Hacker News Reader

Comment by avolcano | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

It doesn't just affect people with pseudonyms, too. If you're from some ethnic background which has unusual names, if you have some uncommon or fake-sounding real name, you might also get tripped up.

Facebook Name Police: Native American Names Aren't 'Authentic' Enough - http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/02/13/faceboo...

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?

Are you saying it's fine that Facebook chooses to discriminate against GLBT+ people?

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".

They're not discriminating against GLBT+ people, they're discriminating against people using pseudonyms. I can't show up to a job interview, use a fake name, and claim I'm being discriminated against...

You know what indirect discrimination is, right?

> 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.

You could probably go further — at most only HR need to know an official name, probably with a note on the file reminding them that it's confidential. That need only be revealed once you're accepting the job offer.

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.)

> 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.

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.

> 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.

Not according to the current laws. You may want to change the laws as well. ( No, I'm not cynical. )

What laws? In the UK I can us any name I like so long as I don't have the intent to deceive. WIkipedia says that's the case for the US

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.

Yep. In my state to officially change your name all you have to do is start using the new name, though you'll end up putting both down on the "AKA" section of official documents.

> They're not discriminating against GLBT+ people, they're discriminating against people using pseudonyms.

Which disproportionately affects trans people.

Serious question - What's a fake name? Plenty of people go by names that aren't the same as on their official government ID, even childhood nicknames. Your name is whatever people call you. There's no reason why future employers need to know your "legal" name on a job interview. When you get a job you need to fill out some HR forms and that's basically extent of it. Your coworkers/boss/clients/customers aren't obligated to address you by what is on your government issued ID. Probably half my office goes by something different than what's on their government IDs. Many childhood nicknames and many middle names. Even commonly used diminutives - Peggy for Margaret for example; JP for John Paul; Dick for Richard. If my legal name is Margaret Samathia Jones and I put Peggy Jones on my resume is that going by a fake name? You may have changed your name at marriage and are addressed by that name in personal circles but still are addressed as your birth name in a professional circles in order to better preserve your professional contacts. In plenty of professions it is extremely common to establish yourself professionally under a stage name or pen name or other types of "fake" names. Your legal name may be "cutesy" so you are addressed professionally by an assumed name.

And nobody is having their Facebook account flagged for using "Peggy" instead of "Margaret," they're getting flagged for using "John TheSexMan Doe" instead of the "John Doe" or "Samantha Applebee" instead of "Mark Applebee." So it's a false comparison.

Hardly.

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.

If you want to market your derby personality or company or whatever, create a Facebook page. That's what they're for.

If you make your living as "The Edge" and your birth certificate says "David Howell Evans," the former is a Facebook page and the latter is a Facebook profile. That's pretty much always been the case and purpose of that distinction.

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.

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?

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.

> 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...

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.

> 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 :)

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.

> 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?

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

Complaining is a signal that you're considering moving. Smart companies absolutely will care. It's usually far easier to keep an existing customer than to win them back after they leave.

> This is a company, a product, which no one is forced to use.

In practice, not using Facebook means cutting off social contact with some people.

True. I've asked myself the question that if I do want to leave Facebook, but my 'friends' doesn't care and not willing to do any other form of communication, are they really my friends?

I agree with this. Facebook is a service with a business model. I'm all for people who have legitimate concerns trying to convince the company to adjust policy, but I don't like the way pressure groups try to strong-arm companies.

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.

> It's certainly kept me from responding to FB recruitment emails.

Maybe respond with your concerns?

Do you think they haven't heard these concerns?

If they hear them from someone they're actively attempting to recruit, I expect it would carry more weight. At the very least it will make FBs HR department aware of the issue. As the parent commenter said, there are a lot of people at FB who aren't even aware of these issues.

It's more likely that it will make the candidate look like an asshole.

I don't think so. I regularly response to Amazon recruiters with "your reputation for treatment of your developers is poor, and therefore I'm not interested." It helps provide a data point to drive change, something that someone can point to when arguing with their higher-ups.

I'm somewhat optimistic that Facebook will fix this someday, and I didn't want to end on a recruitment blacklist or something in that case. Still, you're right, next time I get one I'll make it clear that this is the biggest reason I'm uninterested, and that if they fix it they should feel free to contact me again :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com