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

Real name policies and ruling the world

theartificialintelligenceblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 153 posts

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#61

Post by Karunamon »

killer1loop wrote: post #43
Karunamon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook does not represent the end of online anonymity because Facebook is one single site. There is nothing objectionable about one site having a rule to use your real name or not at all, and it is the height of entitlement to claim otherwise. (It's popular, so now they have to do X Y and Z) Doubly so given how granular the controls are regarding who can see what. Sharing on Facebook is a completely opt-in process,…

Being naive means refusing to recognize that most people confuse the internet with facebook. Most true in developing countries, where facebook's plan for universal internet access includes setting facebook as their homepage.

>most people confuse the internet with facebook.

Citation needed.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#62

Post by pjc50 »

ng12 wrote: post #52
circadiam wrote: post #51

The real irony of these threads on HN: no one has ever run a social network. If they did, they would realize that mixing pseudonyms with real names is a formula for disaster. It’s probably the easiest way to continuously bother someone and troll groups to no end.

Seriously. Twitter gets crucified for a lack of accountability, now Facebook gets criticized for having too much. You can't embrace online anonymity only when it benefits you.

Accountability and de-anonymisation (which with enough information turns into "doxxing") are not the same thing.

For twitter, people don't need to know who the persistent abusers are on their government ID, only that there are rules and they will be effectively banned if the rules are broken. De-anonymisation enables random mobs to apply "accountability" through death threats offline. For some people this is a serious risk.

(Or in CS101: authentication and authorisation are not the same thing)

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#63

Post by ghaff »

coldtea wrote: post #26
daveFNbuck wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you agree that you would have the authority to ask to take a picture of someone's identification before allowing them into your house?

Do you agree that a web service is not a private residence? A coffe shop, a supermarket, a bookstore, etc. doesn't have right to check your ID. Heck, from what I know, in the US even the police cannot ask you for an id without "reasonable suspicion" that you did something illegal.

Certainly any place that is member only does. As is any place with a minimum age requirement whether or not that minimum age is required by law. Workplaces of course check and record visitor idea all the time. Not sure why a bookstore would be different although it seems silly in the general case.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#64

Post by carvalho »

Eerie wrote: post #57

1. You don't have to use Facebook. You really, really don't. 2. Facebook is under no obligation to provide societal benefits for you. It doesn't even have a moral duty to act upon your complaints. Why? See 1. It's not a government program, you are not forced to use it, you are not even buying anything from it. You are just complaining about free stuff. So. Seriously. Just stop using it. PS. I'm not defending Facebook…

In Europe there is a mindset that companies can become so big that you can not avoid them anymore. Nobody forces you to use Google or Facebook, but you are put at a disadvantage if you do not use them.

Facebook is not free. You trade your data for usage.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#65

Post by Asooka »

circadiam wrote: post #51

The real irony of these threads on HN: no one has ever run a social network. If they did, they would realize that mixing pseudonyms with real names is a formula for disaster. It’s probably the easiest way to continuously bother someone and troll groups to no end.

Well, the entire reason we kept saying "NEVER PUT YOUR REAL INFO ONLINE" is specifically so that real-life problems can't follow you online. Because it used to be an inherently different world.

Now that the two have merged irrevocably, I'll concede that you need to reconcile the ability to reach anyone anywhere at any time, with almost no reprecussion, with the fact that people are dicks.

I think there might be value in the reverse though. An online community that actively prevents people from posting personal details. E.g. you enter your real-life details, and you're prevented from revealing them to someone, and people can't post addresses, real names, etc. You can make as many accounts as you want, but they're all tied to a specific real identity, so if you start harassing someone, you can be blocked and you can't make a real new account. An effort to have your cake and eat it too - keep what made online communities great (anonymous communication and the ability to discuss things of any nature with consenting partners, without jeopardising your real life), while avoiding the problems that trolls bring.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#66

Post by avaer »

Eerie wrote: post #57

1. You don't have to use Facebook. You really, really don't. 2. Facebook is under no obligation to provide societal benefits for you. It doesn't even have a moral duty to act upon your complaints. Why? See 1. It's not a government program, you are not forced to use it, you are not even buying anything from it. You are just complaining about free stuff. So. Seriously. Just stop using it. PS. I'm not defending Facebook…

The second argument hits a snag when a Facebook account is counted as a border credential by the government.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#67

Post by varjag »

pjc50 wrote: post #62
ng12 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. Twitter gets crucified for a lack of accountability, now Facebook gets criticized for having too much. You can't embrace online anonymity only when it benefits you.

Accountability and de-anonymisation (which with enough information turns into "doxxing") are not the same thing. For twitter, people don't need to know who the persistent abusers are on their government ID, only that there are rules and they will be effectively banned if the rules are broken. De-anonymisation enables random mobs to apply "accountability" through death threats offline. For some people this is a seriou…

Is authorization generally possible without authentication?

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#68

Post by tqi »

coldtea wrote: post #26
daveFNbuck wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you agree that you would have the authority to ask to take a picture of someone's identification before allowing them into your house?

Do you agree that a web service is not a private residence? A coffe shop, a supermarket, a bookstore, etc. doesn't have right to check your ID. Heck, from what I know, in the US even the police cannot ask you for an id without "reasonable suspicion" that you did something illegal.

I don't think that is true... Costco requires a membership to shop there, and bars require ID checks to enter.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#69

Post by lwhalen »

newscracker wrote: post #47
lwhalen wrote: post #44

Is there some reason I'm not aware of that makes "leaving Facebook" not the reasonable, default, option? If they REALLY are "naive, dangerous, and evil", just... don't use their service. Hit them where it hurts and take your eyeballs elsewhere.

For many people, not being on Facebook is neither a choice nor an option because their social network - the ones they depend on - are all there and nowhere else (except probably WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook and where the contact metadata is shared between the two). In my opinion, only some privileged people are able to really have this choice and act on it. The rest don't know (not privileged enough to know/u…

It's a 'privilege' to not be on Facebook? On Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs, nowhere is there any mention of 'online services' or 'Facebook access', or even 'Internet access'. If ever there was a textbook "Sh*t HN Says" comment worthy of the moniker, yours is it.

Facebook is a business, just like your local grocer, just like any number of restaurants, just like a bookstore. If any of the above aren't giving you the service you desire, you are welcome to pack up and take your custom elsewhere. Rinse and repeat this pattern enough times, and the 'giant' will either go out of business or change their behavior as to woo you back. That's commerce. If your friends will only ever interact with you on Facebook (or any single online service), my suspicion is that they aren't really your friends and it's time to find some new ones.

Re: Real name policies and ruling the world

#70

Post by sverige »

kevingadd wrote: post #29
vivekd wrote: post #8

Forcing moderators scrutinizing terrorists to use their real identities was a stupid, stupid idea that I hope facebook will change going forward. Perhaps facebook can look into getting some sort of anonymous identity for its moderators. At the same time, it seems a false equivalency to use a story about people using real identities to scrutinize terrorist to support a position that it is dangerous for anyone to post…

Domestic violence and sexual assault are extremely common, and this policy results in victims getting isolated since their attackers can use FB to locate and pursue them.

In addition to these sorts of serious, immediate dangers, certainly others of us prefer to never use our real name online because it is so uncommon. It's one thing to be Jim Smith, it's another to have a unique name and have your entire online history available to google. I figured this out in the 90s (via dejanews, before google even existed), and have never ever used my real name online since.

Further, I don't understand why some feel the need for me or anyone else to justify this position. It's real simple. I don't use services that try to enforce real ID or sometimes I use a fake name. It's extraordinarily creepy to me that facebook and google can not only determine my real name, but want to force me to use it online.

Post reply on HN