Facebook Users Must Be Allowed To Use Pseudonyms, Says German Privacy Regulator

For any recreational/social purpose, what's the point of requiring legal name? How many "John Smith"s are there in the world?

I virtually never write my entire name in forms. I bet I could use a pseudonym or fake name and nobody would care as long as the identity number is there. The only exception is passports where my legal name is important.

Guess what, my "street name" is used in "street" scenarios, my "immediate and extended family name" is used by my immediate and extended family (not my legal name btw, nor has it ever been).

What makes the legal name special in any regard? They are all used in their niche.

Reply here with a link to a scan of your State-issued Driver's License and national passport proving that your legal name is, in fact, "anigbrowl" in the next 24 hours or your account will be deleted and you personally (i.e., your legal identity) will be perma-banned from this service.

(Not really, I don't admin HN at all. But you won't do it either.)

The record scratch sound effect is a bad enough affectation when used in movies and television. Your point is more than strong enough to stand alone without it.

While I agree with this statement, it also occurs to me that society may be becoming sufficiently complex to warrant a level of flexibility in naming that we don't have. A legal name may be important for interfacing with some things, but it does not follow that all things must interface with your legal name. Facebook and Google seem to think it should, but mostly because they're advertising companies, not because it's a requirement of the services they provide, or a requirement for all the kinds of human relationships they're offering to mediate.

This mechanical imposition of a single identity where it has not previously been mandatory is what gets people calling it "severely retarded", etc.

Some of my personal experience says that (usually, not always) people under names don't troll that much.

Of course, the situation is different for small communities, or skill-driven communities, but (usually) not for open ones. (E.g. on HN anonymity works well.)

I don't say that I agree with FB's rules (personally I prefer "real names encouraged, but not required" policy on such "for everyone" sites). I'm just saying that there are pros and cons, both for FB and for its users.

However, for me there is a strong difference whether a monopoly chances rules (or as time goes by, the world changes - see move/music distributors) or people accepted it before it was a monopoly.

E.g. imagine that Germany say that HN needs to have pictures or, at very least, thumbnails. ;)

EDIT: People assuming that I'm against all kinds of such regulations: cut that out, I never claimed that.

For example, Spotify should not exclusively rely on Facebook, as a non-anonymous access provider.

I hope that we make more headway, in the legal and popular understanding, that website TOSs currently seem to amount to nothing more binding than "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs.

I know a guy who has been using an alias on facebook for the past 8 years or so. It is funny to watch when his alias creeps in to real life. Normal scenario, Bob meets Alice, a friend of a friend, at a party. They friend each other on facebook, Bob uses the alias Claude. Sometime passes and they run into each other elsewhere. Since Alice met many people that day and now mostly only remembers Bob as Claude from facebook. Some confusion occurs when Bob's friends call him Bob while Alice is convinced his name is Claude.

If you want to/have to hide your real name, a pseudonym might help (and your suggestion is helpful). But not everyone using a pseudonym tries desperately to hide his real name.

Nothing against your post, I just want to make a case for pseudonyms while avoiding to reduce this to 'some people are in real danger of violence' cases etc.

Let people choose their names. Regardless of their motivation.

They just did.