My dog never had any trouble from the Facebook representatives. But then, he did use his real name....
Real name policies and ruling the world
41–50 of 153 posts
Re: Real name policies and ruling the world
#42I was already really unhappy with their real name policy (to the point of deleting my account and not going back), but recent incidents - like the policy resulting in moderators' profiles & names getting exposed to terrorists) - just blow my mind. Such a broad impact from a policy that may have no real upsides. I hope recent events lead them to reconsider this policy but at this point it seems like they never will.
Of course. It's money. Or does anybody thinks that $40 per IPO on user just happens?
It's real money to state you advertise to targeted audience by names, jobs and all that.
It will never change because FB likes money more than it cares about its users being harassed.
Re: Real name policies and ruling the world
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-...
Facebook does not represent the end of online anonymity because Facebook is one single site. There is nothing objectionable about one site having a rule to use your real name or not at all, and it is the height of entitlement to claim otherwise. (It's popular, so now they have to do X Y and Z) Doubly so given how granular the controls are regarding who can see what. Sharing on Facebook is a completely opt-in process,…
Being naive means refusing to recognize that most people confuse the internet with facebook. Most true in developing countries, where facebook's plan for universal internet access includes setting facebook as their homepage.
Re: Real name policies and ruling the world
#44Is there some reason I'm not aware of that makes "leaving Facebook" not the reasonable, default, option? If they REALLY are "naive, dangerous, and evil", just... don't use their service. Hit them where it hurts and take your eyeballs elsewhere.
Re: Real name policies and ruling the world
#45[deleted]
Re: Real name policies and ruling the world
#46It's been known for a long time that the "authentic name" policy is dangerous and is used as a device of suppression on many people. [1] [2] But Facebook, in its desire to target ads and network connections based on real names, has not shown much interest in removing that policy and allowing pseudonyms. Even now the policy and its enforcement are not clear, and what happens depends on the flagging system and who reviews the account.
Coming from Facebook, this news about moderators' details being shared with suspected terrorists is neither surprising nor shocking to me. Frustrated and upset? Yes. But, shocked? Not even a bit! I personally would be shocked if I found that Facebook had taken preemptive measures to not allow this to happen or if Facebook responds quickly to allow these people to use pseudonyms or not even sharing their information with the suspects. We know none of that will happen because Facebook's outlook has never ever favored better privacy and protection for Facebook users. If it has, that's probably only an accidental one and not the result of any kind of introspection that produces a different vision, which in turn drives and sustains positive changes. Facebook has made it quite clear through its actions and responses where its priorities lie and where it just doesn't give a damn.
Though termed as a "social network", I'd call Facebook "a net antisocial network for humankind" based on its policies and actions.
P.S.: I realize this may look like a bad rant reflecting my personal views strongly. But this is how I see and understand Facebook through the years.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9455071/nameless-coalitio...
[2]: https://act.eff.org/action/dear-facebook-authentic-names-are...
Re: Real name policies and ruling the world
#47Is there some reason I'm not aware of that makes "leaving Facebook" not the reasonable, default, option? If they REALLY are "naive, dangerous, and evil", just... don't use their service. Hit them where it hurts and take your eyeballs elsewhere.
For many people, not being on Facebook is neither a choice nor an option because their social network - the ones they depend on - are all there and nowhere else (except probably WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook and where the contact metadata is shared between the two).
In my opinion, only some privileged people are able to really have this choice and act on it. The rest don't know (not privileged enough to know/understand) or don't care (because their social network is already on Facebook).
Re: Real name policies and ruling the world
#48There is a funny anecdote about this.
A friend of mine has "Bastardo" as her real last name. Facebook didn't let her use it, so she was actually forced, by Facebook, to use a fake name.
Re: Real name policies and ruling the world
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I've had people ask to see my ID to verify my identity when using a credit card at several stores. When I buy cough medicine or alcohol, the cashier will not only ask to see my ID but will scan it and store it in a database.
Those are exceptions, since for the first you always have the option to pay cash (and not show id), and for the latter it's required for proof-of-age to buy an age-restricted substance.
Re: Real name policies and ruling the world
#50Im 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
If I read your comment in a different way, I might take it as saying that we should never ever trust anyone who's ever made a mistake (or someone who trusted someone who's made a mistake). I don't think our world can function at all if everyone adopts the same thinking without adequate reflection on content vs. the person/messenger. Of course, there is value in questioning the credibility of a source of information over a period of time when multiple issues have surfaced. But judging an entire blog based on one single post and dismissing that? It neither seems fair nor useful to me.