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

151–160 of 266 posts

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

#151

Post by fweespeech »

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…

> 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.

It isn't hard. :/

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

#152

Post by bzbarsky »

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…

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.

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

#153

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

Spooky23 wrote: post #149
OldSchoolJohnny wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 companie…

> preserving you and your children's life and health is more important than futzing about on Facebook

Not having Facebook may cut you off from your support network.

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

#154

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

personjerry wrote: post #77

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?

Are you British? Because outside of the UK, changing your name is much more difficult than just printing off and signing a piece of paper.

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

#155

Post by emmab »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #108
dunkelheit wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

> 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. I think Facebook primarily targets the second one. Though personally, I find the whole concept of this type of multiple identities weird. Why should I present a different identity at work than I do in personal affairs? A…

An interesting perspective on this from Japanese culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honne_and_tatemae

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

#156

Post by unclebucknasty »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #61
unclebucknasty wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 denyin…

EDIT: Clarity

There are regulations around FB, as well as civil remedies for violations of their terms, privacy policy, etc. They lay out how they will treat users and are beholden to follow it, lest face civil (and possibly criminal) penalties. As a user, you decide whether those terms are sufficient. If the people with whom you communicate can't be convinced to communicate with you otherwise, then why would you have a right to demand that FB accomodate your preferences?

That's a sincere question.

And, honestly, we have more choices than ever to communicate with people. Personally, I refuse to upload my life to FB for their monetization. But, much as I dislike some of FB's practices (and its fundamental revenue model), I don't see why people believe they should be able to dictate nuances of their various policies as if Facebook owes them the right to use their service on their terms. If people think that that what FB offers is worth the price, then they are getting exactly what they paid for. If they don't think it's worth it, then they should simply move on.

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

#157

Post by unclebucknasty »

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…

Correction: FB is obviously no longer a private company. Still, being publicly traded is far different than being a public utility.

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

#158

Post by unclebucknasty »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #53
unclebucknasty wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What I don't get is why Facebook's customers don't just disengage. Convincing all your friends and family to switch sites is not easy. Social networks provide quite a lot of lock-in. And while alternatives exist, they don't have the momentum, the audience, or the lack of friction. Replacing Facebook is not primarily a technical challenge.

True. But, if the majority of people, including your friends and family, don't care, then is it really Facebook's problem?

And, if the relatively few people who do care still continue to engage despite their concerns, then is that an even clearer message to FB that it's not a real problem for FB?

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

#159

Post by smt88 »

bzbarsky wrote: post #152
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…

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 addre…

> 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

It absolutely does allow this, and it has for years. I can't find the name for the feature, but it seems to be called "Friends" on the left column. Maybe "friend lists" is accurate.

It automatically creates some lists for you based on your employers, schools, etc., and then you can create your own.

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

#160

Post by smt88 »

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.

They have responded to the criticism of their historical behavior and now only make changes with quite a bit of fanfare. They haven't done anything overtly evil related to privacy in a while.
Post reply on HN