Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Real Name Fallacy

blog.coralproject.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 323 posts

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#111

Post by NoGravitas »

ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #18

I really don't want to say this but, the real names policy does help in terms of trolling behavior for certain communities. When TechCrunch switched over from Disqus to Facebook comments, the amount of trash and trolling was immediately reduced and stayed at a minimum permanently. A lot of the media outlets (Motherboard, Vice, NPR) who've disabled commenting altogether were using Disqus. I've noticed media outlets th…

I voted you up in order to remove some of the downvotes you're getting, because there's nothing wrong with the tone or level of documentation in your comment.

However, you are also completely wrong. I'll produce two anecdata points.

Look at the Facebook comments on a local newspaper that uses them (e.g., thestate.com). Note that on any article that touches on a partisan issue or a scandal, the tone and contents of the comments are vicious, personal, and frequently harassing.

I admin a large-ish meme page on Facebook. The comments section is a wretched hive of scum and villainy.

From what I can tell, some communities have better norms than others, in terms of promoting civility, but the use of real names doesn't make a significant difference.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#112

Post by bandrami »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #69
_fh5n wrote: post #36

I think that this overall push towards eliminating anonimity and trolls from the internet can only have negative outcomes. Sure, nobody will ever be offended again, but at what cost? And who are these easily offended people for whom we're sacrificing freedom of speech? It baffles me how nobody sees a parallel with 1984, here, and it's not the usual cliche claim. From: >do not say anything against someone To: >do not…

Nobody's claiming that nobody will ever be offended again (straw man); the idea / theory is that by using real name, there'd be less anonymous trolling. Offense might become even worse when it's not done anonymously though. Then it becomes a real person kicking a target's shins. Can be good (the argument improving, becoming more of a critique than just brainless insulting), can be bad (the offender not giving a fuck)…

And the theory is apparently contradicted by the evidence. As the article points out, people are actually more sensitive to group norms when they are anonymous than when they are whatever the opposite is (nonymous? eunonymous?).

The problem isn't the anonymity, it's the norms.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#113

Post by DanBC »

syshum wrote: post #105
tremon wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

many times what person A considers to be harassment, the person that is harassing them does not consider it to be harassment at all. To expand on that: "I disagree" is not and should not be a valid defense when someone is accusing you of harassment. Harassment is a violation of personal space and only one person gets to define the limits of that personal space; it is not the aggressor that sets the limits. In a way,…

>To expand on that: "I disagree" is not and should not be a valid defense when someone is accusing you of harassment. Harassment is a violation of personal space and only one person gets to define the limits of that personal space; it is not the aggressor that sets the limits. I disagree completely on this. Using this definition of harassment, in combination with a prohibition on said harassment is ripe for abuse. I…

> Further under this definition of Harassment no one can be harassed online, since you can not violate a persons PERSONAL space if you have no physical proximity to the person

If I falsely and maliciously accuse you of being a paedophile that can cause you to undergo intrusive investigation, possibly leading to you losing work; it can cause people to physically assault you, perhaps even kill you. I have no physical proximity to you, but I have intruded on your personal space.

But even if none of that happens: it will affect you. These types of actions cause actual, measurable, harm.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#114

Post by type0 »

thrw123 wrote: post #55
wfunction wrote: post #4

Thing is, if I had to guess, I would say Facebook doesn't attempt to make you use your real name to make the community better in the first place. That's almost certainly just its pretext for everyone who's willing to fall for it. Most likely, it does that to make sure it can identify you globally and uniquely for commercial/advertising purposes. Think about how much more valuable your online identity is if you go sol…

Regardless of whether Facebook enforces the real name policy or not, simply assuming it internally can be damaging. There is a person on Facebook using my exact (very rare) name, going to my exact university, living in my exact city, also happening to be gay like me. However unlikely that this is just one gigantic coincidence, I would have been willing to let it slide if their public Facebook timeline wasn't filled w…

I think you should be upset and do something about it. You never know if it is going to cost you missed career opportunities because some employer looked you up on facebook, found the impersonator and decided to decline your job application.

> So what would be the solution? Changing my Facebook name to my real name and uploading a scan of some document to prove to Facebook that it is really me?

Close your FB account, write a blog post and/or magazine articles about it, contact facebook and demand to remove this impersonator for slander and defamation.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#115

Post by upofadown »

I think that in practice the problem comes down to preventing sociopathic sadists from annoying everyone in complicated ways. The actual level of anonymity doesn't really matter but there are classes of solutions that work better without.

The only possible non-technical solution for that class of user would be to track them down in real life and fine them. The possible abuse associated with such a scheme make that sort of solution unattractive.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#116

Post by dagenleg »

mirimir wrote: post #72
bad_user wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem was that back then you didn't have service providers with lock-in on a market, like today's Facebook and the Internet was only a thing for techies, whereas nowadays more than half of the world's population has access to the Internet. Can you just not use Facebook? There are obviously only 3 choices: (1) not use it, but then you won't have an account where all of your friends are; (2) use it with your real…

There's a fourth option: use Facebook with your real name, and separately with fake name(s). For the real-name account, carefully manage "friends" to avoid problems with family, friends, coworkers, etc. Make sure that there's no leakage between your real-name account and fake-name accounts, or among fake-name accounts. Practice good compartmentalization OpSec.

Or just have a mostly unused real-name account that you use for contacting your friends, when you can't reach them otherwise.

Why even have a fake facebook account? Facebook will know it's you. The government will too.

If you don't want the whole world to be privy to what you post, then why even use Facebook? Just post your green frogs and political opinions on forums and websites that do not base their revenue around tracking you 24/7.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#117

Post by mirimir »

freshyill wrote: post #94
mirimir wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a fourth option: use Facebook with your real name, and separately with fake name(s). For the real-name account, carefully manage "friends" to avoid problems with family, friends, coworkers, etc. Make sure that there's no leakage between your real-name account and fake-name accounts, or among fake-name accounts. Practice good compartmentalization OpSec.

Google requires phone or text verification on new accounts. I'm not sure about Facebook, but they do require an email address, and that has to come from somewhere. Eventually, you will require verification via phone or text, and that's when it gets harder to prevent these services from linking back to you. I'm not sure what it takes to create a burner phone number not linked to you these days. None of that really mat…

Yes, it's a pain. So it's simplest to just buy fake-name accounts. Just as spammers do ;) But there's no point, unless you have a pressing need.

If your OpSec is adequate, subpoenas aren't an issue.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#118

Post by type0 »

dx034 wrote: post #80
Fnoord wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would say Facebook doesn't attempt to make you use your real name to make the community better in the first place. They're not even allowed to enforce it in Germany [1]: "Facebook may not prevent its users from using fake names, a German privacy watchdog said on Tuesday, in the latest privacy setback for the U.S. company in Europe." Note that said authority is part of the government (unlike, say, EFF). [1] http:/…

Facebook won't care. Worst case, they'll get a fine of Similar to the right of getting all your data in the EU. They stopped answering requests and the government representative in Ireland (who is responsible) also stopped replying to emails. They'll give you all your data if you sue them, otherwise they just ignore the laws. With Dublin on their side, there's little the EU can do.

That's bad, worse than I thought. Sounds like someone needs to start collective legal proceedings. Maybe edri.org can help?

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#119

Post by icebraining »

vog wrote: post #101
dirkt wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've shared by real name on Usenet for decades, nobody got crazy ideas (though I've encountered quite a few crazy people). "Calling my bank and doing something silly" doesn't work in the country in live in. There's not a lot people can do with just my name.

I also never had such problems, but others did have these problems, and that's what counts. (Everything else would be victim blaming.)

It also matters if it's likely. I mean, it wasn't João Maria de Souza's fault that a cow fell on top of him, but I'm not going to live my life in fear of falling cows.

Re: The Real Name Fallacy

#120

Post by pc86 »

stupidcar wrote: post #68
vog wrote: post #39

The real name discussion is as old as the Usenet, maybe even older. I find it strange to see it re-appearing again and again every few years for almost decades. Back then, the consensus was roughly: 1. If a community accepts pseudonyms, it is polite to use either your realname or an obvious pseudonym. 2. If a community places high value on realnames, either use your realname or a realname-sounding (i.e. non-obvious)…

Yes. People using real names on Usenet did not usually face a serious risk of being harassed and endangered in real life by an army of trolls: E.g. having their address, phone number and other private details stolen and publicly disseminated. Having armed police raid their house because someone has made a bogus 911 call. Having their utilities and back accounts cancelled because someone rang up using their details. H…

If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much better off not using that service at all, especially if they require that you use your real name.

Use of a particular service or website is not a human right. If your particular situation is such that it's unsafe or you need to violate TOS/regulations/laws by using a service... don't.

Post reply on HN