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

My name is only real enough to work at Facebook, not to use on the site

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: My name is only real enough to work at Facebook, not to use on the site

#31

Post by eevee »

jschwartzi wrote: post #23
jdavis703 wrote: post #11

Could Facebook implement a PageRank type algorithm that gets people with already verified real names (perhaps they paid for something by credit card on FB, or are registered with a .edu email that matches their initials), to then say whether their friends name was real? Surely there's a way of proving someone's real name without making them use their legal name.

I wonder if they simply want the legal name. If part of the purpose of Facebook is to sell networks of people to marketers, then being able to tie your network identity to your home loan, car loan, and credit score is going to be very appealing.

"Finally!" the marketers cry. "We know exactly who John Smith's friends are."

Re: My name is only real enough to work at Facebook, not to use on the site

#32

Post by pcl »

natrius wrote: post #24
ethagknight wrote: post #21

Is the use of WASP in this case wholly inappropriate and clearly intended to be derogatory? Why is it tolerated and not considered a form of hate speech?

"Facebook likes to think of names as a one-to-one mapping. You have one name, and that name is how people refer to you at all times. It’s a very WASP notion of how names work, and the reality is far more complex." Nope. Not inappropriate. Not derogatory. Not hate speech. Different cultures treat names different ways. Here, "WASP" is a reference to the dominant American culture. I didn't bat an eye when I read it.

To me, "WASP" has a pretty narrow definition, with strong East Coast and British affinities. I'm largely Irish by heritage, and so of course there's some Catholic in there too. So, while I'm white, I'm (mostly) not Anglo-Saxon or Protestant.

In fact, ironically, one of the characteristically WASPy things that comes to mind immediately is the prevalence of unusual names -- "Leslie" as a man's name; "Van" as a legit first name; people with three or four middle names; whole lines of firstborn men with the same formal name leading to ubiquitous uses of nicknames, etc.

Re: My name is only real enough to work at Facebook, not to use on the site

#33

Post by ethagknight »

natrius wrote: post #24
ethagknight wrote: post #21

Is the use of WASP in this case wholly inappropriate and clearly intended to be derogatory? Why is it tolerated and not considered a form of hate speech?

"Facebook likes to think of names as a one-to-one mapping. You have one name, and that name is how people refer to you at all times. It’s a very WASP notion of how names work, and the reality is far more complex." Nope. Not inappropriate. Not derogatory. Not hate speech. Different cultures treat names different ways. Here, "WASP" is a reference to the dominant American culture. I didn't bat an eye when I read it.

My point is, the term WASP is used here not as an enpowerment, but as a target of blame for the subject matter. If WASP is a reference to dominant American culture, why not just say dominant American culture? White Anglo Saxon Protestants are in no way responsible for Facebook's naming schemes. Maybe it isn't offensive to you, but it is unquestionably slang, and I would add yes, offensive, because it's a) not true, b) out of context, and most significantly c) in direct contrast with the article's call for understanding of other cultural identities.

Re: My name is only real enough to work at Facebook, not to use on the site

#34

Post by wpietri »

ethagknight wrote: post #21

Is the use of WASP in this case wholly inappropriate and clearly intended to be derogatory? Why is it tolerated and not considered a form of hate speech?

Personally, I did not read that as inciting violence or discrimination against my whitebread self. So I don't think it's hate speech.

I think, as Wikipedia says [1], "The term applies to a group believed to control disproportionate social, political, and financial power in the United States. It describes a group whose family wealth, education, status, and elite connections allow them a degree of privilege held by few others. [...] When the term appears in writing, it usually indicates the author's disapproval of the group's excessive power in society."

It seems like a legitimate label here. Our notion of what a "proper" name looks like comes out of that cultural tradition. And as one of our own notes, that notion is often painfully wrong. [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant

[2] http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b...

Re: My name is only real enough to work at Facebook, not to use on the site

#35

Post by mc32 »

ethagknight wrote: post #21

Is the use of WASP in this case wholly inappropriate and clearly intended to be derogatory? Why is it tolerated and not considered a form of hate speech?

It's certainly used to be inflammatory and simultaneously denigrate the people it's supposed to represent. It's, sadly, wrong. Anglo protestants are not the ones who brought about the concept of one to one name mapping, nor the most vigorous about insisting upon proscribed names.

One can go over to nominally catholic and gaellic France and find much more state control over accepted personal names[1] A name new to France has to be proven to exist, if its not an indigenous name in France. The are other countries with similar control over names some of which require names to be gender specific and unambiguous, in that respect.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_law

Re: My name is only real enough to work at Facebook, not to use on the site

#36

Post by teaneedz »

Personally, I disagree with this one point.

> Cynics will tell you that using your “real name” is so they can sell your details to advertisers. That’s not the case.

Facebook is selling access to their profile of a person for targeted ads and tracking across the web - which includes a real name. No, I haven't worked at FB, but I get the business side from a Product Management perspective.

Yes, ad impressions can factor into it, but one could argue that there would be more engagement using a name that a person is currently using or known by, resulting in increased time on the newsfeed, not less.

It's all about a story to sell advertisers though. Facebook is an advertising platform. We use "real names" is just a marketing bullet FB can hold up to advertisers in glossy material and sales pitches.

Real name policies are indeed a made up solution mistakenly used by some to address trolling issues as well. The thing is, that argument has been proven false, time and time again.

Ello, that underdog social community, is proving right now that pseudonymity can work.

I guess the real question is, "Are we willing to walk the talk and support the companies that are standing up for users on this issue as well as privacy?"

Of course we might have to sacrifice some features we are used to, but ultimately it's the only way to send a message that will be heard.

Google, afterall didn't change it's stand on real names just out of some epiphany or random act of kindness. That story is a little more complex for sure, yet our eyes and where they spend time is the ultimate metric in today's ad model.

My eyes choose Ello these days.

Re: My name is only real enough to work at Facebook, not to use on the site

#37

Post by wpietri »

ethagknight wrote: post #33
natrius wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Facebook likes to think of names as a one-to-one mapping. You have one name, and that name is how people refer to you at all times. It’s a very WASP notion of how names work, and the reality is far more complex." Nope. Not inappropriate. Not derogatory. Not hate speech. Different cultures treat names different ways. Here, "WASP" is a reference to the dominant American culture. I didn't bat an eye when I read it.

My point is, the term WASP is used here not as an enpowerment, but as a target of blame for the subject matter. If WASP is a reference to dominant American culture, why not just say dominant American culture? White Anglo Saxon Protestants are in no way responsible for Facebook's naming schemes. Maybe it isn't offensive to you, but it is unquestionably slang, and I would add yes, offensive, because it's a) not true, b…

I personally don't see a big contradiction between calling for a more diverse understanding while pointing out that what is nominally "normal" is part of a very specific dominant cultural segment.

And given that the term originated among sociologists, some of them WASPs themselves, I think calling it "unquestionably slang" is strong. Ditto "offensive". If you're offended, you can just say, "I'm offended" without trying to cast it as some sort of false objectivity.

Re: My name is only real enough to work at Facebook, not to use on the site

#38

Post by jackvalentine »

chx wrote: post #18

Not trans but I identify with the letters "chx" much more strongly than my real name. There are thousands, perhaps ten of thousands of people out there who know me by this nick and nothing else. My own brother often calls me that. British Columbia doesn't allow me to take a single word as a legal name but once I get citizenship I am very seriously considering changing my legal name to a name where the abbreviation ma…

How is it pronounced? "chix"? or spelled out C.H.X?

Re: My name is only real enough to work at Facebook, not to use on the site

#39

Post by mc32 »

wpietri wrote: post #34
ethagknight wrote: post #21

Is the use of WASP in this case wholly inappropriate and clearly intended to be derogatory? Why is it tolerated and not considered a form of hate speech?

Personally, I did not read that as inciting violence or discrimination against my whitebread self. So I don't think it's hate speech. I think, as Wikipedia says [1], "The term applies to a group believed to control disproportionate social, political, and financial power in the United States. It describes a group whose family wealth, education, status, and elite connections allow them a degree of privilege held by few…

However, many other traditions are much more restrictive regarding personal names[1]. Some countries require the names to be gender specific. So blaming protestants from the British isles (and their American relations) is quite misplaced and inaccurate.

[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_law

Re: My name is only real enough to work at Facebook, not to use on the site

#40

Post by eevee »

mc32 wrote: post #39
wpietri wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I did not read that as inciting violence or discrimination against my whitebread self. So I don't think it's hate speech. I think, as Wikipedia says [1], "The term applies to a group believed to control disproportionate social, political, and financial power in the United States. It describes a group whose family wealth, education, status, and elite connections allow them a degree of privilege held by few…

However, many other traditions are much more restrictive regarding personal names[1]. Some countries require the names to be gender specific. So blaming protestants from the British isles (and their American relations) is quite misplaced and inaccurate. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_law

Forget what the article says, about some people not even being allowed to use their own names — what's really important here is that we not write anything that remotely sounds like blaming white people.
Post reply on HN