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

141–150 of 153 posts

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#141

Post by dredmorbius »

Santosh83 wrote: post #122
grandalf wrote: post #73

By requiring real names, Facebook is trying to combat the sort of social discord that occurs on sites like Reddit where people routinely abandon identities, or create throwaway identities to participate in specific fora. Imagine if car license plates had our name and home address on them, would we be as likely to commit road rage, pick our noses, double park, etc. Facebook sees itself as a commons first, and the prod…

I'd like to humourously point out that your last sentence and your HN handle sort of contradict each other. :-)

I think in this case the sarcasm tag is implied.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#142

Post by dredmorbius »

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…

By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct.... Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend not only those things which nature, but those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people.

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_...

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#143

Post by pricechild »

Tharkun wrote: post #137
pricechild wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't behave badly in meatspace and expect to maintain anonymity either. Say for example if you cause damage? You might be arrested, ordered to provide compensation etc.?

Depends on how badly I behave. It's perfectly well within my rights to call anyone in the bar a cunt. Some might be offended. There might be an argument. I might be asked to leave. There might even be fisticuffs. But at no point during any of that will my real identity matter an iota.

And that's the same both on and offline.

Sure you can behave badly to a point and there's nothing anybody can really do.

But there's a line you can cross after which... it's not your choice...

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#144

Post by dredmorbius »

Asooka wrote: post #65
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.

Well, the entire reason we kept saying "NEVER PUT YOUR REAL INFO ONLINE" is specifically so that real-life problems can't follow you online. Because it used to be an inherently different world. Now that the two have merged irrevocably, I'll concede that you need to reconcile the ability to reach anyone anywhere at any time, with almost no reprecussion, with the fact that people are dicks. I think there might be value…

There's also the protection against your online problems following you off.

Cuts both ways.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#145

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

lwhalen wrote: post #99
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Facebook is not a monopoly. I'd rather make the argument that Microsoft, today in 2017, is a monopoly (protip: they arent) than try to argue that Facebook is one.

Congrats, you are the official king of cluelessness!

Seriously, actually educate yourself about those concepts. Your totally naive binary understanding of what makes a monopoly a monopoly is embarrassing at best.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#146

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

lwhalen wrote: post #100
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If the transaction is no longer worth it to you, you are free to walk away from said transaction.

Which is relevant to the question of whether it's free how?

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#147

Post by traverseda »

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.

This is my real name. Well, after an easy google search.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#148

Post by GhostVII »

Tharkun wrote: post #137
pricechild wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't behave badly in meatspace and expect to maintain anonymity either. Say for example if you cause damage? You might be arrested, ordered to provide compensation etc.?

Depends on how badly I behave. It's perfectly well within my rights to call anyone in the bar a cunt. Some might be offended. There might be an argument. I might be asked to leave. There might even be fisticuffs. But at no point during any of that will my real identity matter an iota.

But if you were able to come back into the bar in a disguise a minute later, they would want to know your real identity to prevent you from coming back.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#149

Post by GhostVII »

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…

> The difference is that I'm not retaining any data when I do this

But if your guests knew you were retaining their data, and still chose to go in your house and give you their ID, it would be perfectly fine to retain their data.

> The analogy would be more apt if you let someone into your house, they hung out for a few hours, and then you physically remove them, and don't let them back in unless they show you an ID

What's wrong with that?

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#150

Post by electroly »

coldtea wrote: post #55
daveFNbuck wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to show ID every time I buy anything at Costco, regardless of whether I pay cash. I'd also note that Facebook is an age-restricted product.

> I'd also note that Facebook is an age-restricted product. Only by their policy -- whereas for alcohol it's the law.

They do it because of COPPA, which is a law.
Post reply on HN