4 ms·

That's a very different argument than "I dont get it - Facebook has some of the most robust privacy settings of any platform"

manigandham 11y ago
I can have different arguments - especially for different scenarios. If it really is your life at risk, dont share on Facebook or online. Otherwise, use privacy controls. What am I missing?
- grayclhn 11y ago
  First sentence of the fucking article: "Facebook claims its practice of forcing users to go by their 'real names' (or 'authentic identities' as Facebook spins it) makes the social network a safer place." Second sentence of the fucking article: "In fact, the company has often claimed that the policy protects women who use the social media platform, even when faced with community advocates pointing out that the policy facilitates harassment, silencing, and even physical violence towards its most vulnerable users." If Facebook claimed that its practice of forcing users to go by their real names endangered some of those users and it consciously warned those users about the danger of posting personal information on facebook, that would be one thing. But it seems like they are doing the opposite.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    I'm really not sure what point you're making here. Everyone will be affected differently by these rules as subject to their scenario. There's no way to make a general statement by Facebook for their entire 1B+ user base. I do believe for the vast majority it does make things safer but if YOUR particular situation is different, then yes, use privacy settings, or dont be on Facebook or dont be online at all. All the blame here seems to be toward Facebook somehow exposing information when every single step of that information getting out there is completely voluntary and has a massive amount of privacy control available. Failure to use the right service in the right way rests on the user, not the service.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  "Political dissidents and abuse victims can't safely use Facebook" is the problem we're discussing. I take it your solution is "political dissidents and abuse victims shouldn't be using the internet at all"?
  - manigandham 11y ago
    If using your real name gets you in trouble for X reason then what does Facebook have to do with it? Using your real name anywhere would get you in trouble. So then Facebook is obviously not the right place for it if you need strong anonymity. Again, what is the blame on Facebook as if they came in and registered your name and profile by force? Choose wisely for your scenario, that's all I'm saying.
    - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
      It's weird how you keep restating the problem and acting like you've actually described the solution somehow.
    - grayclhn 11y ago
      > Again, what is the blame on Facebook as if they came in and registered your name and profile by force? Pretty sure you're trolling at this point, but if not google "facebook shadow user profile" and get your mind blown.

manigandham 11y ago

I can have different arguments - especially for different scenarios. If it really is your life at risk, dont share on Facebook or online. Otherwise, use privacy controls. What am I missing?

grayclhn 11y ago
First sentence of the fucking article: "Facebook claims its practice of forcing users to go by their 'real names' (or 'authentic identities' as Facebook spins it) makes the social network a safer place." Second sentence of the fucking article: "In fact, the company has often claimed that the policy protects women who use the social media platform, even when faced with community advocates pointing out that the policy facilitates harassment, silencing, and even physical violence towards its most vulnerable users." If Facebook claimed that its practice of forcing users to go by their real names endangered some of those users and it consciously warned those users about the danger of posting personal information on facebook, that would be one thing. But it seems like they are doing the opposite.
- manigandham 11y ago
  I'm really not sure what point you're making here. Everyone will be affected differently by these rules as subject to their scenario. There's no way to make a general statement by Facebook for their entire 1B+ user base. I do believe for the vast majority it does make things safer but if YOUR particular situation is different, then yes, use privacy settings, or dont be on Facebook or dont be online at all. All the blame here seems to be toward Facebook somehow exposing information when every single step of that information getting out there is completely voluntary and has a massive amount of privacy control available. Failure to use the right service in the right way rests on the user, not the service.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
"Political dissidents and abuse victims can't safely use Facebook" is the problem we're discussing. I take it your solution is "political dissidents and abuse victims shouldn't be using the internet at all"?
- manigandham 11y ago
  If using your real name gets you in trouble for X reason then what does Facebook have to do with it? Using your real name anywhere would get you in trouble. So then Facebook is obviously not the right place for it if you need strong anonymity. Again, what is the blame on Facebook as if they came in and registered your name and profile by force? Choose wisely for your scenario, that's all I'm saying.
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    It's weird how you keep restating the problem and acting like you've actually described the solution somehow.
  - grayclhn 11y ago
    > Again, what is the blame on Facebook as if they came in and registered your name and profile by force? Pretty sure you're trolling at this point, but if not google "facebook shadow user profile" and get your mind blown.