
Facebook changes how it enforces 'real name' policy in wake of criticism - bootload
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/15/facebook-change-controversial-real-name-policy
======
jdp23
They're not actually changing the policy: "On Facebook, we require people to
use the name their friends and family know them by.... We’re firmly committed
to this policy, and it is not changing."

They're just changing the enforcement mechanisms. So while the changes seem
positive (Lil Miss Hot Mess says some good things about them), they're just
around the edges, not getting rid of the actual harmful policy.

~~~
newscracker
Exactly. Facebook is being disingenuous by making minor changes that may not
really help people who get affected. It does not seem to consider the proposed
changes from various people and organizations (like EFF).

Even without a person's "authentic" name, Facebook has _so much information_
that most people willingly part with that it could still sell a lot of well
targeted ads.

It seems like there's something else sinister that has not been revealed all
this while as to why Facebook continues to "stand by" this names policy. Or
the people making the decisions are incompetent to understand and uncaring to
do something positive. Or both.

~~~
s3r3nity
I don't think it's something sinister -- if you continuously base your
conclusions in the hypothesis that Facebook is "evil" (whatever that means),
then I can understand why you might feel that way.

I see it as a smart product decision where the benefits outweigh the concerns
of a vocal minority that project having to use your real name as this
ludicrous sin, while at the same time saying that if you don't like a product
you can just NOT use it.

Why? I actually enjoy using FB infinitely more than Twitter/Myspace (years
ago) because I see it as a network of people - not company profiles or shit
like that. While they might layer on things like company pages or video
content or other shit, the fundamental foundation of their product is the
social graph, with people centered as the nodes. I don't give a shit about
your screen name, and I don't want to have to try to remember it.

Regardless if you agree/disagree, brand image does matter in the real world,
and I think Facebook product folks know this.

~~~
x0x0
We had almost this exact conversation with those liars over a year ago (Oct
'14) and nothing changed [1] (look at the date on that post). Zuckerberg
clearly doesn't believe in the importance of this because he could fix this
with an email to the appropriate person.

And it's nice that you see it as a network of people (with company pages all
over the place, but whatevs), but as has been pointed out over and over and
over and over, some people can't use their actual names. Maybe they're not
out, maybe they have stalkers, maybe they're stuck in a country where they
face violence for their political choices (hell, maybe they're muslim in
America.)

Being able to not give a shit about real names means you're one of the people
privileged enough and from the right background such that you don't have
people trying to hurt you for being yourself.

[1]
[https://www.facebook.com/chris.cox/posts/10101301777354543](https://www.facebook.com/chris.cox/posts/10101301777354543)

~~~
s3r3nity
Avoiding the whole "real-name privilege" rabbit hole, I still stand by the
point that nothing compels you to use their service/product -- there are a
host of other products that allow the user to go by whatever pseudonym he/she
deems fit.

If the response is "no popular social network I want to use allows me to use a
pseudonym to my liking," I again refer to one of my original points that
there's probably a reason why it doesn't last, and why networks that try to
allow it like Ello eventually don't grow/survive -- people put trust in a
social network that feels like a network of real people.

If you want citation for the last point, I'd point to the fast success of
NextDoor, but I concede it's mostly a hypothesis, as I don't regularly use
that product and haven't seen it since the beta.

~~~
x0x0
Nothing compels you except for all your friends and family expecting you to
use it.

I would also suggest so few social networks succeed that it's nearly
impossible to draw conclusions about them. As a counterpoint, tumblr is within
an order of magnitude of the size of fb and they allow complete anonymity.

------
SwellJoe
I feel like I've read this same damned article a half dozen times over the
span of as many years. Facebook has conflicting goals: Knowing literally
everything about their users so they can sell access to that data (indirectly,
generally, in the form of targeted ads, etc.), and having people not
completely hate them.

They fiddle with their terms of service (particularly this one policy, which
is most egregiously anti-consumer) every few months, when the noise gets loud
enough that they can't ignore it, it lets a little steam out of the pressure
to change, and they go back to the highly profitable business of being mildly
evil.

As with every change facebook has made to their real names policy, they've
made it clear they are in control of your identity online. If you use a name
that is not your legal name, they make you jump through hoops to satisfy
Facebook's desire to know who you are. I'm not saying they can't do this; of
course they can. But, it's time for people to stop letting them get away with
the claim that the policy benefits anyone other than facebook.

I know people who have had to jump through those hoops, even after the last
round of "we're changing the real names policy, it's totally fine!" articles.
People with abusive exes, trans folks, sex workers and entertainers for whom
the line between "personal" and "professional" life is thin and could be
dangerous for them to have it get too thin (like having their real name on
social media), and folks who just prefer to use another name and are known as
that name among all of their friends.

Trans folks have been in front on protesting this because they have frequently
experienced shame and fear at having their identity challenged, and facebook
is doing it online on a massive scale. Probably every trans person has
experienced having to show ID to prove they are male or female. They've
experienced having to argue with family over what name they wish to use.
They've experienced being incorrectly called "sir" or "ma'am" or "he" or
"she", even after clarifying that they prefer something else.

Facebook is being the asshole that keeps using the wrong pronouns/names/etc.
despite being asked not to, and when challenged on it, demands to see ID to
"prove it".

Again, they can do whatever they want; they're a private entity with their own
goals and desires. But, we don't have to buy any bullshit about why they're
doing it.

~~~
zeveb
> Facebook is being the asshole that keeps using the wrong pronouns/names/etc.
> despite being asked not to, and when challenged on it, demands to see ID to
> "prove it".

If you tell me to call you Lord Joseph, is it really so wrong for me to ask
you for your credentials? If I refer to you as 'him,' not 'His Lordship,' am I
really the one in the wrong?

~~~
SwellJoe
I've mentioned a situation, that many trans folks experience, where someone
asks to be called by their preferred gender pronoun and the person they ask
refuses to do so. And, I've mentioned that many trans folks find that kind of
response hurtful. And, you've made a joke comparing that to someone wanting to
be treated like royalty.

Do you sincerely believe the two situations are comparable?

~~~
Torgo
"Lil Miss Hot Mess" is a stage name, and I am not obligated to recognize it. I
actually find it not comparable at all to compare it to someone's gender-
identified pronouns and perfectly applicable to what OP was saying.

~~~
SwellJoe
The question that raises for me is: Do the outliers make it OK to cause harm
to those who aren't so "far out" in their choice of name?

In other words, because you don't like the name "Lil Miss Hot Mess" (I assume
because it is not as serious as "Joe" or "Torgo", as names go), is it OK to
call anyone by whatever name you prefer, and refuse to acknowledge them as
anything else? Whether I think "Lil Miss Hot Mess" is a ridiculous name or not
doesn't alter the reality that facebook daily "disappears" people's accounts
whose names aren't up to their standards. This change in policy gives people a
week to protest that disappearance, but it doesn't change facebook's level of
control. They still decide who you can be online (at least on facebook).

The thing is that I don't know where to draw that line on what is "too
ridiculous", and I don't think anyone else really does, either. So, given that
names are arbitrary (even when enforcing a "real names" policy, there are
people who have ridiculous names), and given that enforcing a real names
policy harms countless people, and given that not enforcing real names has
very little negative result except to facebook's bottom line (and even that is
negligible), I just don't see it as defensible.

The argument that it prevents abuse and bullying is shown to be a lie by the
fact that this policy has been used, since facebook's inception, to bully
people, and facebook has for all that time remained complicit, and even an
active participant, in that bullying. You can't claim to want to prevent
bullying if you're the one holding the victim down while someone else punches
them.

~~~
Torgo
I care less about the Facebook policy (actually I care approximately zero)
than I do about the comparison of drag personas to, for instance, gender
pronouns. I acknowledge that some people might use an unorthodox name.
Ironically I think that people treat how serious you are supposed to take
these things as a binary (serious, not serious) rather than a continuum.

~~~
SwellJoe
I don't believe it matters what you or I think about the seriousness (or lack
thereof) of someone's chosen name and gender. If someone tells me the name
they prefer to go by, I'm going to call them that; I don't have to take it
"seriously", of course, but I'm not going to call them Frank if they tell me
they're the Lady Chablis. It's just a basic show of respect.

No one can make you call Lil Miss Hot Mess by her chosen name, but, ethically,
I don't think anyone can tell her not to go by that name, and I don't believe
it is ethical to demand she "prove" that's the name she wants to go by,
either. If she says it's the name she prefers...well, who would know better
what she wants?

------
reitanqild
Yeah, so now people have to fill on a form and tell why they are in trouble.

I see noooo problems with this. /s

Re: real names as a deterrent against bullying, -look no further than HN and
see that real names aren't really needed at all. In fact lots of real names
places are way worse.

~~~
striking
Real names just mean people are doxxed more often... which I interpret as an
increase in bullying, rather than a decrease.

It's somewhat true that anonymity is disinhibiting... but that's a good thing,
because it leads to fresh and creative thinking. You'll get plenty of noise,
but there'll be plenty of signal too.

~~~
RUG3Y
The problem with anonymity is "unacceptable" or "problematic" speech. I say,
let everyone speak their mind freely, and anonymously. You'll get racists and
radicals speaking their minds along with everyone else, and I don't have a
problem with that.

~~~
pc86
Facebook is bad enough as it is. I can't imagine the cesspool it would become
if comments no longer came from "John Doe" and instead come from "xXx blaze 1t
420 xXx"

~~~
TillE
Have you seen the Facebook comments embedded on various sites? If anything,
they're _worse_ than the alternatives.

The theory that people are unwilling to put their name to abusive or awful
comments seems compelling, but the evidence tends to contradict it. There are
more than enough people who simply don't care.

~~~
reitanqild
> There are more than enough people who simply don't care.

Agree, only I would add a few more options:

* Real-looking troll accounts.

* Don't understand the consequences

* Feel it is The Right Thing To Do

~~~
striking
a citation for point 3: "Most violence in the world is motivated by moral
sentiments"
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10700766](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10700766))

------
tyingq
My wife created Facebook profiles for my dog and her fictional alter ego years
ago. She logs in an posts things as them on a semi-regular basis. The profile
pictures are a dog, and a comic book character. The profile info similarly is
very up front about what the ids are.

Not sure what the enforcement policy was or is, but I can say that it isn't
real comprehensive. Maybe they only act when something is flagged by other
users?

~~~
aikah
Yeah, given the crazy amount of fake profiles on Facebook, I'm not sure what
the big deal is, maybe it's targeted specifically at US users, because this
policy never affected me.

I will never give Facebook my real name. Professionally Facebook is useless
and my friends know who I am. Facebook has my phone number and it's already
too much information.

------
uncletaco
TL;DR: screw facebook's name policies.

I have an unusual last name that get flagged by FB as fake. Five years ago I
sent them proof of my name and they changed it, but then locked my ability to
edit the change (they added my middle name, I just wanted first name last
name).

Its pretty annoying, and when my parents and other family members started
making facebook accounts they often had to do First Name Middle Name because
Facebook's name changing policies are arcane and they make it extremely
inconvenient to contact them.

My mother, who was flagged by facebook and then reenabled, recently got
remarried and wanted to take her husband's last name, but Facebook won't let
her make the change.

------
massysett
I'm amazed that Facebook is so powerful that they can have a policy like this
and those aggrieved complain rather than just saying "screw Facebook." I
understand why people would not want to prove their identity to Facebook...but
it's not like people have some sort of right to use Facebook.

~~~
ljk
actually i feel like there's a lot of people who stopped using fb eventually
and they might be the "silent majority"

personally i don't upload anything to fb. It's only a messaging platform for
me(if i don't upload anything there's nothing to be "stolen")

------
bad_user
There's only one change acceptable: stop requiring real names. Otherwise it's
just PR.

~~~
morgante
And thus begin the gradual descent into a MySpace/Twitter cesspool.

~~~
nailer
I generally find Twitter to have a better level of discourse than FB. That
might be because of who I follow & block though.

------
ck2
What about people who already had their name yanked?

The tools shown don't seem to address that.

My friend lost their common law name of like 40 years, no-one even knows who
the heck their birthname is when facebook shows it.

------
axelfreeman
What would be usefull for both sides?

Facebook should save the real name BUT NOT DISPLAY it. You can display
whatever you want. Fake name or what you like. Your friend can find you (if
they know your real name) with search but nobody else can see your real name.

------
totony
They don't want to be the next myspace. Keeping it more formal (with real
names) seems like a reasonable idea

