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

Real name policies and ruling the world

theartificialintelligenceblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 153 posts

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#21

Post by z3t4 »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #17
aestetix wrote: post #16

Despite the assurances from Facebook, I've seen no evidence that these policies help anything, and plenty of evidence that they cause problems. Here are a few things that Facebook could answer that might help clear this up: 1. What specific kinds of abuses are primarily due to someone's name, and what percentage of total abuses do they constitute? 2. What criteria does Facebook use to determine if a name is "real"? 3…

Facebook can ask for identification under the same authority that you can ask to see someone's identification before letting them into your house.

i think facebook is more like public space. more like a club then a private home.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#22

Post by aestetix »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #20
aestetix wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that I'm not retaining any data when I do this, which opens the door to questions about data use and data retention. I've seen no statements from Facebook about how the data is used, how it is stored, and how long it is retained. Another difference is that Facebook suspends you when you are already using Facebook. The analogy would be more apt if you let someone into your house, they hung out for a…

Do you agree that you would have the authority to ask to take a picture of someone's identification before allowing them into your house?

Do you agree that the person I ask has the right to know why I am asking for the ID, why I'm taking the photo, and what I plan to do with it?

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#23

Post by espes »

aestetix wrote: post #19
daveFNbuck wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook can ask for identification under the same authority that you can ask to see someone's identification before letting them into your house.

The difference is that I'm not retaining any data when I do this, which opens the door to questions about data use and data retention. I've seen no statements from Facebook about how the data is used, how it is stored, and how long it is retained. Another difference is that Facebook suspends you when you are already using Facebook. The analogy would be more apt if you let someone into your house, they hung out for a…

> I've seen no statements from Facebook about how the data is used, how it is stored, and how long it is retained.

https://www.facebook.com/help/1723057061256937

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#24

Post by aestetix »

espes wrote: post #23
aestetix wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that I'm not retaining any data when I do this, which opens the door to questions about data use and data retention. I've seen no statements from Facebook about how the data is used, how it is stored, and how long it is retained. Another difference is that Facebook suspends you when you are already using Facebook. The analogy would be more apt if you let someone into your house, they hung out for a…

> I've seen no statements from Facebook about how the data is used, how it is stored, and how long it is retained. https://www.facebook.com/help/1723057061256937

Oh wow, thanks. This must be new, I hadn't seen it before.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#25

Post by [deleted] »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #17
aestetix wrote: post #16

Despite the assurances from Facebook, I've seen no evidence that these policies help anything, and plenty of evidence that they cause problems. Here are a few things that Facebook could answer that might help clear this up: 1. What specific kinds of abuses are primarily due to someone's name, and what percentage of total abuses do they constitute? 2. What criteria does Facebook use to determine if a name is "real"? 3…

Facebook can ask for identification under the same authority that you can ask to see someone's identification before letting them into your house.

[deleted]

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#26

Post by coldtea »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #20
aestetix wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that I'm not retaining any data when I do this, which opens the door to questions about data use and data retention. I've seen no statements from Facebook about how the data is used, how it is stored, and how long it is retained. Another difference is that Facebook suspends you when you are already using Facebook. The analogy would be more apt if you let someone into your house, they hung out for a…

Do you agree that you would have the authority to ask to take a picture of someone's identification before allowing them into your house?

Do you agree that a web service is not a private residence?

A coffe shop, a supermarket, a bookstore, etc. doesn't have right to check your ID.

Heck, from what I know, in the US even the police cannot ask you for an id without "reasonable suspicion" that you did something illegal.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#27

Post by Cozumel »

Animats wrote: post #15

Without real names, Facebook would be as junky as Myspace was.

Here's just two examples as to why online anonymity is so critical, there's cases like this every single day. You might think, so what? You're free to keep on thinking that right up until you're the one going to jail for criticising your boss. http://www.eutimes.net/2016/12/facebook-bans-german-woman-fo... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-woman-...

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#28

Post by kevingadd »

jhvh1134 wrote: post #10

I've had a clearly fake name on Facebook for years. A couple weeks ago I got message from one of their reps, letting me know that there was an issue about my name, and that it was currently being reviewed. I had no intention to link that account to my real name, as it was mostly political whining and interaction with a few close friends. I basically told them that I wouldn't change the name and that they should just…

It's enforced if people choose to report you, and 'proving' your name to them can be somewhat involved

It's also more likely they will hassle you over it if your name isn't white. Maybe those sorts of names tend to be fake more often, but probably not.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#29

Post by kevingadd »

vivekd wrote: post #8

Forcing moderators scrutinizing terrorists to use their real identities was a stupid, stupid idea that I hope facebook will change going forward. Perhaps facebook can look into getting some sort of anonymous identity for its moderators. At the same time, it seems a false equivalency to use a story about people using real identities to scrutinize terrorist to support a position that it is dangerous for anyone to post…

Domestic violence and sexual assault are extremely common, and this policy results in victims getting isolated since their attackers can use FB to locate and pursue them.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#30

Post by killer1loop »

seltzered_ wrote: post #11

Im pretty critical of aspects of fb, but it's hard to take this blog seriously. The same author has a recent post ( http://theartificialintelligenceblog.com/being-overheard/ ) referencing the terrible WhatsApp guardian article written in January, something declared as false journalism by several researchers: http://technosociology.org/?page_id=1687

I can't blame you, I don't even take myself seriously. But going back to the point, is anything in my article inaccurate – as far as you know? The being overheard thingy isn't scientific research, one would reckon. Do we agree that trying to inform and empower people is a sensible way to progress? I could argue that our blog is probably doing better than FB and the philanthropist Zuckerberg.

Going back to WhatsApp, some of the aspects of its encryption layer are still unclear, to quote your link:

"The threat is remote, quite limited in scope, applicability (requiring a server or phone number compromise) and stealthiness (users who have the setting enabled still see a warning–even if after the fact). The fact that warnings exist means that such attacks would almost certainly be quickly detected by security-aware users. This limits this method."

This paragraph alone, when put in context, would at least ring a bell and make you question the security and encrypted statement. Especially when it's coming from one of Zuckerberg subsidiaries.

Post reply on HN