
Real name policies and ruling the world - killer1loop
http://theartificialintelligenceblog.com/real-name-policies-and-mapping-the-world/
======
jhvh1134
I've had a clearly fake name on Facebook for years. A couple weeks ago I got
message from one of their reps, letting me know that there was an issue about
my name, and that it was currently being reviewed. I had no intention to link
that account to my real name, as it was mostly political whining and
interaction with a few close friends. I basically told them that I wouldn't
change the name and that they should just delete the account. A couple days
later they responded by telling me that my name did not break TOS and that I
was free to use my fake name. So I'm not even sure that policy is even
enforced, steered... maybe.

~~~
kevingadd
It's enforced if people choose to report you, and 'proving' your name to them
can be somewhat involved

It's also more likely they will hassle you over it if your name isn't white.
Maybe those sorts of names tend to be fake more often, but probably not.

~~~
jhvh1134
I'm pretty sure I was reported by someone I disagreed with in the comments of
a political post. My point was that I bypassed "proving" because I refused to
comply to their rule.

I've seen no evidence of different treatment based on race. Would you mind
citing your source?

~~~
gweinberg
I've been told Native Americans often have problem with the "real names"
policy because they often sound "fake" to people used to European names.

~~~
sverige
Yes. For example, Begay is a common Navajo surname. Others use traditional
names (such as Standing Bear, for example). Odds are the people at facebook
making these decisions have never known anyone with such a name.

~~~
walshemj
Well odds are that these people at not even in the USA and would have even
less idea or impose there cultures pov - this may explain why the is real name
policy seems to be targeted at LBGT people.

------
newscracker
It's been known for a long time that the "authentic name" policy is dangerous
and is used as a device of suppression on many people. [1] [2] But Facebook,
in its desire to target ads and network connections based on real names, has
not shown much interest in removing that policy and allowing pseudonyms. Even
now the policy and its enforcement are not clear, and what happens depends on
the flagging system and who reviews the account.

Coming from Facebook, this news about moderators' details being shared with
suspected terrorists is neither surprising nor shocking to me. Frustrated and
upset? Yes. But, shocked? Not even a bit! I personally would be shocked if I
found that Facebook had taken preemptive measures to not allow this to happen
or if Facebook responds quickly to allow these people to use pseudonyms or not
even sharing their information with the suspects. We know none of that will
happen because Facebook's outlook has never ever favored better privacy and
protection for Facebook users. If it has, that's probably only an accidental
one and not the result of any kind of introspection that produces a different
vision, which in turn drives and sustains positive changes. Facebook has made
it quite clear through its actions and responses where its priorities lie and
where it just doesn't give a damn.

Though termed as a "social network", I'd call Facebook "a net antisocial
network for humankind" based on its policies and actions.

P.S.: I realize this may look like a bad rant reflecting my personal views
strongly. But this is how I see and understand Facebook through the years.

[1]: [https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9455071/nameless-
coalitio...](https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9455071/nameless-coalition-
facebook-real-name-policy)

[2]: [https://act.eff.org/action/dear-facebook-authentic-names-
are...](https://act.eff.org/action/dear-facebook-authentic-names-are-
authentically-dangerous-for-your-users)

------
vivekd
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 real identity and photos online.

Certainly it is dangerous for children, teenagers, or people involved in
dangerous work to post their identities online. As to ordinary adults who not
involved in dangerous lines of work and with sufficient discretion . . . any
danger inherent in this is a much weaker position that this article doesn't
give much in the way of support for.

~~~
kevingadd
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.

~~~
sverige
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.

------
Tharkun
If I can go to a bar and talk to people without revealing my full (or real)
identity, then why can't I do the same online? "Real name policies" don't make
any sense to me. The meatspace analogies are all flawed. The pretty server at
the bakery doesn't know my name, and she doesn't need to. We can be perfectly
civil to one another without crossing that boundary.

~~~
pricechild
You can't behave badly in meatspace and expect to maintain anonymity either.

Say for example if you cause damage? You might be arrested, ordered to provide
compensation etc.?

~~~
Tharkun
Depends on how badly I behave. It's perfectly well within my rights to call
anyone in the bar a cunt. Some might be offended. There might be an argument.
I might be asked to leave. There might even be fisticuffs. But at no point
during any of that will my real identity matter an iota.

~~~
GhostVII
But if you were able to come back into the bar in a disguise a minute later,
they would want to know your real identity to prevent you from coming back.

------
circadiam
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.

~~~
ng12
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.

~~~
DanBC
I don't see why it's confusing.

Bob can have whatever name they want. They don't get to threaten to rape and
murder another user.

~~~
ng12
So what do you do with Bob when he re-registers as Dave?

~~~
watwut
You allow people to block anyone with account younger them a year. And in
general, you allow people to mute everyone from purple they did not approved,
mute threads etc.

------
GuB-42
There is a funny anecdote about this.

A friend of mine has "Bastardo" as her real last name. Facebook didn't let her
use it, so she was actually forced, by Facebook, to use a fake name.

~~~
Asooka
A clbuttic mistake. I hope they manage to resolve it. It's not like people
don't have weird names. E.g. Semen is a popular Russian name with an
unfortunate latinisation - the original is spelled Семён, but the umlaut is
not always written, since it's clear from context, and the pronunciation is
Simyon.

------
aestetix
Despite the assurances from Facebook, I've seen no evidence that these
policies help anything, and plenty of evidence that they cause problems. Here
are a few things that Facebook could answer that might help clear this up:

1\. What specific kinds of abuses are primarily due to someone's name, and
what percentage of total abuses do they constitute?

2\. What criteria does Facebook use to determine if a name is "real"?

3\. Under what authority can Facebook compel government issued identification
to release suspensions on accounts that are "under review"?

There are many more things that need to be answered, but having data points to
answer those questions would be a fantastic start.

~~~
daveFNbuck
Facebook can ask for identification under the same authority that you can ask
to see someone's identification before letting them into your house.

~~~
aestetix
The difference is that I'm not retaining any data when I do this, which opens
the door to questions about data use and data retention. I've seen no
statements from Facebook about how the data is used, how it is stored, and how
long it is retained.

Another difference is that Facebook suspends you when you are _already_ using
Facebook. The analogy would be more apt if you let someone into your house,
they hung out for a few hours, and then you physically remove them, and don't
let them back in unless they show you an ID.

~~~
daveFNbuck
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?

~~~
coldtea
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.

~~~
freeflight
>Do you agree that a web service is not a private residence?

For all purpose and effect, it equals a private residence. After all the web
service is run by somebody on servers that somebody either owns or pays for.

If I don't want you on my web service I have every right in the world not to
let you in/use it because you have no right to demand usage of my private
property (servers).

>A coffe shop, a supermarket, a bookstore, etc. doesn't have right to check
your ID.

While I'm not 100% sure about the legal situation in the US, I'm pretty sure
regular householder's rights apply.

They have the right demand all kinds of things before allowing you on their
private premises and you have the right to say "Nah" and not enter their
private premises as a result of that, their club, their rules.

>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.

In theory, the same was true for German police until... you guess it: 9/11 and
the big push for the "war on terror" happened. Since then many countries have
adopted additional legislation to allow police more "freedom" with ID checks.

Germany adopted this by declaring certain zones as "higher risk", like near
government buildings, public transportation hubs and so on. Police can demand
ID from pretty much anybody in a certain radius to such zones, this process is
then called "verdachtsunabhänge Personenkontrolle" which loosely translates to
"identity check regardless of suspicion".

I'm pretty sure the US has adopted similar legislation, just like the US
(supposedly the country of the freest of free speech) adopted the usage of
"Free speech zones".

~~~
Tharkun
> While I'm not 100% sure about the legal situation in the US, I'm pretty sure
> regular householder's rights apply.

Not sure about that. Some places (like malls or train stations, possibly
others) are considered public places to some extent.

~~~
freeflight
But isn't the mall privately owned? At least the shops inside would be. Do
different rules apply to them compared to private homes? Afaik the sovereignty
of one's own home is held in very high regard in the US, why doesn't the same
apply to a private business?

Train stations, as part of the public infrastructure, are probably held to a
different standard. Locking somebody out from those would present quite a
constraint to that individual, so that's probably for the better.

------
_jal
I would be fine with whatever policy they like, if they stayed in their own
walled garden. But building what amounts to a commercial
intelligence/surveillance firm that is very difficult to avoid is, yes, evil.

And the true names policy is a big part of that.

------
raverbashing
"Naive, dangerous and evil" is a good description of most things involving Fb
and its founder (maybe not Naive in the latter case)

~~~
kevingadd
FB seems like an example of how a team can go from accidentally naive to
intentionally naive because it has advantages for engineering or revenue. :(

~~~
oliv__
I'm pretty sure all naiveté is accidental. There's a word for intentional
naiveté: manipulation.

------
tyrw
I understand the concept of a click bait headline, but "inherently evil" is a
bit strong for a service that is completely optional.

~~~
dandelion_lover
"Do not use the Internet. Do not use phones. Do not use bank accounts. Do not
travel by plane. Do not enter public spaces. Do not show your face.

Otherwise you accept our Terms of Service.

Thank you for trusting us."

(C) QuantumRoar,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12958035](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12958035)

~~~
tyrw
Still use all those things to your heart's content; just don't create a
Facebook account...

~~~
dandelion_lover
When 99% of your friends use Facebook, it becomes very hard to avoid it [0].
If you want to advertise your new book among them, what would you do, for
example?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect)

~~~
Karunamon
Through one of the many other sites those friends probably use. Facebook
probably isn't the only thing on the internet you and your circle of friends
have in common.

~~~
Santosh83
Yes, but the other sites/services they use are also all pretty much similar
walled gardens. It's becoming rarer and rarer these days for ordinary web
users to have their own domain and site, or meet upon a completely
unrestricted communications medium, like the Usenet of old.

------
lwhalen
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.

~~~
newscracker
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/understand)
or don't care (because their social network is already on Facebook).

~~~
lwhalen
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.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
You might want to educate yourself on concepts called monopolies and network
effects before you make yourself look even more clueless.

Also, ever noticed how Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs also doesn't mention
electricity or gasoline? You are kindof at the wrong level of abstraction
there.

~~~
lwhalen
Facebook is not a monopoly. I'd rather make the argument that Microsoft, today
in 2017, is a monopoly (protip: they arent) than try to argue that Facebook is
one.

------
SagelyGuru
My dog never had any trouble from the Facebook representatives. But then, he
did use his real name....

------
seltzered_
Im pretty critical of aspects of fb, but it's hard to take this blog
seriously. The same author has a recent post (
[http://theartificialintelligenceblog.com/being-
overheard/](http://theartificialintelligenceblog.com/being-overheard/) )
referencing the terrible WhatsApp guardian article written in January,
something declared as false journalism by several researchers:
[http://technosociology.org/?page_id=1687](http://technosociology.org/?page_id=1687)

~~~
killer1loop
I can't blame you, I don't even take myself seriously. But going back to the
point, is anything in my article inaccurate – as far as you know? The being
overheard thingy isn't scientific research, one would reckon. Do we agree that
trying to inform and empower people is a sensible way to progress? I could
argue that our blog is probably doing better than FB and the philanthropist
Zuckerberg.

Going back to WhatsApp, some of the aspects of its encryption layer are still
unclear, to quote your link:

"The threat is remote, quite limited in scope, applicability (requiring a
server or phone number compromise) and stealthiness (users who have the
setting enabled still see a warning–even if after the fact). The fact that
warnings exist means that such attacks would almost certainly be quickly
detected by security-aware users. This limits this method."

This paragraph alone, when put in context, would at least ring a bell and make
you question the security and encrypted statement. Especially when it's coming
from one of Zuckerberg subsidiaries.

------
webwanderings
> The web was originally invented and gifted to humanity to promote individual
> freedoms and knowledge.

Thank you. This is indeed what web was all about, until the suits showed up to
make money!

------
kevingadd
I was already really unhappy with their real name policy (to the point of
deleting my account and not going back), but recent incidents - like the
policy resulting in moderators' profiles & names getting exposed to
terrorists) - just blow my mind. Such a broad impact from a policy that may
have no real upsides.

I hope recent events lead them to reconsider this policy but at this point it
seems like they never will.

~~~
quickben
Of course. It's money. Or does anybody thinks that $40 per IPO on user just
happens?

It's real money to state you advertise to targeted audience by names, jobs and
all that.

It will never change because FB likes money more than it cares about its users
being harassed.

------
dredmorbius
"In practice, the forced revelation of information makes individual privilege
and power more important. When everyone has to play with their cards on the
table, so to speak, then people who feel like they can be themselves without
consequence do so freely -- these generally being people with support groups
of like-minded people, and who are neither economically nor physically
vulnerable. People who are more vulnerable to consequences use concealment as
a method of protection: it makes it possible to speak freely about
controversial subjects, or even about any subjects, without fear of
harassment."

Yonatan Zunger, former chief architect of Google+, writing after thevservice
had rescinded its Real Names policy.

[https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/WegYVNkZQqq](https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/WegYVNkZQqq)

------
grandalf
By requiring real names, Facebook is trying to combat the sort of social
discord that occurs on sites like Reddit where people routinely abandon
identities, or create throwaway identities to participate in specific fora.

Imagine if car license plates had our name and home address on them, would we
be as likely to commit road rage, pick our noses, double park, etc.

Facebook sees itself as a commons first, and the product vision seems to be to
incorporate as many of the kinds of constraints common in meatspace to nudge
specific kinds of behaviors and discourage others.

Recall in its origin the biggest difference between Facebook and Myspace was
Facebook's calming blue, un-customizable color scheme. Blue is commonly used
in police uniforms and hospital scrubs.

Facebook also reinvented the feed, moving very early on to an algorithmic feed
when competitors were still under the impression that people just wanted to
see all updates from all friends. Facebook very quickly understood that the
right algorithm can turn a boring feed into engagement dopamine.

Consider that unlike a purely online forum, posts on Facebook are much more
likely connected to people we met first in real life where our status is
already well-established. Nonetheless people use Facebook to signal
activities, pictures or beliefs that they feel will increase their status.

When normal meatspace dynamics matter so much to a site's content, allowing
fake names pretty much breaks voyeurism, which is a feature, not a bug.

It is precisely the dark pattern of being able to look up anyone on Facebook
and peer into their life that creates Facebook's opportunity to arbitrage
between the feeling that what we are posting is mundane, yet it being far from
mundane when assembled by Facebook into a complete dossier for anyone who
wishes to look us up.

But these are side-effects. My interpretation of this is that Zuck has a
strong conviction that meatspace and online life should fully merge. I think
he believes this as part of the same utopian conviction that led him to
envision Facebook as a "social utility", and I think the same one that is
leading him on a path to holding public office.

In his ideal world, politicians would not be two-faced, and internet users
would not have multiple avatars and identities to flippantly switch between to
avoid facing up to reality or to explore a part of themselves that they do not
put on display for all to see.

I think the question Zuck must also ask himself in his moments of reflection
is "How can Facebook truly do good?". The good that needs to be done in the
world needs to be done by (and for) real people, not screen names and
throwaways. Thus as building blocks of that utopian edifice, we must all bear
the weight of social responsibility that goes with our actual name being
attached to everything we do.

~~~
pjc50
> Imagine if car license plates had our name and home address on them

Dunno about where you live, but in the UK the registration authority maps
license plates to registered owners addresses, and you can ask them to look it
up for you: [https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-
dvla](https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla)

The UK of course still has road rage and double parking.

WRT online abuse and "hate preaching", some of the most insidious stuff is
done in public by people proudly using their own names. Like Katie "Final
Solution" Hopkins.

~~~
CM30
> WRT online abuse and "hate preaching", some of the most insidious stuff is
> done in public by people proudly using their own names. Like Katie "Final
> Solution" Hopkins.

This. Also, if you look at the Facebook comments for a post or article
anywhere online, you'll also realise how many people simply don't care if
their real name is tied to their trolling/hate.

The percentage of people who only bully/attack others under anonymity is
likely far lower than people expect it to be.

~~~
Santosh83
I can confirm this from my own experience too. Merely requiring real names
does nothing to stop hate & trolling because people create throwaway accounts
with real names (which are however not their real name) and troll. And there
is no way FB can verify if these are the actual names of the operating user
without requiring some ID or meatspace verification. And that can be faked
too.

Although yes, the barrier for misbehaving becomes bigger and bigger as we move
from a scale of total and easy anonymity towards something tied to real life
identity as much as your passport or bank account is.

------
ericd
If we had some valuable online identity that persisted across multiple sites
with a reputation attached that mattered, it wouldn't need to be linked with
real identity to make people care enough about it not to soil it.

------
Eerie
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 here. Facebook is objectively abhorrent. I'm
just stating facts. They best way to fight Facebook is to stop using it.

~~~
carvalho
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.

~~~
blfr
Google? Maybe. Facebook? I would argue that using Facebook is a net negative
and you're at an advantage if you ditch it.

~~~
Normal_gaussian
For uk students Facebook is almost a requirement of the social life. Few
people have other contact lists, if you aren't on Facebook you can't be
contacted. Event invitation is done through Facebook - the event is rarely
advertised elsewhere nor is it a deliberate topic conversation.

The few people I knew who didn't use Facebook at uni ended up using it through
others whether they are were willing to admit it or not.

~~~
Eerie
>For uk students Facebook is almost a requirement of the social life.

So, are you telling me that _students_ , people at the stage of life when they
are most rebellious, and their minds are most flexible, just won't be able to
find any replacement for Facebook, if they wanted to?

(◔_◔)

~~~
Normal_gaussian
You've taken something that said 'almost' and taken it to the extremes.

> any replacement for Facebook, if they wanted to

That requires organising several thousand people who _don 't want to_ to
change platform.

Perform whatever gymnastics you want and break all of the rules - that task
ain't getting easier.

------
peter303
Quora has among the more civilized discussions due to its real name policy.

~~~
chopin
As has HN which does not have a real name policy. We're in unproven territory,
I think.

------
Animats
Without real names, Facebook would be as junky as Myspace was.

~~~
Cozumel
Here's just two examples as to why online anonymity is so critical, there's
cases like this every single day. You might think, so what? You're free to
keep on thinking that right up until you're the one going to jail for
criticising your boss. [http://www.eutimes.net/2016/12/facebook-bans-german-
woman-fo...](http://www.eutimes.net/2016/12/facebook-bans-german-woman-for-
posting-picture-of-migrant-rapist/)
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-
woman-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-woman-prison-
two-word-facebook-message-reply-a7022116.html)

~~~
Karunamon
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, so if you don't want your
boss seing your pictures, you have a litany of options, including lists,
person-to-person sharing, blocking, and not friending them in the first place.

The problem is that this requires a modicum of effort, and people don't want
to have to expend that effort. They want to be able to blast everything out
there and just kinda hope that it doesn't get them in trouble. It takes effort
to use stuff that's not Facebook.

~~~
killer1loop
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.

~~~
Karunamon
> _most people confuse the internet with facebook._

Citation needed.

~~~
DroFlow
"Most" is an exaggeration. But it's a ton of people.
[https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-
id...](https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-
using-the-internet/)

------
perfectstorm
anyone remember Orkut ? One of the reasons why I quit Orkut was because they
didn't care about real names. so people started using weird characters and
unicodes instead of their real name. This won't be a problem when you're not
friends with them but once you're friends with them and your friend changes
their name to some weird characters, you don't know who you're talking to. I
hated that.

I think the article is looking at an extreme scenario and calling the policy
naive. This case wouldn't matter to people in the developed nations (and most
developing countries as well).

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
How the fuck does stability of names require that it's from your government
ID?

How about you simply allow users to put labels on their contacts to identify
them for themselves? No need to introduce a police state in order to keep you
unconfused.

------
justin_vanw
I don't know why there are special rules for popular websites. If there was
some building in town where you had to show ID to get in and participate in
whatever activity was going on, imagine when the ankle biters showed up and
announced that it was 'dangerous and evil' to require people to have to use
their real identity to come inside the building.

If you have some reason to not go on facebook, don't go on facebook. There is
basically nothing worthwhile there anyway, you aren't being personally
attacked because they want to run their community the way they think is best.

