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

161–170 of 266 posts

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

#161

Post by pdkl95 »

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…

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.

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

#162

Post by unclebucknasty »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #50
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…

You misunderstand me. My apologies for not explaining properly. I'm not saying people are entitled to Facebook; I'm saying if users use Facebook, regulations should be in place to dictate to Facebook how those users should be treated. Corporations will take as much as they can, which is why regulations exist.

Thank you for the clarification. But, you're still sort of implying that it's an entitlement by suggesting that they be regulated, and that's what I was keying on.

Because the choice exists to either accept their terms and use it or reject their terms and not use it. But, what you are saying is that you reject their terms but, rather than disengage, you insist on using it, but believe the government should forcibly change those terms to your satisfaction.

BTW, they are actually regulated to some extent. Among other things, they spell out what they will and won't do. If they renege, then there are civil and possibly criminal remedies available.

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

#163

Post by bzbarsky »

smt88 wrote: post #159
bzbarsky wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 crea…

And I can present a different identity, including different name, to these different groups? My family knows me by a name that's not even in the same character set as the name that my co-workers know me by.

Just like my neighbor who's a teacher can have all her students see her as "Mrs. Jones" while her college friends see her as "Emily"?

I'm not talking about keeping my separate groups of acquaintances separate in my perception. I'm talking about keeping the separate "me"s that exist in other people's perception separate, just like I, and many other people, do in the real world.

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

#164

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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 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.)

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

#165

Post by travv0 »

Ensorceled wrote: post #148
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…

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.

I stopped when I was in school and didn't have a problem with any of these things. Maybe he just needs to find closer friends.

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

#166

Post by PhasmaFelis »

smt88 wrote: post #160
grayclhn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Facebook hasn't abused their users much in a while, so I trust them to never do so again ever" is pretty fucking slim for someone whose career or life could be endangered.

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

#167

Post by unclebucknasty »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #52
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 (…

I think both of you deserve upvotes for presenting arguments from two sides in a civil manner. Personally, I'm ambivalent towards the issue - on the one hand I really like the idea behind Facebook reflecting your real-life social graph, and I do fancy the ability to find someone by their real name. On the other hand, I had a fake account created for my IRC bot with personality that I meant to use both for fun and to…

>both of you deserve upvotes...

Yes. I am as likely to upvote someone with whom I disagree for presenting a thoughtful argument, as I am to upvote someone with whom I agree.

Been argued a million times, but downvoting as disagreemnt is silly IMO--unless you just want groupthink or a high school popularity contest. But, if you want thoughtful discussion, then reward thoughtful comments.

Now, of course if I care enough, then I have a choice: I can either stop using HN, or I can try to get the government to regulate it. Heh.

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

#168

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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…

"You can choose to keep in touch with your circle of friends, get invites to their parties, and so forth; or you can choose to remain concealed from your violent ex-boyfriend. Pick one."

That's kind of a douchey thing to do to people, even if you're a private company.

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

#169

Post by grayclhn »

smt88 wrote: post #160
grayclhn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but users who are legitimately concerned about privacy would be pretty foolish to rely on Facebook's settings, which was the comment I replied to. It's not like we're talking about behavior from 20 years ago.

To be fair, I don't think those users should trust any service's privacy settings. Facebook is almost certainly better than, say, Ashley Madison. But I think most of us would ridicule a "real names only" policy proposed by Ashley Madison, even though they haven't had a major privacy violation since their last CEO.

Post reply on HN