Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Global coalition tells Facebook to kill its Real Names policy

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Global coalition tells Facebook to kill its Real Names policy

#81

Post by tsotha »

pmlnr wrote: post #21
avolcano wrote: post #6

Good, I'm glad this is getting traction. Seems like every week I read about another trans person or someone who uses a psuedonym in day-to-day life getting "reported" by some asshole and getting locked out of their Facebook, and Facebook seems uninterested in fixing the issue. Honestly, it's heartbreaking, as someone who uses many Facebook open source projects, to talk to engineers at Facebook and find out how many d…

I don't get this. This is a company, a product, which no one is forced to use.* If you disagree, walk away and don't touch Facebook; there are trillions of other options out there to build community sites, some much, much better than FB. That is how you make a change, not by enforcing ideas on a company. *ED. For some situations I understand that it's inevitable - even schools use it as a generic broadcasting media n…

I agree with this. Facebook is a service with a business model. I'm all for people who have legitimate concerns trying to convince the company to adjust policy, but I don't like the way pressure groups try to strong-arm companies.

In this case, though, I will make one exception: As my extended family got FB accounts they started posting family pictures that included me, and identified me by name. If you go back through enough posts you could get a pretty good idea what my habits are just by analyzing what other people have posted.

Re: Global coalition tells Facebook to kill its Real Names policy

#82

Post by tsotha »

DanBC wrote: post #52
pmlnr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it's not a fake name. It's their name. You seem to think that people have this single thing which is their name - that might be true in the US (I dunno) but it's not true in many other places. Not according to the current laws. You may want to change the laws as well. ( No, I'm not cynical. )

What laws? In the UK I can us any name I like so long as I don't have the intent to deceive. WIkipedia says that's the case for the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_name#United_States > Most states in the United States follow the common law which permits name changing for non-fraudulent purposes. This is actually the most common method, since most women who marry do not petition a court under the statutorily pr…

Yep. In my state to officially change your name all you have to do is start using the new name, though you'll end up putting both down on the "AKA" section of official documents.

Re: Global coalition tells Facebook to kill its Real Names policy

#83

Post by merijnv »

minority-one wrote: post #71
merijnv wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only way to force companies is by spending your money somewhere else Or, you know, enforcing new legislation that forces the company to do what you want...

I'm pretty sure pmlnr meant "the only way to peacefully/morally force companies is by spending your money somewhere else". We all know violence and threat (what you suggest) works. Some of us are trying to decrease the amount of what you suggest in the world. New legislation is a direct threat to companies, backed by the power of the government to fine and arrest those who disobey. Why go to such lengths when it's mu…

> New legislation is a direct threat to companies, backed by the power of the government to fine and arrest those who disobey. Why go to such lengths when it's much easier just to stop going to Facebook? Only a perverse sadist would prefer legislation over ostracism.

Right, this is why the US is such a shiny beacon of safe products, consumer-friendliness, and consumer rights compared to the horrible European markets... :)

I always find this sentiment on HN so amusing. "Legislation hurts companies, we should all just ostracise/boycott companies instead!" despite all practical evidence suggesting that legislation actually gets things done. Like, I can actually get fast affordable internet here, unlike when I was in the US :)

Re: Global coalition tells Facebook to kill its Real Names policy

#84

Post by mikeash »

merijnv wrote: post #83
minority-one wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure pmlnr meant "the only way to peacefully/morally force companies is by spending your money somewhere else". We all know violence and threat (what you suggest) works. Some of us are trying to decrease the amount of what you suggest in the world. New legislation is a direct threat to companies, backed by the power of the government to fine and arrest those who disobey. Why go to such lengths when it's mu…

> New legislation is a direct threat to companies, backed by the power of the government to fine and arrest those who disobey. Why go to such lengths when it's much easier just to stop going to Facebook? Only a perverse sadist would prefer legislation over ostracism. Right, this is why the US is such a shiny beacon of safe products, consumer-friendliness, and consumer rights compared to the horrible European markets.…

I do think that legislation should be avoided if it's not necessary. If complaining or boycotting gets the job done, then that should be the first option. I'll never understand people who think we shouldn't complain or boycott. Surely this is just an exercise of one's right to free association? (Not saying you're objecting to them. But a lot of people seem to think that it's somehow wrong.)

On the other hand, if an issue is important and legislation can get the job done, we shouldn't shy away from it. To describe someone as "a perverse sadist" for wanting to legislate pseudonyms on social networks is bonkers.

Re: Global coalition tells Facebook to kill its Real Names policy

#85

Post by [deleted] »

trajing wrote: post #78
Aqueous wrote: post #62

The whole reason Facebook has any enforceable standards as a community is because of that policy. The community standards uphold themselves because there are be real-life social consequences for saying something hateful / sexually harassing somebody / posting pornography - the list goes on. Having to use your real name on Facebook is what keeps you accountable. If you want to see Facebook turn into a sewer, get rid o…

No, no. Not having your given or legal name associated with your online presence does not automatically make you a troll, nor does having them associated make people less likely to watch what they say. For example, me. I've been very careful about what I say even though my real name and my alias are not associated. I care about what people think about trajing, even if they can't trace it back to me in real life. As f…

[deleted]

Re: Global coalition tells Facebook to kill its Real Names policy

#86

Post by minority-one »

mikeash wrote: post #84
merijnv wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> New legislation is a direct threat to companies, backed by the power of the government to fine and arrest those who disobey. Why go to such lengths when it's much easier just to stop going to Facebook? Only a perverse sadist would prefer legislation over ostracism. Right, this is why the US is such a shiny beacon of safe products, consumer-friendliness, and consumer rights compared to the horrible European markets.…

I do think that legislation should be avoided if it's not necessary. If complaining or boycotting gets the job done, then that should be the first option. I'll never understand people who think we shouldn't complain or boycott. Surely this is just an exercise of one's right to free association? (Not saying you're objecting to them. But a lot of people seem to think that it's somehow wrong.) On the other hand, if an i…

> I do think that legislation should be avoided if it's not necessary.

In other words: if legislation.necessary? then enact else avoid.

> On the other hand, if an issue is important and legislation can get the job done, we shouldn't shy away from it.

In other words: if issue.important? and legislation.effective? then enact else avoid.

These two are contradictory. Which is it for you?

Re: Global coalition tells Facebook to kill its Real Names policy

#87

Post by mikeash »

minority-one wrote: post #86
mikeash wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think that legislation should be avoided if it's not necessary. If complaining or boycotting gets the job done, then that should be the first option. I'll never understand people who think we shouldn't complain or boycott. Surely this is just an exercise of one's right to free association? (Not saying you're objecting to them. But a lot of people seem to think that it's somehow wrong.) On the other hand, if an i…

> I do think that legislation should be avoided if it's not necessary. In other words: if legislation.necessary? then enact else avoid. > On the other hand, if an issue is important and legislation can get the job done, we shouldn't shy away from it. In other words: if issue.important? and legislation.effective? then enact else avoid. These two are contradictory. Which is it for you?

"Shouldn't shy away" does not equate to "always do it."

Re: Global coalition tells Facebook to kill its Real Names policy

#88

Post by pc86 »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #72
pc86 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And nobody is having their Facebook account flagged for using "Peggy" instead of "Margaret," they're getting flagged for using "John TheSexMan Doe" instead of the "John Doe" or "Samantha Applebee" instead of "Mark Applebee." So it's a false comparison.

Hardly. People are getting their facebook flagged for pen names, stage names, derby names, drag names, and other professional names. As well as names that are too common or not common enough, nicknames, and names that contain nouns, adjectives, or adverbs without regards to what shows up on their birth certificate. Not to mention Native American names or other "ethnic" or non-Anglo Saxon names or anything that looks…

If you make your living as "The Edge" and your birth certificate says "David Howell Evans," the former is a Facebook page and the latter is a Facebook profile. That's pretty much always been the case and purpose of that distinction.

Pen/stage/derby/drag names are not real names and Facebook's policy has always been that you have to use your real name. This includes any sort of transition, in which case you should be required to use your real name until it's not your real name anymore.

Re: Global coalition tells Facebook to kill its Real Names policy

#89

Post by asgard1024 »

PostOnce wrote: post #3

Facebook was made large by the fact that you can find people you used to know, or haven't spoken to in a while, or aren't that close to. You can find anyone, it's easy. Removing the real names policy does away with that, and I would say seriously threaten's facebook's business/growth/future. If you don't know your old girlfriend or your cousin or your highschool bandmate's username, how are you going to get in touch…

> Facebook's counterargument is money. Which argument do you think they support and will listen to?

The heavy hand of law! I don't understand why people are so worried about introducing regulation. Asking to argue against money is like asking to argue against gun. You can't have a meaningful argument with such an entity, because convincing on arguments assumes the other party is not a psychopath.

That aside, there are many options. I think "having a choice" is a good argument. Or they could allow to actually use pseudonym which you could link your real name or not (so the FB would know the connection but other people wouldn't).

Post reply on HN