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

81–90 of 153 posts

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#81

Post by dwighttk »

ng12 wrote: post #52
circadiam wrote: post #51

The real irony of these threads on HN: no one has ever run a social network. If they did, they would realize that mixing pseudonyms with real names is a formula for disaster. It’s probably the easiest way to continuously bother someone and troll groups to no end.

Seriously. Twitter gets crucified for a lack of accountability, now Facebook gets criticized for having too much. You can't embrace online anonymity only when it benefits you.

"You can't embrace" X " only when it benefits you."

Welcome to the human race! You are probably not going to enjoy the orientation period.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#82

Post by teddyh »

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…

> Certainly it is dangerous for […]

Here’s a more exhaustive list:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#83

Post by ericd »

If we had some valuable online identity that persisted across multiple sites with a reputation attached that mattered, it wouldn't need to be linked with real identity to make people care enough about it not to soil it.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#84

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

Eerie wrote: post #57

1. You don't have to use Facebook. You really, really don't. 2. Facebook is under no obligation to provide societal benefits for you. It doesn't even have a moral duty to act upon your complaints. Why? See 1. It's not a government program, you are not forced to use it, you are not even buying anything from it. You are just complaining about free stuff. So. Seriously. Just stop using it. PS. I'm not defending Facebook…

> You are just complaining about free stuff.

That's bullshit. Just because an exchange isn't for money, doesn't mean you are getting things for free.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#85

Post by blfr »

carvalho wrote: post #64
Eerie wrote: post #57

1. You don't have to use Facebook. You really, really don't. 2. Facebook is under no obligation to provide societal benefits for you. It doesn't even have a moral duty to act upon your complaints. Why? See 1. It's not a government program, you are not forced to use it, you are not even buying anything from it. You are just complaining about free stuff. So. Seriously. Just stop using it. PS. I'm not defending Facebook…

In Europe there is a mindset that companies can become so big that you can not avoid them anymore. Nobody forces you to use Google or Facebook, but you are put at a disadvantage if you do not use them. Facebook is not free. You trade your data for usage.

Google? Maybe. Facebook? I would argue that using Facebook is a net negative and you're at an advantage if you ditch it.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#86

Post by treve »

lwhalen wrote: post #79
avaer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a solution that absolves Facebook of social or moral responsibility if they are a link in the chain of immigration policy.

Facebook, to my knowledge, didn't ask to be a link in the chain of immigration policy.

You're not wrong, but what point are you making exactly in this thread? You're responding to a thread in which the top-poster argues that we shouldn't complain about a free service, and then the point is made that facebook may effect immigration.

Are you saying that we shouldn't complain because we can just not enter that country? That we should avoid facebook, as well as the countries that ask for facebook credentials when you're entering them? That's definitely the implication I'm getting from your comments.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#87

Post by RobertoG »

Eerie wrote: post #57

1. You don't have to use Facebook. You really, really don't. 2. Facebook is under no obligation to provide societal benefits for you. It doesn't even have a moral duty to act upon your complaints. Why? See 1. It's not a government program, you are not forced to use it, you are not even buying anything from it. You are just complaining about free stuff. So. Seriously. Just stop using it. PS. I'm not defending Facebook…

I am not so sure. I wanted nothing to do with facebook and they bought WhatsApp.

Should I tell now to all my contacts that they should install another app in order to talk to me?

I suppose it's possible but it's not going to happen.

The fact is that facebook is a monopoly with strong network effects and they work very hard so you can't escape them.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#88

Post by mahyarm »

circadiam wrote: post #51

The real irony of these threads on HN: no one has ever run a social network. If they did, they would realize that mixing pseudonyms with real names is a formula for disaster. It’s probably the easiest way to continuously bother someone and troll groups to no end.

Facebook is a friend only social network in practice although, so it's easier to regulate

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#89

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

perfectstorm wrote: post #56

anyone remember Orkut ? One of the reasons why I quit Orkut was because they didn't care about real names. so people started using weird characters and unicodes instead of their real name. This won't be a problem when you're not friends with them but once you're friends with them and your friend changes their name to some weird characters, you don't know who you're talking to. I hated that. I think the article is loo…

How the fuck does stability of names require that it's from your government ID?

How about you simply allow users to put labels on their contacts to identify them for themselves? No need to introduce a police state in order to keep you unconfused.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#90

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

lwhalen wrote: post #69
newscracker wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/u…

It's a 'privilege' to not be on Facebook? On Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs, nowhere is there any mention of 'online services' or 'Facebook access', or even 'Internet access'. If ever there was a textbook "Sh*t HN Says" comment worthy of the moniker, yours is it. Facebook is a business, just like your local grocer, just like any number of restaurants, just like a bookstore. If any of the above aren't giving you the serv…

You might want to educate yourself on concepts called monopolies and network effects before you make yourself look even more clueless.

Also, ever noticed how Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs also doesn't mention electricity or gasoline? You are kindof at the wrong level of abstraction there.

Post reply on HN