
Facebook Blocks Internet Pioneer “R.U. Sirius” - spiralganglion
http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2015/10/ru-sirius-facebook-ken-goffman.html
======
SwellJoe
Facebook has kinda chosen a path that sets them apart from, and often in
active opposition to, the Internet RU Sirius envisioned. Facebook is
antithetical to what a lot of folks wanted to see the Internet become, so it
shouldn't be surprising that the early visionaries of the Internet find
themselves being excluded from participation in facebook on their own terms.
Participation in facebook is on facebook's terms, always, and it's not
surprising when they're dicks who wield that power arbitrarily.

I've had several transgender friends excluded from participation in facebook
based on this name policy, and I've known a wide variety of other people who
use odd names for a wide variety of reasons (some silly, some deadly serious
like trying to hide from an abusive ex) who've also been excluded from
participation. Facebook makes pleasant noises about the policy and its
implementation, but the reality is they're not doing this for us, for the good
of the world, or for the good of the open Internet.

I'm not trying to go all RMS about facebook; I have a facebook account, and I
use it daily. But, facebook isn't the Internet I envisioned, either. It is
just another petty little walled garden where we're all peasants.

~~~
habith
Excuse the poor pun but.. are you serious?

Facebook excluded several of your friends based on their terrible name policy.
They run their walled garden however they want to. Your participation in it
makes you (in your own words) a "peasant".

Yet, you're not trying to go all RMS about it and you continue to use it daily
to give them more money/power?

Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

Say what you want about RMS, but at least he's principled and does/says what
he thinks instead of conforming to social norms.

~~~
scrollaway
It's not reasonable to expect people to "just not use facebook". Not that it's
not possible - it is (and I don't use it), but it doesn't mean facebook can
just do whatever. Reposting an old comment of mine:

For a lot of people, Facebook _is_ "The Web". That's all or almost all they
use. The less tech-literate ones don't even know "the web", they connect to
Facebook. They get their news from Facebook. They communicate on Facebook.
Everything they do online, they do on Facebook.

Like someone mentioned above, when you get big enough you start to have
responsibilities. When your actions affect and your voice is heard by billions
of people, you're no longer "some random privately-owned website"... you're a
supergiant with the ability to affect the entire world.

~~~
ryandrake
> It's not reasonable to expect people to "just not use Facebook".

Huh? Nobody used Facebook before 2003. Now people simply can't avoid using it?

~~~
pgodzin
And in 2015 everyone is on Facebook. If everyone moves off of Facebook then
we're back in the "good old days" but until then, there are many social
aspects, such as event planning, that are being done entirely on the site. You
can't point to a time when FB wasn't around and say that everyone didn't have
FB then and can just as easily not have it again when reality has changed so
much since then.

~~~
icanhackit
_there are many social aspects, such as event planning, that are being done
entirely on the site_

I haven't had a Facebook account for 3 years and while that was my main
concern, I found that any event worth going to the organizer would simply
call, message or email you because they wanted you to be there. People vastly
underestimate the power of their real social network and what friendship or
love can do to motivate people to maintain relationships.

Canning your account is also a good way to cull relationships not worth
maintaining. In my case it was around 70% of my contacts, leaving 30% who I
gave a damn about. The ultimate tool for social networking is still at my
disposal - the mobile phone. Facebook is a middle-man. A relationship broker.

Some advice for anyone who plans on closing their Facebook account: scrape any
photos with you in them (and anyone you have an affinity for), phone numbers
and the big one: birthdays. My calendar reminds me when someone has a birthday
and their phone numbers sit in my contacts list.

~~~
TeMPOraL
(Please don't take it personally; I want to comment on a generic phenomenon.)

There is a pattern I see in every HN thread about Facebook. It consists of
comments structured like this: "I haven't had a Facebook account for [1 year -
ever]. I don't see what's useful about it. I think relationships maintained by
it are bad / artificial / unnecessary." Am I the only one who notices that
comments of the form "I don't use X therefore I have an opinion on X" are
of... limited usefulness?

\--

> _I found that any event worth going to the organizer would simply call,
> message or email you because they wanted you to be there._

Facebook invitations are equivalent to the forms above.

> _People vastly underestimate the power of their real social network_

Facebook is as real as any other social network.

> _and what friendship or love can do to motivate people to maintain
> relationships._

If you're my friend or love interest, why are you making it more difficult for
me to contact you?

> _Some advice for anyone who plans on closing their Facebook account: scrape
> any photos with you in them (and anyone you have an affinity for), phone
> numbers and the big one: birthdays. My calendar reminds me when someone has
> a birthday and their phone numbers sit in my contacts list._

One of the most pathetic things people do on-line is putting a fake birthday
into Facebook (and before that, into the IMs they were using), to see who
actually remembers the real date. It always makes me wonder, what they're
trying to prove this way? That some people don't care about them enough to
remember the date? Well guess what, nobody is that fucking important. Your
parents and your spouse may remember the date, but why should anyone else? Do
_you_ remember the birth dates of people you expect to remember yours?

~~~
bigbugbag
> Facebook is as real as any other social network.

This has been proven otherwise.

> If you're my friend or love interest, why are you making it more difficult
> for me to contact you?

exactly! why do you force me to register an account on a known privacy invader
website that don't respect its words nor its users to get in touch with you ?

>One of the most pathetic things people do on-line is putting a fake birthday
into Facebook to see who actually remembers the real date.

The people I know who do that are doing it just because they don't want to
give away their real birth date. This is sensitive info.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _This has been proven otherwise._

[citation needed]. Seriously, what _exactly_ is so different about Facebook?
As far as I can tell, it's the usual generational whining about "technology
destroying social relations", that was repeated by every generation since
invention of newspapers.

> _exactly! why do you force me to register an account on a known privacy
> invader website that don 't respect its words nor its users to get in touch
> with you ?_

The OP phrased his comment in a way that implied you are the one burdening
your loved ones on purpose, and this was what I responded to.

> _The people I know who do that are doing it just because they don 't want to
> give away their real birth date. This is sensitive info._

Birthdays are absolutely not sensitive info (regardless of legal definition);
if you're thinking that, you're fooling yourself. Like name, address, sex, and
bank account number, they're public info. Usernames, not passwords. You've
probably left all of those multiple times this year to random untrusted third
parties.

~~~
bigbugbag
>[citation needed]. Seriously, what exactly is so different about Facebook? As
far as I can tell, it's the usual generational whining about "technology
destroying social relations", that was repeated by every generation since
invention of newspapers.

This is not wikipedia. just use a search engine, talk to people who closed
their or got removed from facebook, go to the library to get books on the
subject, get in a horrible accident and count how many facebook contacts are
on your bedside when you wake up, get convicted and thrown in jail and see how
many facebook contacts will be visiting you regularly for 10 years.

I fail to understand how exactly it is news: party friends are not true
friends, drug friends are not true friends, facebook contacts are not true
friends either.

> The OP phrased his comment in a way that implied you are the one burdening
> your loved ones on purpose, and this was what I responded to.

And I phrased mine to show that your counter argument works both ways, except
facebook is preventing outside people from getting in touch with inside
people, not the other way around.

>Birthdays are absolutely not sensitive info (regardless of legal definition);
if you're thinking that, you're fooling yourself. Like name, address, sex, and
bank account number, they're public info. Usernames, not passwords. You've
probably left all of those multiple times this year to random untrusted third
parties.

People who do not put heir real birth date may think that, on the other I know
that it is a sensitive information for I have personal experience with its
exploitation. You may have confused a few concept here, data that is public
can also be sensitive, see social engineering. But let's just give you a
random innocent example: girl has crush on boy, stalks his facebook for birth
date, find out his astrology sign, renounces for astrocompatibility bs. Boy
unknowingly missed opportunity to explore bases.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _This is not wikipedia._

This is Hacker News. I actually expect higher standards of this place.

> _I fail to understand how exactly it is news: party friends are not true
> friends, drug friends are not true friends, facebook contacts are not true
> friends either._

You seem to believe that "Facebook network" and "real life network" are
distinct networks. They're not. Usually there are only few points when they
don't overlap - because in reality, you have _one_ social network and Facebook
is a convenient tool to manage it. So yes, I if I get into an accident or get
thrown into a jail I expect a lot of my Facebook friends, who are also real-
life friends, to show up. Hell, I expect many more to come than without
Facebook, because there really is no other widespread way of keeping many
people updated about each other's day-to-day life.

> _And I phrased mine to show that your counter argument works both ways,
> except facebook is preventing outside people from getting in touch with
> inside people, not the other way around._

I accept that it works both ways. In most discussions, people actually bring
up only the side from your counter, completely forgetting about the one I
wanted to remind OP about.

> _You may have confused a few concept here, data that is public can also be
> sensitive, see social engineering._

Part of the problem of social engineering is that people treat "public but
sensitive data" as anything _but_ public. If I know your birthday or address
or bank account number, it doesn't prove anything about my relationship to
you. People who ignore it end up becoming victims of social engineering
attacks. I think it's a part of basic security training to make them
understand that this data is to be assumed public knowledge.

> _a random innocent example: girl has crush on boy, stalks his facebook for
> birth date, find out his astrology sign, renounces for astrocompatibility
> bs. Boy unknowingly missed opportunity to explore bases._

Well, so what? Things like these happen all the time with any random things.
She may have overheard his birth date in a conversation. Or maybe he put a
_fake_ date and she thought it's true and gave up even though both were
astrocompatibile and believed in the BS. It's easy to invent such examples to
prove just about any point.

~~~
bigbugbag
As there is a current high profile story illustrating the issue of the effect
of social media on teen, here are some of the requested citation:
[http://www.letsbegamechangers.com/](http://www.letsbegamechangers.com/) and
www.zmonline.com/photos/zm-photos/instagram-celeb-reveals-the-ugly-reality-
behind-her-social-media-presence/

> You seem to believe that "Facebook network" and "real life network" are
> distinct networks. They're not. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary
> evidence. Having a look in a teen's facebook versus his/her real life should
> be enough to see by yourself the reality is not what you claim. But I'll
> rather introduce you to Robin Dunbar and the Dunbar Number: "orry, Facebook
> friends: Our brains can't keep up["1] and "The Limits of Friendship"[2]

> In most discussions, people actually bring up only the side from your
> counter, completely forgetting about the one I wanted to remind OP about.

And there is a reason for that, which is simply that facebook added an
artificial barrier between people as tool to force people to register to
facebook. The wall of the so called walled garden.

> Part of the problem of social engineering is that people treat "public but
> sensitive data" as anything but public.

Ok, it seems I have failed to express myself correctly and my simple and
innocent example failed to get through. Allow me to reformulate: \- A birth
date is personal data, for it is indeed related to a specific person.
-Personal data is sensitive data. \- That's it, there's nothing more to it.

I suppose you live in a place and time too far away from the last attempt at
rounding people for mass killing and attempted extermination to remember how
important and sensitive personal data is.

I guess those who fail to remember history are doomed to relive it.

[1]: [http://www.cnet.com/news/sorry-facebook-friends-our-
brains-c...](http://www.cnet.com/news/sorry-facebook-friends-our-brains-cant-
keep-up/) [2]: [http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-
medi...](http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-media-affect-
math-dunbar-number-friendships)

------
wdewind
It is ironic to see the quote from RU Sirius about what a victory the internet
is for the counter culture:

> The rise of the Net and the Web represents a victory for the counterculture
> and the subculture. The next generation, raised on the Net as their primary
> medium, won't even know what consensus reality is.

followed by this from the comments:

> This is what happens when you let little children manage grownup things.

basically begging for a more traditional power structure, and being extremely
upset when the next generation, raised on the Net as their primary medium,
manage it differently than how he'd expect.

I don't think RU Sirius is right about the internet being a win for the
counter culture (I do hope he is right, though). I can't find a year for that,
but I'll bet it was said before all the Snowden stuff.

~~~
oldbuzzard
Before the Snowden stuff... mmm probably yes.

I'd bet that quote comes from an old issue of "Mondo 2000" and is contempory
with the Clipper Chip battles about mandated NSA backdoors in all telecoms
circa '93/94.

~~~
chucksmash
Oh man. I read a story (possibly found on HN?) a few months ago about a guy
growing up reading 90s techno-utopia stuff. He used the last of his money to
go to a convention only to become disillusioned with it when he saw his idols
were just making it up as they went. It was a really interesting read - does
this ring a bell for anybody? I'm sure Mondo 2000 was mentioned in it.

~~~
csixty4
Sounds like "The Guy I Almost Was"
[http://electricsheepcomix.com/almostguy/](http://electricsheepcomix.com/almostguy/)

~~~
chucksmash
That's exactly it. Good pull!

~~~
csixty4
I make it a point to read it at least once a year, because so much of it
resonates with me. Always fresh in my mind.

------
DanBC
Facebook have some really horrible policies.

A woman has some photos of her and her partner on her profile. He then murders
her, is arrested and sent to prison. Her profile is memorialised. This means
all those images of him are still on her wall. Nice memorial.

The family have asked FB to remove those images. FB have declined.

[https://www.change.org/p/facebook-remove-the-pictures-of-
hol...](https://www.change.org/p/facebook-remove-the-pictures-of-hollie-
gazzards-killer-from-her-facebook-page)

~~~
onewaystreet
That story could easily read like this:

A trans woman has some photos of her and her partner on her profile. Her
partner then murders her, is arrested and sent to prison. Her profile is
memorialised. Her family gets access to her account from Facebook and replaces
all of her photos with photos of her before her transition.

Facebook has no way of knowing the motives of people so they don't try to.

~~~
tellarin
The family doesn't need access to the account. It can still be "memorialized".

Facebook could very well deal with a list of images to remove and the reason
for it. In this case, the reason is cristal clear.

~~~
onewaystreet
A trans woman has some photos of her and her partner on her profile. She and
her partner die in a car crash. Her profile is memorialized. Her family gets
Facebook to remove all of the photos with her and her partner.

~~~
TeMPOraL
That's why I think that accounts shouldn't be "memorialized" but "frozen in
time". Once the person dies, all that data should become a matter of public
history record. No alterations.

~~~
pmoriarty
Better yet, their account should just be closed and the content be taken down
permanently.

If someone else wants to "memorialize" them, they should just do so on their
own active account, using whatever content they deem fit.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I disagree. The default should be to preserve the record of a person, not
trying to erase them from history and pretend they never existed.

~~~
pmoriarty
What happened before Facebook? Did dying people get "erased from history" and
did everyone just pretend they never existed?

You don't need a Facebook page for people to know you existed.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It's the general principle - don't erase records of things that really
happened.

------
DataWorker
Agree about Facebook being held accountable for the impact they have on the
world.

But I also agree with shaming people who use it. If you have an account you
are actively subsidizing the impact Facebook has on the world.

How frequently you use the product you are buying when you sign up for an
account has no relevance.

And here's what disturbs me most; a vast majority of the citizenship has
basically handed over all of their personal details to big brother. Now we
live in an environment where not having an account is enough to raise
suspicion.

History will prove Stallman the Cassandra of our times.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Well, I am subsidizing Facebook and its impact on the world, and I am proud of
it.

Facebook had a tremendously positive impact on this planet - it connected
people from all over the world like no other force in the history before.
Maybe it's not really their accomplishment, maybe they just lucked into
popularity at the right moment, but it doesn't change that they are there,
helping over one billion people keep real-time communication across the world.
People who don't use Facebook tend to not appreciate the impact it has on
daily life, especially when it comes to staying up to date with lives of a
hundred and then some people. 'peteretep provides some good examples[0].

So try and shame me all you want. I don't feel that I have anything to be
ashamed of.

> _a vast majority of the citizenship has basically handed over all of their
> personal details to big brother_

Oh well. And the vast majority of the citizenship extracts tremendous value
out of it and sees no negative consequence. Yes, maybe one day there will be
an evil ad-company government that will drone-strike us all in bedrooms
because twenty years ago we disagreed with the leading feminist activists. Or
it will torture us eternally because it'll be so bored and have nothing else
to do with all those real names it collected. But until then, explain to me
like I'm five, _why on earth should the majority of the citizenship care_?

And don't get me wrong. I'm not happy about what advertisers are doing. That
industry is rotten to the core and should be burned down. But please, if you
really need to shame someone, shame the advertisers using this data.

> _Now we live in an environment where not having an account is enough to
> raise suspicion._

I see this repeated often, but there is no real point in that sentence. Not
participating in _any_ activity or phenomena that the majority is
participating in is enough to raise suspicion, by the very definition of
"majority", "suspicion" and "standing out".

[0] -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10475506](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10475506)

~~~
bigbugbag
So facebook is really succeeding in replacing internet and the web in the mind
of people who don't know better.

I mean internet connected people from all the world like nothing before,
people who are not online fails to appreciate how it can affect daily life.
Heck it even grown a pimple on its back called facebook, this pimple has grown
quite a bit now and is looking cancerous, even looks like it is actively
trying to kill the internet (Cisa, internet.org, etc.) Sort of what msn tried
in the 90's and failed because open always trump closed in the end.

------
marcusgarvey
I think FB is so insistent on using real names because, through its
partnership with companies like Datalogix, it allows advertisers to show FB
ads based on offline / elsewhere purchases. Won't work if FB doesn't have real
names. Not a fan. Have personally noticed FB ads shown to me based on my
purchase of a prescription drug. Tempted to go all cash when it comes to
paying for health-related and other sensitive stuff.

[https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-and-
privacy/relevant...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-and-
privacy/relevant-ads-that-protect-your-privacy/457827624267125)

~~~
jsonne
I'm fairly certain it's illegal to target ads based on a medical condition.

That being said, I believe you're right as to why they require real names.
It's also why I use it as my go to for advertising and marketing. The added
data from Datlogix etc makes it incredibly useful as a marketing tool.

~~~
briandear
It isn't illegal to target based on a medical condition. I am not making any
value judgement about it, just providing factual clarification. Unless HIPAA
rules were violated, there's no problem. For example, at iCouch, if they were
to take diagnostic information stored on their server by their practitioner
and then send out emails to the patient based on the Protected Health
Information, that would be illegal. But someone visiting a depression website
and then targeting depression treatment ads based on that -- that would not be
illegal. Don't would depend on where the information came from that was used
to do the targeting. The targeting itself wouldn't be illegal, but the use of
the data to do targeting could be illegal if that data were Protected Health
Information covered by HIPAA or the Hi Tech Act. Of course, I am only speaking
in a US context here..

~~~
marcusgarvey
In my case, I'm 99.9% sure the info was based on my offline purchase behavior
at a CVS. I had a prescription filled for a very specific condition and, a few
days later, was shown a Facebook ad for a related product. Not an ad that
would be shown to a general population. I had not searched about the condition
anywhere online in the recent past.

------
downandout
This question may sound absurd to some, but does it even matter if you are not
allowed to use Facebook anymore? I use it to sign into Candy Crush. They paid
me a few thousand dollars for discovering a bug, that I only discovered
because I was playing with their advertising system. That is the entire extent
of my Facebook usage. It doesn't play a role in my daily life to any extent
whatsoever, and its role in the lives of many formerly heavy users seems to be
diminishing as well.

So while it sucks to be excluded from anything for arbitrary reasons, it
shouldn't matter very much to him or anyone else. There are plenty of other
places to accomplish the things that can be accomplished on Facebook.

~~~
csixty4
> There are plenty of other places to accomplish the things that can be
> accomplished on Facebook.

Except when there aren't. For example, my local cat shelter set up a Facebook
group to coordinate volunteers. There's also a closed group for a particular
program's volunteers.

Sure, they could have set up the groups somewhere else. A shelter I used to be
involved with still has a Yahoo group. But the fact is they didn't, and the
decision was made way above my level. So if I lost access to Facebook, I'd
lose access to a lot more than Candy Crush.

~~~
bigbugbag
This is vendor lock-in and this is how facebook retains users.

If facebook was not locked down but open, many people would have left already
if they had come in the first place.

Now when the volunteers stop using facebook, it's the shelter that will lose
their volunteers. The obvious solution is for the shelter to self host its own
group.

------
droithomme
Facebook is a private company with its own rules. It's not a government with a
bill of rights.

I do not have a Facebook account and I do not use it because I disagree with
everything they are doing and everything they represent.

It is sad, or shall we say pathetic, that individuals connect their identity
and sense of self to an ability to patronize a particular brand of consumer ad
delivery network.

------
mirimir
OK, so Facebook has a "real name" policy. People try to circumvent it, for
reasons both good and bad. And there's risk of getting outed or losing high-
value accounts. But bottom line, it's their business, and they can run it as
they like, subject to law.

~~~
pmoriarty
The law could always be changed to make them run it another way.

~~~
mirimir
That seems unlikely in the US. It's my impression that shopping malls, which
are arguably even more public than Facebook, are considered to be private
property in the US. But I can imagine regulation on an antitrust basis. And if
EU has jurisdiction, all bets are off.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Malls may be considered private property, but they're certainly also
considered public accommodations, which comes with a whole host of legal
restrictions on what you can and can't do.

~~~
mirimir
That's a good point. Owners can exclude demonstrators. But they can't
discriminate based on race etc. However, they probably can exclude people
wearing masks. Except on Halloween, anyway ;) And maybe there's a better
analogy to using pseudonyms on Facebook.

~~~
panglott
Facebook as a public accomodation? That's an interesting idea.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations)

Public accomodations in the US are in many states prohibited from
discriminating on the basis of race, national origin, sex, gender identity, or
prohibited from discrimination against breastfeeding in public. That's an
interesting angle to attack Facebook's hostility toward Native American names,
breastfeeding photos, or queer folks who go by other names.

~~~
mirimir
Yes, that's what hit me from thaumasiotes' comment.

But anonymity (or at least, pseudonymity) is the issue here.

It's possible that their policy is different for accounts created via their
Tor onion service
[https://www.facebookcorewwwi.onion/](https://www.facebookcorewwwi.onion/).
But I haven't tested whether they require mobile text authentication, ID, etc.
There's a thread on tor-talk.

------
pboutet
Facebook is a very closed system where it's users have little to no rights. I
myself have checked out of most of it and only occasionally use it to chat
with a few friends in a private group. I found that once you cut using it you
really don't miss much. There are better alternatives in my mind that we
should all start shifting towards.

------
__jal
Perhaps, since Facebook is so terribly concerned with what we call ourselves,
we should take it upon ourselves to be concerned with what Facebook denizens
call themselves. I think I'll start inventing names for them. Henceforth, the
industry titan formerly known as Mark Zuckerberg will be known has Howie
Hughes II.

------
gcb0
why someone who preaches counter culture even was on facebook?!

this is akin to complaining that some kid was disappointed to be called
Bartolomeo instead of Bart while attending the Sunday church bingo. Really?

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Might as well ask why someone who preaches counterculture is on the internet.

If you want people to hear your message, you need to be able to reach them in
the place where they listen. This isn't hard to understand. It's irrelevant
that you or I think Facebook is dumb.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Oh well, no one is telling you to stop preaching counterculture. Don't act
entitled. Counterculture is by definition the thing you'll have people
reacting weirdly to, so complaining about it is like complaining the water is
wet.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I think you may have misread my post.

------
Zelphyr
How much more does Facebook have to do before people realize they're a scourge
of the Internet and delete their accounts?

------
gtrubetskoy
Facebook also does not allow clergy prefixes such as Fr. (father), Rev.
(reverend), Br. (brother), etc. If you are a priest or a bishop, apparently
your facebook friends cannot know about it. Or something like that.

What's even more remarkable, some clergy I know have complied and dropped
these prefixes because often the choice between not being on Facebook vs
losing the "Fr." designation is not a choice if you need to be reachable by
people on any medium.

~~~
MichaelGG
If they allowed that, then they'd open themselves up to having to allow pretty
much any prefix. Professional titles like Dr aren't even allowed, and those
are far less disputable.

[https://www.facebook.com/help/132247486851813](https://www.facebook.com/help/132247486851813)

~~~
jarek
"Real names, but not real titles, those are too real-world for us"

------
egonschiele
Is this intentional? Things like this are frequently done using scripts, or
well-meaning support folks that don't know any better. Let's get all the facts
before throwing a fit.

------
meeper16
I like this commenters take in the article:

"Fecesbook was the former MySpace, which was the former friendster, which was
the former [keep filling in the blank]

Fecesbook is the next AOL walled garden of junk. They were founded on calling
their users dumb f*cks and voyeristcally to spy on girls.

Google, worth an order of magnitude more that FB, is a true internet and
technology company founded on algorithms and smart innovation as opposed to
being a copy of myspace and walled gardens that anyone can cut and paste.

Good riddens to Fecesbook but I wonder what's next. Better yet, what's going
to be the next Google/Alphabet?"

~~~
bigbugbag
Don't worry, google will see that there will no be a next google any time
soon.

------
mirimir
Facebook = AOL 2.0 ;)

~~~
KasianFranks
Exactly.

------
denzil_correa
How does Facebook identify what is a real name and what is a pseudonym?

~~~
zaphos
Reportedly a mixture of automated systems, user reports, and manual work by
facebook employees.

See the 'How Fake Names are Flagged and Targeted' section of this article:
[http://lifehacker.com/how-to-use-a-fake-name-on-facebook-
wit...](http://lifehacker.com/how-to-use-a-fake-name-on-facebook-without-
getting-flag-1637644101)

------
tracker1
I wonder what FB would do if everyone just changed their name to "John Smith"
to comply with a "real names" policy... it's about the most common name in
english speaking countries.

~~~
SXX
Facebook would block access to those accounts and ask to upload ID photo.

------
Animats
Evey worse, nobody under 50 remembers him.

------
guard-of-terra
I don't think people like him should even be on Facebook.

It's not that you should boycott Facebook; any more than you boycott North
Korea. You don't really have business with it and the only take away is lulz.

Yes, real name policy is an unfortunate feature of Facebook, but I struggle
naming any of its fortunate features.

~~~
throwitup
Déjà il rêvait à une thébaïde raffinée, à un désert confortable, à une arche
immobile et tiède où il se réfugierait loin de l’incessant déluge de la
sottise humaine. -- Huysmans

~~~
mkempe
OT: what brought you to Huysmans?

~~~
throwitup
I realized that National Socialism, the iconoclastic world-view of Adolf
Hitler, was the doctrine of scientific, racial idealism, actually, a new
'religion' for our times. I saw that I was living in the age of a new world-
view. Two thousand years ago there had been a similar rise of a new approach
or world-view, called a 'religion'; a world-view which shook and changed the
world forever.

I realized that this new and wonderful doctrine of scientific truth applied
ruthlessly to man himself, as well as to Nature and inanimate matter, and that
it was the only thing which could save man from his own degradation in luxury,
self-seeking short-sightedness and racial degeneration. The doctrine of Adolf
Hitler was the new 'Christianity' of our times, and Adolf Hitler himself was
the new 'savior', sent by inscrutable Providence recurrently to rescue a
collapsing humanity.

Hitler's and Germany's 'crucifixion' was all according to the inevitable
workings of this unknowable Scenarist. Even the eleven hanged disciples in
Nurnburg were not without significance! The most hated and dreaded idea two
thousand years ago was Christianity, and the most hated and cursed man on
earth was Jesus Christ. His followers were bitterly persecuted and murdered by
the 'good', 'sensible' people who could see that anybody in his right mind
recognized Rome and the Empire as the solid, substantial reality.

I realized that today's Marxist- Democratic world is another sprawling 'Roman
Empire', and today's Nazis the early 'Christians'. What is going on is far
more than a battle for political supremacy in the present social and political
situation. It is the utter smashing and destruction of a society which has
become so rotten that it will tolerate and even love its own Marxist
destroyers, just as it hates, despises and fears the slowly-growing Nazi
society which will replace it. Such mighty, awesome thoughts come to a man but
once in a lifetime, if ever, and when they do, that man changes for all time.

~~~
guard-of-terra
"Germany's 'crucifixion'"

Germany did not suffer a thing. Returned to be European powerhouse in a whim.

Losers of WW2 (Japan, Germany) are way more successful than most winners of
WW2 (UK, France and especially USSR).

