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.
I've seen no evidence of different treatment based on race. Would you mind citing your source?
At least if the real name policy wasn't required they could go by an inoffensive alternate name... but I think it's also unfair to police real names like that.
An interesting footnote is that one of the examples in that article was a Facebook employee and the company still treated them like shit.
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.
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.
Here’s a more exhaustive list:
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.
Say for example if you cause damage? You might be arrested, ordered to provide compensation etc.?
Sure you can behave badly to a point and there's nothing anybody can really do.
But there's a line you can cross after which... it's not your choice...
Now that the two have merged irrevocably, I'll concede that you need to reconcile the ability to reach anyone anywhere at any time, with almost no reprecussion, with the fact that people are dicks.
I think there might be value in the reverse though. An online community that actively prevents people from posting personal details. E.g. you enter your real-life details, and you're prevented from revealing them to someone, and people can't post addresses, real names, etc. You can make as many accounts as you want, but they're all tied to a specific real identity, so if you start harassing someone, you can be blocked and you can't make a real new account. An effort to have your cake and eat it too - keep what made online communities great (anonymous communication and the ability to discuss things of any nature with consenting partners, without jeopardising your real life), while avoiding the problems that trolls bring.
Cuts both ways.
I used to run an online community in the late 90s early 2000s which would now be called a social network. Some people used real names, some people used pseudonyms, and some people used both. There was no "disaster".
For twitter, people don't need to know who the persistent abusers are on their government ID, only that there are rules and they will be effectively banned if the rules are broken. De-anonymisation enables random mobs to apply "accountability" through death threats offline. For some people this is a serious risk.
(Or in CS101: authentication and authorisation are not the same thing)
Welcome to the human race! You are probably not going to enjoy the orientation period.
Bob can have whatever name they want. They don't get to threaten to rape and murder another user.
If you limit yourself to three-part 'normal' names, there may be some matches, but if everybody knows user names are doled out randomly, I don't think that matters.
For the Facebooks of the world, I doubt using pseudonyms matters, though, as they will soon discover who's behind each pseudonym, even if a third party assigned them, if only because your alias will be in the address book of your friends.
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.
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.
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.
But if your guests knew you were retaining their data, and still chose to go in your house and give you their ID, it would be perfectly fine to retain their data.
> 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
What's wrong with that?
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.
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".
Not sure about that. Some places (like malls or train stations, possibly others) are considered public places to some extent.
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.
Only by their policy -- whereas for alcohol it's the law.
Facebook most likely doesn't mind the current state of affairs where preteens lie about their age (hook 'em early), but they do not officially condone it.
And the true names policy is a big part of that.
Otherwise you accept our Terms of Service.
Thank you for trusting us."
(C) QuantumRoar, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12958035
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).
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.
Now what do you suggest she use for her communications? Plain old telephone? Or email lists? Neither are anywhere near the convenience of Facebook. And these are all non-tech folk, so suggesting they host their own BBS or some such option is a total nonstarter.
The point is, millions of people across the world use Facebook for similar use cases. Yes, they could ALL take the time and effort to learn some tech and migrate to another platform. But that's like asking the majority of Earth's people to become self-sustaining permaculturists. It's very unlikely to happen.
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.
Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another about it on any subject that might come to mind... By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what, for many, are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.
That's from the decision itself.
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.
Thank you. This is indeed what web was all about, until the suits showed up to make money!
I hope recent events lead them to reconsider this policy but at this point it seems like they never will.
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.
Yonatan Zunger, former chief architect of Google+, writing after thevservice had rescinded its Real Names policy.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Can you imagine a world where those Godless Nazifaggots go unpunished?
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.
Facebook is not free. You trade your data for usage.
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.
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?
> 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.
Should I tell now to all my contacts that they should install another app in order to talk to me?
I suppose it's possible but it's not going to happen.
The fact is that facebook is a monopoly with strong network effects and they work very hard so you can't escape them.
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Are you saying that we shouldn't complain because we can just not enter that country? That we should avoid facebook, as well as the countries that ask for facebook credentials when you're entering them? That's definitely the implication I'm getting from your comments.
The US had this argument over businesses with "Whites Only" signs and similar, and it was concluded that "just don't go there" is an inadequate response once the problem is large enough.
That's bullshit. Just because an exchange isn't for money, doesn't mean you are getting things for free.
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.
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).
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.
The forcing of real names has been a ridiculous idea. It solves one problem but causes many other.
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.