
Global coalition tells Facebook to kill its Real Names policy - aestetix
https://boingboing.net/2015/10/06/global-coalition-tells-faceboo.html
======
PostOnce
Facebook was made large by the fact that you can find people you used to know,
or haven't spoken to in a while, or aren't that close to.

You can find anyone, it's easy.

Removing the real names policy does away with that, and I would say seriously
threaten's facebook's business/growth/future. If you don't know your old
girlfriend or your cousin or your highschool bandmate's username, how are you
going to get in touch with them?

I'm not saying that's a bad thing, or that I think facebook should have real
names, but I'm saying that I seriously doubt they are going to change that
policy because it'd cost them too much in the long term.

EDIT: People, I understand the arguments against real names. Facebook's
counterargument is money. Which argument do you think they support and will
listen to?

Downvoting me is crass, I'm not even stating a position, I'm just stating the
obvious reasons for Facebook's continuing denial of a chosen-name policy.

~~~
mrweasel
I was thinking something along those lines. I think the strenght of Facebooks
is that people use their real name. I wasn't even thinking about
searchability, but that's potentially going right out the window.

3rd. parties that are using Facebook for logins are frequently using/allowing
Facebook precisely because you're relative sure that it's "a real person". I
know that's one reason why we're using it.

I might be wrong, but it certainly seems like people are less likely to engage
in trolling or extremely bad behaviour if things are linked to Facebook, and I
suspect that the real name policies are the reason.

It's not that I don't understand some peoples need for privacy or the use of
pseudonyms, but you are playing in Facebooks walled garden, they make the
rules. You don't have to be on Facebook, nor are you entitled to a Facebook
account. Maybe you would be wise to avoid Facebook if you have the need to
hide your identity.

~~~
pjc50

      > certainly seems like people are less likely to engage in trolling or extremely bad behaviour if things are linked to Facebook
    

People do _jihadi recruiting_ on Facebook, despite obviously being under
surveillance. I think we'd need figures to back up this idea that "real name"
policies reduce abuse, rather than content policies, codes of conduct and IP
bans.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
YouTube tried this and it didn't fix anything about how awful YouTube comments
were.

------
avolcano
Good, I'm glad this is getting traction. Seems like every week I read about
another trans person or someone who uses a psuedonym in day-to-day life
getting "reported" by some asshole and getting locked out of their Facebook,
and Facebook seems uninterested in fixing the issue.

Honestly, it's heartbreaking, as someone who uses many Facebook open source
projects, to talk to engineers at Facebook and find out how many don't know
this is even an issue. It's certainly kept me from responding to FB
recruitment emails.

~~~
pmlnr
I don't get this. This is a company, a product, which no one is forced to
use.*

If you disagree, walk away and don't touch Facebook; there are trillions of
other options out there to build community sites, some much, much better than
FB. That is how you make a change, not by enforcing ideas on a company.

*ED. For some situations I understand that it's inevitable - even schools use it as a generic broadcasting media nowadays. But for that, you can clearly use your 'real' name, can't you?

~~~
mikeash
I don't get why you think the only options should be to agree entirely or walk
away. If a company has a product which you mostly enjoy but which you think
could be improved, is it not reasonable to complain to try to get them to
improve it?

~~~
pmlnr
Not really; the only way to force companies is by spending your money
somewhere else. They just simply won't care while you're still making the same
money for them.

~~~
merijnv
> the only way to force companies is by spending your money somewhere else

Or, you know, enforcing new legislation that forces the company to do what you
want...

~~~
minority-one
I'm pretty sure pmlnr meant "the only way to peacefully/morally force
companies is by spending your money somewhere else".

We all know violence and threat (what you suggest) works. Some of us are
trying to decrease the amount of what you suggest in the world.

New legislation is a direct threat to companies, backed by the power of the
government to fine and arrest those who disobey. Why go to such lengths when
it's much easier just to stop going to Facebook? Only a perverse sadist would
prefer legislation over ostracism.

~~~
merijnv
> New legislation is a direct threat to companies, backed by the power of the
> government to fine and arrest those who disobey. Why go to such lengths when
> it's much easier just to stop going to Facebook? Only a perverse sadist
> would prefer legislation over ostracism.

Right, this is why the US is such a shiny beacon of safe products, consumer-
friendliness, and consumer rights compared to the horrible European markets...
:)

I always find this sentiment on HN so amusing. "Legislation hurts companies,
we should all just ostracise/boycott companies instead!" despite all practical
evidence suggesting that legislation actually gets things done. Like, I can
actually get fast affordable internet here, unlike when I was in the US :)

~~~
mikeash
I do think that legislation should be avoided if it's not necessary. If
complaining or boycotting gets the job done, then that should be the first
option. I'll never understand people who think we shouldn't complain or
boycott. Surely this is just an exercise of one's right to free association?
(Not saying _you 're_ objecting to them. But a lot of people seem to think
that it's somehow wrong.)

On the other hand, if an issue is important and legislation can get the job
done, we shouldn't shy away from it. To describe someone as "a perverse
sadist" for wanting to legislate pseudonyms on social networks is bonkers.

~~~
minority-one
> I do think that legislation should be avoided if it's not necessary.

In other words: if legislation.necessary? then enact else avoid.

> On the other hand, if an issue is important and legislation can get the job
> done, we shouldn't shy away from it.

In other words: if issue.important? and legislation.effective? then enact else
avoid.

These two are contradictory. Which is it for you?

~~~
mikeash
"Shouldn't shy away" does not equate to "always do it."

------
Jare
Imagine the uproar if Facebook forced you to have a profile pic that clearly
shows your face, the sort that photo ids require.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Oh yeah. Just looking at my chat contact sidebar (is that what it's called?
the thing on the right of the Facebook homepage), 3/15 friends aren't using
their face in their profile pic.

------
jevgeni
Why bother with all of this? Why not just stop using Facebook?

~~~
Nilzor
This. It's not like being on Facebook is a UN-sanctioned human right.

~~~
jevgeni
Or a particularly enjoyable experience the last two years.

------
abluecloud
They should just re-introduce the ability that they removed about a year or
two ago: ability to remove your name from being searchable on facebook, unless
the user knows your actual facebook.com/url.

~~~
vidarh
That's insufficient for all the people that _do_ want to be identifiable by
the name they go by amongst people they do want contact with.

------
cognivore
This totally piques my "don't tread on me."

Facebook is a service you don't have to use. They're an American company. No
one should be telling them to now run service, U.S. or otherwise.

I hope Zuck flips them the bird and then ignores them.

And this is from a person who doesn't have a Facebook account and generally
doesn't care for them as a company.

------
glormph
Someone mentioned that FB may want to be the world's identity broker. I
personally hate the idea, but if that's the case, they'll hardly give up their
policy. Governmental ID brokers have exceptions to protect someone's identity.
If FB wants to be taken seriously they should implement similar possibilities.
The next one will then be please send us a police report stating you are in
need of etc etc.

~~~
DanBC
But Facebook's policy ignore the law in many countries. In England I can use
any name I choose so long as I don't have the intent to deceive.

I am legally allowed to be Ann and Bob simultaneously.

(admittedly that's a bit trickier when organisations "copper-bottom"
regulations around identity, eg money laundering "Know your customer" regs.)

~~~
glormph
I am not well versed in law at all but that sounds pretty fair. I guess FB
doesnt behave as an org you can apply with whatever name you want, but more as
a gov which wants to keep track of its citizens. They can also do so because
their members have few alternatives, just like citizens of countries.

------
nevinera
"Global coalition tells Exxon to Reduce Gas Prices, and suggests that Raisin
Bran and Snickers are also Too Expensive"

------
Aqueous
The whole reason Facebook has any enforceable standards as a community is
because of that policy. The community standards uphold themselves because
there are be real-life social consequences for saying something hateful /
sexually harassing somebody / posting pornography - the list goes on. Having
to use your real name on Facebook is what keeps you accountable. If you want
to see Facebook turn into a sewer, get rid of the real names policy. Witness
4Chan and YouTube comments.

They should make exceptions for certain cases, such as when someone is
avoiding harassment, or has changed names due to being transgender, or lives
under an authoritarian regime. But they can and should do so on a case-by-case
basis.

~~~
trajing
No, no. Not having your given or legal name associated with your online
presence does not automatically make you a troll, nor does having them
associated make people less likely to watch what they say.

For example, me. I've been very careful about what I say even though my real
name and my alias are not associated. I care about what people think about
trajing, even if they can't trace it back to me in real life.

As for the second part, I've read facebook comments in political articles. I
will never make that mistake again.

I don't use facebook, but I understand where these people are coming from and
support them.

------
mahouse
That's stupid. If you use a credible pseudonym, they will never ask you for
your ID.

If they ask you for your ID, send a fake one. It has worked for me three
times. They were laughably bad and they accepted them.

~~~
ino
Just the fact that facebook asks an official ID is maddening. They aren't a
governmental agency. In Portugal the official ID card has your SS number,
fiscal number, and health number. I don't want facebook to know any of those,
seriously.

~~~
mahouse
And? You are not forced to use Facebook.

------
pmlnr
Why? Anyone who disagrees with this had either already left Facebook or use
something else for the communication, which, in my opinion, is good.

~~~
viraptor
You're projecting a bit, I think. I disagree with their policy even though it
doesn't affect me personally. For many communities there's simply no
alternative to FB right now. Why should I just expect affected people to leave
instead of expecting the problem to be fixed?

~~~
pmlnr
> For many communities there's simply no alternative to FB right now.

Make one. Work on it. Why would someone else make it for them/you for 'free'?

~~~
viraptor
Why should I? That alternative is FB, without bad rules.

Facebook already won with features and has approximately all the people
already registered. From the communities I know, nobody would consider
switching to a different service. It would just be a worse FB with fewer
people on it.

~~~
pmlnr
It sounds like you've never been a part of a forum or similar a decade ago.
It's usually much better with less people.

For the why: because a, monopoly is bad; b, Facebook is broken on too many
levels.

~~~
viraptor
Yes I have. It works for tech communities. It works for topic discussions. It
works for many things. What it would completely fail for is a worldwide group
of people who have a lot of personal connections between them, organise and
announce semi-public events (100s a year), have local groups (1000s), and
share a lot of information within one of those relationships. Also ~100% of
them are already on FB and successfully do all of the above.

So again, no. Monopoly is bad, Facebook is bad/good depending on use case,
sure. But this is not possible to migrate to a forum. Very simplified
situation exists for developers - with the personal part reduced and with very
limited local groups you have this information spread over twitter / local
boards / meetup.com / etc. anyway. If I wanted to check events in some area,
it's actually not trivial. It would be also a complete pain to centralise. You
know what I do for the other use case? Post to facebook, share it in a group
that's approximately in the same area in the world, and I get all information
I need in a few minutes / hours: links to specific groups, specific events,
and if needed I've got FB messenger contact to people who posted it.

