Facebook Wants You To Snitch On Friends Not Using Their Real Name

Post by raverbashing » Sat, Sep 22, 2012, 1:01 PM UTC

psbp wrote: post #67

prodigal_erik wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Facebook and Google+ gain in politesse, they lose in depth and honesty. I can't assume I'll be held "accountable" in a just way by every prospective employer, apartment manager, or lover I'll ever meet, so these venues get empty pleasantries from me, certainly nothing controversial in any way.

Now imagine a whole generation socializing under these artificial restrictions. Can you imagine how stifling being raised under an umbrella of constant surveillance by your peer group, family, future employers and advertisers would be to your personality and relationships? We're developing a society of sociopatic egotists.

Post by Karunamon » Sat, Sep 22, 2012, 1:25 PM UTC

civilian wrote: post #98

chris_wot wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd make a great persecutor in a totally liberal regime. Honestly, I don't think that. But could you try to focus on the argument and not the person? Your ad hominem attack has contributed nothing - just like my first sentence contributed nothing either!

It came out as an ad hominem but what I said does attack the argument. Karunamon puts the rule of law above all other considerations, and that's a bad position to hold. People better their lives every day by breaking laws, and when laws at senseless and when your action is not hurting anyone, then breaking the law should be considered as a real option. Let's take illegal immigration. Yes, there is legal immigration,…

Post by Karunamon » Sat, Sep 22, 2012, 1:29 PM UTC

prodigal_erik wrote: post #39

Smudge wrote: post #21

Enforcing real names has pros and cons. For Facebook as a business, the pros certainly outweigh the value lost when accounts can't be mapped directly to real people. Names are a key part of that mapping. In general, I prefer an option for pseudonymity, because it is much more inclusive (allowing certain people at the fringes to feel more comfortable joining in -- victims of abuse, political dissidents, etc), and is m…

What Facebook and Google+ gain in politesse, they lose in depth and honesty. I can't assume I'll be held "accountable" in a just way by every prospective employer, apartment manager, or lover I'll ever meet, so these venues get empty pleasantries from me, certainly nothing controversial in any way.

Post by damncabbage » Sat, Sep 22, 2012, 1:55 PM UTC

AJ007 wrote: post #25

quesera wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good example, but there are countless reasons why people cannot safely use their legal names in places like Facebook. They can elect not to participate, and Facebook can elect to prohibit them. Neither party really suffers any material damage, but it does frustrate some decent people.

I'd argue that people do suffer material damage by being blocked from using Facebook.

Post by SideburnsOfDoom » Sat, Sep 22, 2012, 2:16 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #100

I have been on online networks of one kind or another since 1992. I am 100 percent behind the idea that people using their real names (the rule of some networks I have been on) promotes better online community and people taking more responsibility for their personal behavior in the community. That said, I do have some friends who have long established pseudonyms that have most of the good effects of real names, becau…