
Help, I’m Trapped in Facebook’s Absurd Pseudonym Purgatory - rl3
http://www.wired.com/2015/06/facebook-real-name-policy-problems/
======
DiabloD3
I support people leaving Facebook forever. Facebook is selling you as the
product, and does not care about making your life easier or better, or making
it easier to connect with friends and family.

I agree with the article's stance on how Facebook enables stalkers to stalk
their victims, and the very nature of Facebook makes it easy for them to do
that.

If you are at risk of such things, please do not have a Facebook account. With
the example of being homosexual in a country where the punishment is death,
foreign governments may be able to use Facebook to find you due to any number
of security issues that have existed, exist currently, and will exist in the
future, so please, just stay off Facebook altogether.

~~~
sneak
People who say this don't have a lot of friends, or don't care about their
friends. Participating in facebook's quagmire is the only way to keep in touch
with some people.

It sucks, but it's true. You can argue with the ideological purity of it all
you want, but it boils down to the fact that you must choose between purity,
and staying in touch. Period.

~~~
nindalf
I deactivated my facebook account and I manage to keep in touch with my family
and close friends from school and college using Whatsapp alone. I don't
pretend like I won't miss out on some cool interactions, or miss out on
important updates but for the most part it works pretty ok.

~~~
lcswi
That just exchanging the kettle for the pot. Hell, whatsapp IS owned by
Facebook...

~~~
nindalf
That's true, but I think of it like this. Computers are much better at
processing metadata rather than data - its easy to draw inferences when you
press a "like" button or click a link.

With Whatsapp, they have data (text of conversations) and some metadata (who
I'm talking to often) but its much harder to draw inferences from that. I
don't see any ads, and my behaviour isn't tracked. With Android M, I'll strip
it of all extra permissions like location and microphone, further boosting my
privacy.

tldr - Its a lot harder to monetise me on Whatsapp.

~~~
lcswi
It is much easier.to get intelligence on you though (ok, same as if you used
Facebook messages). Likes are random and nothing consistent. Your
communication with peers can reveal everything though.

~~~
nindalf
You're thinking from the perspective of a government operative (or another
human) snooping through your data, in which case messages are more important.
But most of our privacy is destroyed by computers sifting through the mountain
of data that companies collect on us.

Your cellphone constantly broadcasts your location to your carrier and to
Facebook and other apps, if you have them installed. If you analyse this data,
it is possible to make out where you work, where your home is, where you like
to hang out (and with who), and where you take vacations. Further, it is
possible to identify a person uniquely from just 4 points of location data if
you have a database of everyone's location data. As former NSA general counsel
Stewart Baker said, “Metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody’s
life. If you have enough meta data you don’t really need content.”

For more uncomfortable and scary revelations like this, I recommend checking
out Data and Goliath by Bruce Schneier.

------
imron
I'm not sure why the author thinks Facebook should let her know who flagged
the account.

After going on about how stalking and protection from stalkers is important,
surely she should be able to realise that protecting the reporter's privacy is
important to prevent any sort of retaliation (not saying the author would do
this, however it should be a cornerstone of any reporting/flagging policy to
keep the flagger/reporter confidential).

Besides, it might not have even been anyone she knows or knows well. 'Nads' is
a pretty common slang term for male genitals so I can see why some random
person might flag it as a fake name.

~~~
darkarmani
> I'm not sure why the author thinks Facebook should let her know who flagged
> the account.

Isn't that Facebook's whole argument thought? You should be accountable for
your actions in real life by using your real name on facebook? If pseudonyms
are against their philosophy, being fully anonymous should be even worse.

~~~
mc32
I dont think so. Just like when you contact the feds to report something, they
know who you are but you re sin anonymous to the person you're reporting.

And in any event, like it or not, anyone with tos can pretty much establish
whatever tos they want within the bounds of the law. But again, I don't see a
discrepancy.

On the other hand, as others will say, treat everything you say and do on fb
as if it's broadcast and permanent.

------
time4hn
When this happened to me I just provided a fake (photoshopped) ID with my
pseudonym and they accepted it.

~~~
pluma
Depending on your jurisdiction that is a criminal offence that carries a
prison sentence.

~~~
cactusface
Why are fake IDs criminal when the business is not legally required to check
for identity? Is it because it's a government document? I'm just curious.

~~~
A_COMPUTER
Arguably faking a government identification in any context is damaging to the
credibility of that ID in any context. I still don't think it should be
illegal, but the argument can be made rationally.

~~~
pluma
It's not uniquely illegal (at least in Germany). It's illegal for the same
reason forging any document (for fraudulent purposes -- i.e. in 99% of all
cases) is illegal: it misrepresents an authoritative claim.

It's not entirely unlike having a friend show up in a fake police uniform to
vouch for you.

There are edge cases like art or educational purposes, but using a fake ID to
prove your identity to a third party is definitely fraudulent: you're saying
"this authority attests that this is my identity" when the authority in
question does nothing of the sort and the document claiming it does is forged.

------
SixSigma
I share this problem. They locked me out until I changed it or proved it.

In The UK names are legally fluid. To the police you must tell them "the name
by which you are known" not your birth certificate. So I can go to prison with
less ID than I can post on Facebook.

I had used my old family name: McNutty and Facebook don't like that. Our
family name was changed to Nutty and then Nutt as being Irish was a negative
(the Mc) and then Nutty was slang for crazy. But I have gone back to our
roots.

So I changed it to an even faker name, similar in tone to Mike Hunt, in order
to log in that day. But after I pressed "yes I'm sure" they said "thank you,
please note: you will never be able to change it" so I am stuck with a stupid
name. Hahaha joke's on them.

------
rhinoceraptor
> Our speech right (...) is expansive and it doesn’t stop at (...) a website’s
> login page.

You don't have free speech rights in a private venue. If you invite me to
dinner at your house and I insult your mother, you have every right to kick me
out.

~~~
kuschku
If the site is having a monopoly due to driving competitors illegally out of
business (compare internet.org, 0.facebook.com), then the site is
automatically treated like a governmental monopoly, meaning it can be legally
forced to secure people’s rights similar to a governmental institution.

Same reason why the EU can have such strict laws about Google.

The author should just go to the EU, here the author would have a better
chance at succeeding.

------
Wildgoose
I've just had a similar problem with Quora. My surname is "Wildgoose". It
happens to be one of the oldest English surnames from when people were given
names after animal attributes. Geese were guard animals, and I have an
ancestor known for his wariness.

And so Quora demanded I stop using "David Wildgoose" and insisted I use my
real name. Which it is, of course.

Appeals pointing out that animal names were common and giving well known
examples like Ryan Gosling and Michael J. Fox got me nowhere and so I told
them to delete my account.

Only then did they relent and accept I was using my real name.

------
JesperRavn
The article critique Facebook on free speech grounds, and yet when people on
the political right bring up free speech, they are direct to this [0] cartoon.
So which is it? Are big companies going to be bound be free speech
requirements that allow right wing free speech, or are we going to define a
new notion of freedom that includes the right to be transgender but excludes
the right to express right wing opinions.

[0] [https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

~~~
cactusface
If I understand what you're saying, that's an interesting point. With a
smaller government and less regulation, corporations tend to have more
influence over your day to day freedoms. When there isn't much choice or
variety when it comes to picking corporations - such as your choice of online
social network - then sometimes it doesn't mean very much that in theory the
governments grant you much more freedom.

~~~
JesperRavn
Yes, that was one part of the point I was making. The other is that the left
want to have it both ways. They want to argue that because of the point you
made, corporations have a duty to provide the same kind of freedoms that
governments are required to allow in public forums. On the other hand, when
right wingers are censored by corporations, they deny that there is any duty
for a private corporation to provide a venue for people to express speech that
the corporation doesn't allow.

EDIT: e.g. jjaredsimpson's downvoted comment would probably not be downvoted
if this article was about a "racist" post being removed from facebook.

~~~
cactusface
I don't really think "the left" and "the right" are useful categories, unless
you want to talk about people who don't think for themselves, which granted is
a lot of people. I think it's perfectly acceptable to demand that some kinds
of speech be allowed on Facebook and the rest prohibited - Hacker News
functions well enough with restrictions on speech - but it's a total
misunderstanding of the legal system in the US to demand it under the first
amendment. And to say that the first amendment applies in one case but not the
other is hypocritical, yes.

------
yuhong
Personally, I agree that real name policies are not a good idea. Fixing the
problems with using real names is a better idea, though often not easy.

------
mirimir
Anyone can use as many pseudonymous Facebook accounts as they want, if they're
willing to spend enough money. Most simply, they can pay employees,
consultants, homeless people, etc, etc. Or they can buy fake identities
wholesale, including documentation. And those are the folks who arguably do
the most damage on Facebook: spammers, scammers, etc, etc. Funny, isn't it?

------
parnellm
My girlfriend can't use her real name on Facebook that is because she is
trying to hide from her crazy father in law and his rapist son, who raped her
when she was 3! This is crazy, she can't feel safe on Facebook because of
there stupid real name requirement crap! Now NO accounts can be made without
an ID being required to be submitted.

------
georgeecollins
I have opened so many fake accounts on facebook (to test things in apps) and
had no problems that I can't believe they care very much about fake accounts.
It seems like: its ok to have a fake account to juice traffic, but please
don't be obvious about it.

------
yawaramin
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the product, you _are_ the product.

------
jjaredsimpson
Eh, you want to use a free service and get mad when they dictate terms.

This is why I don't use Facebook as a primary online presence. I don't give
them all my data, and locations, and relationships, and baby pictures, etc.

Author is just making a play at getting special treatment if her whiny article
goes viral.

Don't depend on things you don't control.

~~~
Retra
If people didn't depend on things they didn't control, the economy would
probably collapse and we'd all be hunters and gatherers again.

~~~
cactusface
Well said. Also, there would be no interpersonal relationships.

------
foopants
I've never used my real name on Facebook. I suspect most people have at least
one fake name account.

~~~
pavedwalden
I don't think _most_ people have multiple Facebook accounts.

~~~
cactusface
I don't think most people have even one Facebook account.

------
danso
I don't think FB is infallible in its policies and service implementation; for
example, I think Eric Meyer was 100% on point with his (very calm and
empathetic) essay, "Inadvertent Algorithmic Cruelty" [1]

That said, while I don't think the OP is wrong to feel upset or worried, but
what she wants can be done without equal unintended negative consequence. A
couple things stuck out:

1\. _When Facebook took one user’s pseudonym away, an abuser showed up to
events that person had RSVP’d to before the name was changed_

2\. _Perhaps the most frustrating part of this is that the person who flags
your account is afforded more privacy than you are. Even when it’s a matter of
personal safety, Facebook will not reveal the accuser._

\-----------

1\. This is easy: don't RSVP for public events. Or don't do so in such a way
that requires Facebook. Though I concede that there _may_ be some events that
logistically require Facebook login (through some 3rd party service, like
Eventbrite)...I guess, don't go to those? Or privately call the event? Either
way, the OP describes a drastic situation in which a stalker is so committed
that he/she kept searching for the victim, even after early searches returned
no results (because the victim had a pseudonym). OK, besides the possibility
that, just maybe, the situation has elevated to the point where police should
be involved...the more disturbing part is that the victim thinks a pseudonym
is sufficient security-through-obscurity. No. Just _no_. If you have a
pseudonym, and you insist on using a recognizable photo, and just a few of
your friends have their profile public enough to show listed friends...then a
committed stalker has everything they need to find you.

2\. And this is an easier objection to rebut: the OP sees no downside to
Facebook exposing the identities of accusers? _Really?_

[1] [http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2014/12/24/inadvertent-
alg...](http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2014/12/24/inadvertent-algorithmic-
cruelty/)

