Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users • Hacker News Board

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#41

Post by VLM » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

mjquinn wrote: post #14

vectorjohn wrote: post #6

I don't understand why people make anything of "real names" policies. They just want the users to have real looking names. They don't actually have any way to force real names. So it's a non-issue. There's no oppressed person in a police state signing up for Facebook that reads a EULA and concludes "well, Facebook said I have to reveal my true identity, I guess that's the way it is."

They can and do enforce the real name policy. If they suspect your name isn't real (via algorithm or user reports) they will freeze your account until you send them scans of government ID confirming your name. I have a friend with an unusual name, and she's had to go through the process twice thanks to harassers flagging her.

"thanks to harassers flagging her"

This is a fairly significant and under discussed problem. Rush Limbaugh is probably safe from harassment... that dude commenting in some political group is not so immune. This creates an interesting chilling effect.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#42

Post by morgante » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 9:41 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #37

morgante wrote: post #21

I wish the EFF and others who are against using real names would at least acknowledge the drawbacks of pseudonyms and the proliferation of fake accounts and fake names which comes with them. The real name policy has huge benefits. I'm not constantly bombarded by fake friend requests like I am on Twitter, Skype, or any other platform which allows random usernames. Even more importantly, I can easily find the people in…

No downvote even if I disagree. Once your platform begins to become ubiquitous (Facebook Messenger), it starts to have certain responsibilities, similiar to a utility but not quite that far. Now I'm prepared for the downvotes, but I don't think its wrong to expect certain behavior from tech companies in certain segments once they reach a particular size. A compromise would be to allow Facebook users to get verified (…

> Once your platform begins to become ubiquitous (Facebook Messenger), it starts to have certain responsibilities, similiar to a utility but not quite that far.

I think this is a decent argument. Facebook is pretty close to being a digital utility at this point.

But, a logical corollary of that argument is that if Facebook is a utility it's also expected for everyone to have it. Hence, it's fully okay for services to require Facebook access to log in (just as it's okay for companies to basically expect their employees to have a telephone).

So, which would you prefer: ubiquitous Facebook, with certain regulations keeping it in check, or a Facebook that you can readily opt out of because you don't agree with its policies.

> A compromise would be to allow Facebook users to get verified (similar to Twitter's verification)

I'm not sure I fully understand your proposal, but it actually sounds a lot like my opinion. It's not that I think Facebook profiles should be required to use their official legal name, just that they should use the name they use offline. Is that what you meant by verification?

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#43

Post by strommen » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 9:42 PM UTC

I don't understand why people feel entitled to use Facebook in this way. Facebook is a place to communicate with your friends and family, not a publishing platform.

If you want to write anonymously, then get a free account on any number of other platforms that are designed for anonymous publishing.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#44

Post by morgante » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 9:44 PM UTC

rspeer wrote: post #40

morgante wrote: post #21

I wish the EFF and others who are against using real names would at least acknowledge the drawbacks of pseudonyms and the proliferation of fake accounts and fake names which comes with them. The real name policy has huge benefits. I'm not constantly bombarded by fake friend requests like I am on Twitter, Skype, or any other platform which allows random usernames. Even more importantly, I can easily find the people in…

This particular statement from the EFF is not in any way trying to convince Facebook that they shouldn't have a real names policy. It's simply saying: Okay, you've got a real name policy. You should reform it in a few ways so that people can't use it for targeted silencing and harassment of groups they dislike.

It's also pretty overtly hostile to the existence of a real name policy at all.

The very first line sets the tone of hostility:

> Facebook claims its practice of forcing users to go by their "real names" (or "authentic identities" as Facebook spins it) makes the social network a safer place.

The piece they link to emphasizes that the "EFF continues to believe that the best solution is simply to get rid of the 'real names' policy entirely."

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#45

Post by x3n0ph3n3 » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 9:46 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #22

cableshaft wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every teacher I know either doesn't use Facebook at all, or if they do, they don't use their real name. Why? Because they know that their students are going to look for them on Facebook out of curiosity and gossip amongst themselves about any detail that's on there (or if it's locked down, try to sneak onto their friends list and then gossip). They often have to be very careful or else they could easily get in troubl…

So the idea is we give up social networking entirely because a small percentage of people are jerks? Doesn't that seem a little defeatist?

No, because a large percentage of people are jerks.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#46

Post by gknoy » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 9:46 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #39

throwaway6845 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I run a small-town community website. Instituting a real-name policy stopped the trolling overnight: people behave much more reasonably if they know they might meet the person they're yelling at in the street tomorrow. The key is that our site aims to be solely a resource for the existing community (where people relate to each other through real names), not a virtual community in itself. I certainly wouldn't…

> I certainly wouldn't argue that the web should be real-name only 100% agreed. The vast majority of the web is based around pseudonymous interaction (even this comment thread). I love that about the web, but I also appreciate Facebook creating one place to foster those real world connections.

I would prefer to be able to explicitly set a pseudoynmous profile (name, profile picture, etc) in groups that we join (e.g., gaming groups, where FB is Super Awesome for out-of-game collaboration, but where not everyone needs to be able to see my profile picture or name).

On the one hand, one might say that this is using FB counter to its intentions ... but on the other, it seems clear that the ubiquity of FB chat, the excellence of many other things (shared discussion, etc), and the general stickiness that the platform has indicate that they want you to use it for as much as possible.

I'd love it if people who feel they are in danger can join communities, or even comment on things freely. I'd probably be happy even if such pseudonymous accounts were flagged visibly. As it is, many of my real-life friends in the SCA or in gaming groups __already__ create dual FB accounts (one for Real Them, one for their SCA or gaming persona), and it doesn't really inhibit trusted interactions with them. I'm fortunate not to feel I __need__ one, but I'd love to have my comments on some things (gaming forums, etc) be more in-character and less tied to my public persona.

At the same time, having real names hasn't seemed to reduce the abusive behavior that one sees (e.g. any political post, or Youtube comments) noticeably, because strangers are effectively anonymous.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#47

Post by unclebucknasty » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 9:47 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #37

morgante wrote: post #21

I wish the EFF and others who are against using real names would at least acknowledge the drawbacks of pseudonyms and the proliferation of fake accounts and fake names which comes with them. The real name policy has huge benefits. I'm not constantly bombarded by fake friend requests like I am on Twitter, Skype, or any other platform which allows random usernames. Even more importantly, I can easily find the people in…

No downvote even if I disagree. Once your platform begins to become ubiquitous (Facebook Messenger), it starts to have certain responsibilities, similiar to a utility but not quite that far. Now I'm prepared for the downvotes, but I don't think its wrong to expect certain behavior from tech companies in certain segments once they reach a particular size. A compromise would be to allow Facebook users to get verified (…

What I don't get is why Facebook's users don't just disengage. Instead, Facebook is treated as some basic human right. Here, with some vague "responsibilities akin to a utility, but not quite that far". I mean, that really sounds kind of, well, made up. Who's defining these responsibilities?

In fact, Facebook is not a public utility, but a private company. And, unlike with a public utility, the public to which they are supposedly responsible aren't even their customers, but are their product.

This is not to defend them, and I'm not a Facebook fan. In fact, quite the contrary. I believe Facebook's entire model is based on the routine abuse of its users. That's all the more reason I can't understand why people who are uncomfortable don't just...stop.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#48

Post by morgante » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 9:47 PM UTC

greggman wrote: post #35

jawns wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sincerely curious ... how is a social network like Facebook, which is built around connecting you with your real-world friends and acquaintances, supposed to work if you can't require users to identify themselves in a meaningful way? The little "people you may know" widget is really useful, because it shows me names I recognize from my offline life. If it's just a random stream of pseudonyms and online handles, t…

I know several people online by pseudonyms only. If I wanted to add them on facebook I'd add their pseudonym. I also know people who don't go by their real name in real life. I know John's that go by Sean. I know Richard's that go by Dick. I know another Richard that goes by Greg. I suspect that 95% of his friends don't know his "real" name is Richard. I also know 2 Cyrils that go by Rocky and I suspect only their ve…

> I know several people online by pseudonyms only.

Facebook is explicitly designed to primarily be a platform for "real world" relationships, not digital connections with strangers. There are plenty of other places on the web to talk to strangers.

> I know another Richard that goes by Greg.

Then that's the name he can and should use on Facebook. Facebook's policy is not that you have to use your legal name. It's that you should use the name you go by in everyday life, not a pseudonym you invented for online publishing.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#49

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 9:47 PM UTC

jawns wrote: post #33

pjc50 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they're not using the name you know because they don't want you or other casual acquaintances to find them.

It seems like this sort of privacy control could be put in place without resorting to pseudonyms. For instance: you register using your real name/"authentic identity", but you select a restrictive privacy option that says that your profile won't show up when people search for your name on Facebook; nobody can friend-request you; and all your posts and other info is visible to friends only. Voila, you now have a priva…

Do you trust facebook to respect all those settings in the future, or are they likely to implement a change to the system that defaults everything open? What about selling it to advertisers and other organisations?

I'm quite comfortable with the pseudonyms of my friends. Some of them are known by pseudonyms IRL, and one or two have names that don't match their ID but are the name they use in life and at work. More women than men; pseudonymity is a useful defence against ubiquitous harrasment.

Re: Global coalition to Facebook: “Authentic names” are dangerous for your users

#50

Post by toomuchtodo » Mon, Oct 05, 2015, 9:48 PM UTC

unclebucknasty wrote: post #47

toomuchtodo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No downvote even if I disagree. Once your platform begins to become ubiquitous (Facebook Messenger), it starts to have certain responsibilities, similiar to a utility but not quite that far. Now I'm prepared for the downvotes, but I don't think its wrong to expect certain behavior from tech companies in certain segments once they reach a particular size. A compromise would be to allow Facebook users to get verified (…

What I don't get is why Facebook's users don't just disengage. Instead, Facebook is treated as some basic human right. Here, with some vague "responsibilities akin to a utility, but not quite that far". I mean, that really sounds kind of, well, made up. Who's defining these responsibilities? In fact, Facebook is not a public utility, but a private company. And, unlike with a public utility, the public to which they a…

You misunderstand me. My apologies for not explaining properly. I'm not saying people are entitled to Facebook; I'm saying if users use Facebook, regulations should be in place to dictate to Facebook how those users should be treated.

Corporations will take as much as they can, which is why regulations exist.