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

171–180 of 266 posts

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

#171

Post by toomuchtodo »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #162
toomuchtodo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

> Because the choice exists to either accept their terms and use them or reject their terms and not use them. 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.

How is this any different than unenforceable EULAs or employment contracts that overreach? You can ask me to sign something that violates the law; I can still use your service or become employed by you; that does not remove my protections granted under the law, but nullifies the parts of your contract or agreement that are unlawful.

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

#172

Post by sethammons »

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.

I don't have a Facebook account. Many of my friends and family apparently do. I manage to text, email, call, or visit from time to time. We have things to catch up on and talk about when we do, in part because we are not voyeurs into one another's life. Could you replace your online social network with more first communication channels? I don't intend to sound hollier than thou. I could be missing something amazing by not being on social networks, but I have not noticed it.

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

#173

Post by r00fus »

ambicapter wrote: post #121
morgante wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once your platform begins to become ubiquitous (Facebook Messenger), it starts to have certain responsibilities, similiar to a utility but not quite that far. I think this is a decent argument. Facebook is pretty close to being a digital utility at this point. But, a logical corollary of that argument is that if Facebook is a utility it's also expected for everyone to have it. Hence, it's fully okay for services to…

> if Facebook is a utility it's also expected for everyone to have it. How so? I am in no way required to live with running water and electricity in my house. Even things that are tangentially related, like my workplace requiring me to bathe and wash my clothes occasionally, don't require me to have the equipment to do so in my house.

No but it's mandated utilities offer service unless you've done something very egregious.

No simple EULA denials.

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

#174

Post by natch »

ryandrake wrote: post #96
natch wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the meme of first world problems versus third world problems. Essentially, you are saying that because it saves you some annoyance, it's a good tradeoff, even if that means that a few others face not annoyance, but actual existential threats of death, violence, imprisonment, dismemberment, etc. http://violetblue.tumblr.com/post/130440543695/why-im-sittin... Edit: and yes, participation in Facebook…

What is the price I pay for not participating in Facebook?

It's really not just about you, and what you care about. Other people may care about stuff you may or may not care about, and what they care about is valid to them.

To others, some things that may matter to them may include:

- Trackng down old friends

- Keeping in touch with friends

- Keeping in touch with acquaintances

- Staying aware of what friends and acquaintances are up to

- Keeping friends and acquaintances aware of what they are up to

- Fitting into social groups

- Staying aware of what their social groups of interest are up to

- Or more generally staying aware of cultural events, news, trends, and topics that are of interest amongst circles of people they are close to, or other circles of which they are members.

Facebook is a one-stop shop for a lot of these things. Sure, some or all of them are conceivably possible in other ways, but finding alternatives for all of them would involve significant expenditure of effort compared to just being a regular user of Facebook.

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

#175

Post by smt88 »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #166
smt88 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's possible to use Facebook in a way that couldn't endanger your life or career, depending on who you are. Obviously if someone is stalking you or something, that's a different story. But most people can just omit the information that they find to be sensitive and limit their friends list to people they trust.

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

#176

Post by [deleted] »

Swizec wrote: post #74
gurkendoktor wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Tellingly, my female FB friends are much more likely to obfuscate their names (and get blocked for it). This is the part of Facebook that's really creepy. As a guy who used to date around a lot, I was surprised by how well the "find user" function works. You connect with someone on Tinder, and meet up in real life. You have no friends in common, no digital connection other than a week-old Tinder conversation consis…

[deleted]

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

#177

Post by smt88 »

bzbarsky wrote: post #163
smt88 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 m…

You can't present a different name, but I think that's a pretty narrow use-case. For teachers, sure, but I don't see a reason for teachers to be Facebook friends with students.

You can certainly be searchable by names in different character sets. I have a Korean friend whose name on Facebook is in Korean, but you can find him by searching for "Henry" as well.

If this compartmentalization is so important, why not just make separate Facebook profiles?

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

#178

Post by unclebucknasty »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #171
unclebucknasty wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

> Because the choice exists to either accept their terms and use them or reject their terms and not use them. 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. How is this any different than unenforceable EULAs or employment contracts that overreach? You can ask me to sign some…

But, no one is denying users access to the courts to test the enforceability of FB agreements. On the contrary, I am saying that it is precisely a remedy that is available to them if that is the question.

But, in most cases, those who demand regulation or otherwise take umbrage with FB's practices in the current context are not questioning the legality of their terms, etc. Instead, they are asking, for instance, that the government proactively force FB to change practices with which they do not agree, irrespective of any legal tests.

The article itself literally speaks to people being endangered by a FB policy. All of this begs the question: at what point is it simply not worth it? It's nearly satire that people believe FB to be so critical that not even personal endangerment will deter them from using it.

Using FB is neither a requirement for survival, nor a fundamental human right. If their policies are endangering your life or simply not agreeable, then there's no need to launch a crusade. Just sign out.

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

#179

Post by emmab »

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…

> The transgender situation is similarly tragic, but it's an issue that trans people run into when presenting ID to buy beer as well.

That is different than a name you are seeing in front of your face, every time you say something. Imagine trying to talk to a friend and cringing every time you see one of your own messages.

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

#180

Post by superuser2 »

ambicapter wrote: post #121
morgante wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once your platform begins to become ubiquitous (Facebook Messenger), it starts to have certain responsibilities, similiar to a utility but not quite that far. I think this is a decent argument. Facebook is pretty close to being a digital utility at this point. But, a logical corollary of that argument is that if Facebook is a utility it's also expected for everyone to have it. Hence, it's fully okay for services to…

> if Facebook is a utility it's also expected for everyone to have it. How so? I am in no way required to live with running water and electricity in my house. Even things that are tangentially related, like my workplace requiring me to bathe and wash my clothes occasionally, don't require me to have the equipment to do so in my house.

Try getting a building permit for a residential dwelling without outlets or a bathroom. That might work in unincorporated territory where there is no municipal law, but not in a suburban neighborhood in the US.

Many workplaces will require that you are reachable by telephone. Pretty hard to do that without the equipment in your house.

Post reply on HN