Global coalition tells Facebook to kill its Real Names policy
boingboing.net
boingboing.net
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.
Edit. Word missing.
Without the policy they don't have to use their real name, which means harassers can't find them (as easily) on Facebook. The ability to use a real name that is not your actual name is just a clunky workaround for the policy, not a proof that the policy works.
Second, the less common but equally important use of a chosen name policy would be to make it hard to find someone who doesn't want to be found eg: by an abusive, dangerous ex.
I see countless individuals making their Facebook profiles entirely public, and it's quite frankly scary. At that point they have no control over what the internet sees of them. You can't even change it after the fact, as it's probably been indexed in search engines and cached in internet archives.
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.
I have at least three friends who don't use their official names in normal life, and have Facebook profiles under slightly modified versions of their names [1] to make them look "normal". (Contriving an example, change "Tall David" to "Taal David" and everyone that knows Tall David can work it out.)
[1] name = what they call themselves, as far as I'm concerned
That ability to call yourself something at your option is more than just a name - it's the very definition of privacy in the modern age.
It used to be that you had privacy when you moved away from society. Acquiring privacy was mostly an exercise in hiding information. In the modern world where logfiles exist forever and the difficulty of getting away form all network-connected microphones is rising fast.
When you know you cannot hide from eavesdroppers, the tactics switch form concealment to steganography. You have the possibility of privacy if-and-only-if you have the effective capacity to misrepresent yourself.
Unfortunately, real-name policies are de facto attacks on privacy and the right of to chose how to present yourself to the world. Worse, suggests a new interpretation for the "real-names make social interaction more polite" argument, societies without privacy resist experimentation because of chilling effects.
As for the proposed workaround of using a fake name: I guess they are supposed simply hope that Facebook doesn't ask about their name, everybody they know doesn't tell them the truth
> certainly seems like people are less likely to engage in trolling or extremely bad behaviour if things are linked to Facebook
1.) People who aren't using a fake but real-sounding name 2.) People who say something that someone else doesn't like (this can be everyone from a future employer who found something not very PC to jihadis who want to kill you) 3.) People who are smart enough to understand the above (I see grown up people shouting about how certain countries should be nuked, yes. signed Full Name, Teacher at such and such childrens school)
Care to explain how forcing people to use their legal name instead of the name other people know them by equals less money?
And I think that's reasonably obvious. Facebook got to be as big as it is by forcing people to use their real names, so that all their acquaintances could find them easily.
The heavy hand of law! I don't understand why people are so worried about introducing regulation. Asking to argue against money is like asking to argue against gun. You can't have a meaningful argument with such an entity, because convincing on arguments assumes the other party is not a psychopath.
That aside, there are many options. I think "having a choice" is a good argument. Or they could allow to actually use pseudonym which you could link your real name or not (so the FB would know the connection but other people wouldn't).
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.
Maybe respond with your concerns?
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?
What happens if we sub in other minorities? "If black people disagree, walk away and don't touch Facebook"; "If Jews disagree, walk away and don't touch Facebook".
> I can't show up to a job interview, use a fake name, and claim I'm being discriminated against...
You could if you're in the process of transitioning. (UK; the US needs to catch up).
And it's not a fake name. It's their name. You seem to think that people have this single thing which is their name - that might be true in the US (I dunno) but it's not true in many other places.
And because the US rules for changing names on documents are inconsistent a person may have a passport in one name but a driving licence in another.
I have recently moved to Denmark, and several public or semi-public database systems have had special attention drawn to how my name might be used, and instructions to avoid certain uses. (For example, there seemed to be a special way to register in a municipality under an assumed name, to avoid stalkers etc.)
Even people with one "real name" may have slight variations on it that they use. Many people use their nickname and don't show their middle name. If your name isn't written in Latin script, you might have the original script version and a romanised version, possibly even more than one romanised version. If you're Chinese, you might have a Western name alias which you're known by professionally.
Not according to the current laws. You may want to change the laws as well. ( No, I'm not cynical. )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_name#United_States
> Most states in the United States follow the common law which permits name changing for non-fraudulent purposes. This is actually the most common method, since most women who marry do not petition a court under the statutorily prescribed method, but simply use a new name (typically the husband's, a custom which started under the theory of coverture where a woman lost her identity and most rights when she married).[2] Most state courts have held that a legally assumed name (i.e., for a non-fraudulent purpose) is a legal name and usable as their true name, though assumed names are often not considered the person's technically true name.[3]
In the US the different rules for getting a name changed on official documents sometimes leaves people with official documents in different names, so even if you restrict yourself to documents issued by US government authorities a person can have two names.
Which disproportionately affects trans people.
People are getting their facebook flagged for pen names, stage names, derby names, drag names, and other professional names. As well as names that are too common or not common enough, nicknames, and names that contain nouns, adjectives, or adverbs without regards to what shows up on their birth certificate. Not to mention Native American names or other "ethnic" or non-Anglo Saxon names or anything that looks "unusual" (such as, say, Picabo Street or Dick Trickle)
Look, if you have established yourself professionally as The Edge being forced to use facebook as David Howell Evans obviously isn't desirable to you especially if you want to use facebook to promote your works or other professional activities.
And who in the fuck cares if someone is using a feminine sounding name that appears to be masculine. Nobody (and I mean nobody) should be the gender police, seriously. I have a female friend who is named "Robert" anyways.
Pen/stage/derby/drag names are not real names and Facebook's policy has always been that you have to use your real name. This includes any sort of transition, in which case you should be required to use your real name until it's not your real name anymore.
Or, you know, enforcing new legislation that forces the company to do what you want...
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.
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 :)
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.
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?
In practice, not using Facebook means cutting off social contact with some people.
In this case, though, I will make one exception: As my extended family got FB accounts they started posting family pictures that included me, and identified me by name. If you go back through enough posts you could get a pretty good idea what my habits are just by analyzing what other people have posted.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Unless you're trans. Unless that 'pseudonym' is actually your real name because you come from a non-majority ethnic background.
Make one. Work on it. Why would someone else make it for them/you for 'free'?
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.
For the why: because a, monopoly is bad; b, Facebook is broken on too many levels.
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.