101–110 of 164 posts
We're setting a really bad precedent for the future here and these sorts of things need to stop now. Unfortunately, people don't seem to want to fight this. Now we have people getting turned down for jobs because they DON'T have a facebook account[1]. What's next? 1. http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/109ipi/no_faceboo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isolation from friends and family. Like not being able to go to your moms house because her neighbor might try to kill you and her if he discovers she is your mom.
The conclusion "no facebook = severe social isolation" (including being cut off from ones own family) only works under the assumption that basically everyone everywhere forgot how to socialize without "social" and that interaction without facebook is somehow impossible or at least hard. This assumption is maniacally and laughably absurd. I can not even fathom how the planet might look where such a statement might sou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like it would be more sensible for them to use modified names inside the prison. Of course, they probably don't get to choose what name to use in the prison.
I think that both guards and inmates should be assigned fake names in prison, or addressed simply by number, to avoid prison interactions spilling out of the prison and affecting prisoners' families etc. Of course, the danger with this is that abuses within prison would become harder to track and account for.
Hey folks - I work on the Site Integrity team at Facebook. We work to keep people safe from scams, spam, fake accounts, and having their account taken over. We're always looking for ways to better understand how people represent themselves online and improve the design of our service. We look at the results of this kind of experiment in aggregate - the responses doesn't have any impact on the user account or that of…
If, for example, you store that my profile was identified as real by a friend of mine, then you're essentially collecting personal data on me.
And I doubt that I would be informed about this fact, or be able to see it somewhere. (This assumption being based on the previous and ongoing mishandling / incomplete answering of requests under EU data protection law.)
Hey folks - I work on the Site Integrity team at Facebook. We work to keep people safe from scams, spam, fake accounts, and having their account taken over. We're always looking for ways to better understand how people represent themselves online and improve the design of our service. We look at the results of this kind of experiment in aggregate - the responses doesn't have any impact on the user account or that of…
However, there's every chance that's just a case of bad wording. So, mkjones - can you confirm that the option the user selects on the dialog box we're discussing here ("Is this your friend's real name?") is not stored, saved or recorded in any way that could subsequently be connected to that user's account?
FTA: Indeed, under the terms of the Snoopers Charter, it wouldn’t just be Facebook who could access this kind of information: the authorities could potentially set up a filter to gather data on people who don’t confirm the names of their friends Yes, and I could potentially sprout wings from my ass and become a travel carrier. The rest of this article is nothing more than a ton of thinly veiled fallacies, slippery sl…
(And records of whether that information was given subsequently being recorded.)
The article's points on "snitching" seemed sound to me. Encouraging people to inform on one another and betray trust is generally societally harmful.
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…
One can also make the argument that the level of discourse is much higher on services where people are more personally accountable for what they say, and where confusing or offensive usernames don't get in the way of conversations. Based on the level of discourse here on hacker news and even on reddit, I don't think one can reasonably say that.
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…
You inadvertently bring up a strong counter argument.
Suppose, in your small town, you are outed (rightly or wrongly) as , and ostracized. Normally, after much introspection and reflection, you or your family could decide to move away, if the social effects were severe enough and unfixable.
With a real name policy and a permanent archive of the psychodrama, you cannot start over elsewhere without all of it following along with you, ripe for the next group of maladjusted simpletons to harrass you with. Not everyone can move to tolerant cultures, not all marginalized groups can find reliably-safe new places.
In Syria, government snipers murdered bloggers to silence them.
In China, bloggers are imprisoned at hard labor.
In the United States, the Federalist Papers were released anonymously in order to protect the lives of their authors.
It is only the spoiled, rich and free countries who make such naive and irresponsible statements such as, "I am in support of people using their real names online."
A better question is, what actions are Google, Apple, and Facebook taking to protect our vital ability to remain anonymous online?
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…
Real names policies are questionable but debatable. Asking friends to report friends to some authority reveals utter contempt for the very personal relationships that Facebook supposedly thrives on.