real-name local facebook group for my small town is a cesspool, so ymmv.

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

#143

Post by dredmorbius »

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:

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.

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

#144

Post by detaro »

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…

If that was what Facebook did that would be fine (I think it's silly, but it doesn't have any real downsides, so I don't care), but it is not.

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

#145

Post by manigandham »

grayclhn wrote: post #138
manigandham wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this a lot but I dont get it - Facebook has some of the most robust privacy settings of any platform. You can control exactly how much information you want the public and different groups to see. Also, most people who complain about public data are the ones who willingly share most of it in the first place without a care.

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.

The most important thing is public vs friends. And they've always had those basic settings for a long time... so again not sure what the big issue is.

You can still just not put things online or not be friends with someone to protect yourself if you don't want to configure privacy settings.

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

#146

Post by dnr »

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 can require users to identify themselves in a "meaningful way," even in the way that they go by to some of their friends and acquaintances. People aren't arguing that. The point is that the name that they go by doesn't have to have any relation to a _legal_ name. (You'd be surprised at how many people you know whose legal names are different than what they go by in real life.)

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

#147

Post by zyxley »

manigandham wrote: post #116
Swizec wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about the friend request per se, it's about being able to find people. A large part of your FB profile is public. At the very least, I now know your last name. Maybe even your birthday. In a lot of cases, that's enough to perform some light identity theft. Or I can find your exact address. Or I can find out where you work, or just see all the places you like hanging out at and so on and so on. I don't want t…

There are privacy settings for all of this... it's not forced in any way. Take the 5 mins to setup everything and it all works.

Except in cases like those noted in the EFF's documents, where FB will change your publicly listed information without your consent and remove your ability to change it back.

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

#148

Post by Ensorceled »

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…

My stepson tried to stay off Facebook. But then he started missing parties, not being part of evening conversations, had difficulties with groups at school, was missing out on his theatre group.

If you just ... stop ... you may find your social circle leaving you behind.

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

#149

Post by Spooky23 »

OldSchoolJohnny wrote: post #85
Spooky23 wrote: post #81

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…

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 lac…

Who are you to judge me?

If you are a domestic violence victim, you need to think about opsec while your tormentor is walking free. Sorry if that offends you, but preserving you and your children's life and health is more important than futzing about on Facebook. For extreme cases, states like New York actually provide state managed postal mailing addresses to prevent inadvertent disclosure by banks or other companies. This is a real issue that I take very seriously.

My employment contract features an ethics clause that leaves me personally vulnerable even in some fairly benign circumstances, so my Facebook page consists mostly of "happy birthday", pictures of my kids and community events. Does that suck? Sure, but my career is more valuable to me than Facebook commenting, and unfortunately I can be subject to the whims of thin skinned people.

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

#150

Post by zyxley »

linkydinkandyou wrote: post #136
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…

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 oppositi…

I don't see the similarity. Where are the disadvantaged and at-risk groups arguing that Facebook's name policy is a good thing?
Post reply on HN