5 ms·

> If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much better off not using that service at all Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not

> If you could die using your real name on an internet service, you are much better off not using that service at all Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not change anything. Your behavior is therefore at fault." > Use of a particular service or website is not a human right. Of course not. Would you say that being able to freely live your life without threat of death (as you most likely already do) should be? Allow me to extend your conclusion: - People harass me at the laundromat because of my appearance, to the point where I fear for my life. "Don't go to that laundromat ever again." OK, I'll now have to go 30 minutes out of my way every time I need to do laundry. And suppose that this other laundromat is no different? - People shout threats at me at the grocery store. "Don't go to that grocery store." Or, better yet, maybe I should just perfectly change the color of my skin and facial features to match theirs, so that the problem is solved! I know you guys are going to hate this, but this attitude is precisely what is meant by "white privilege." Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your attitude, or what you think about this.

pc86 10y ago
> Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not change anything. Your behavior is therefore at fault." I'm sure you meant to say "Classic strawman:" because that's not at all what I said, or meant. Please actually respond to what I said and not whatever argument you heard other people make. I think it's demonstrably true that if using Facebook is an acute risk to your life, you are better off not using. That doesn't mean you're at fault if you use it and someone kills you. But it doesn't mean that Facebook needs to change its real name policy. It means you need to weight the pros and cons of why you want to use Facebook and why using it could get you killed, and whether you're willing to risk that. > Would you say that being able to freely live your life without threat of death (as you most likely already do) should be? Yes. But that doesn't mean that it's a right to do things that could engender threats to your life. A Tutsi has an inalienable right to live in Rwanda without fear of persecution or death. A Tutsi does not have an inalienable right to use Facebook (nor does anyone). If you're a Rwandan Tutsi, and you use Facebook, you should understand the risks. You should be able to use Facebook without fear or persecution or death but it's not a right any more than it's a right to have an email address or drive a particular type of car or eat a certain food on a certain day. They're separate issues and it's Facebook's decision whether or not they want to require real names. To make that the issue ignores the fact that people are being killed because of their beliefs, or because they're transgender, or whatever the actual problem is. > People harass me at the laundromat because of my appearance, to the point where I fear for my life. "Don't go to that laundromat ever again." Well no, my response would be "Call the police." There are a lot of things that could happen from there. If it's actually harassment and the police address it, potentially problem solved. If it's actually harassment and police do nothing, that's a related but separate issue, and yes I would say that not going there again is the smart move. You have a right not to be killed and you have a right to wash your clothes but you don't have a right to wash your clothes in that specific laundromat at that specific time. If it's not actually harassment then it depends what's actually happening. A group of teenagers pointing at laughing at you is uncomfortable and wrong but probably not harassment. A group of rough looking guys in a bad part of town staring at you will make most people feel uncomfortable but is also not harassment. > People shout threats at me at the grocery store. "Don't go to that grocery store." Call the police. > this attitude is precisely what is meant by "white privilege." I know you are going to hate this, but why is it the first person to bring up race is usually someone saying that something is offensive or privilege? I tend to agree that a certain level of privilege exists in the world and some of it has to do with race but Facebook's real name policy is a piss poor example of it.
- SolaceQuantum 10y ago
  Actually I think Facebook's real name policy is a good example of a kind of subtle privilege. Specifically, if you don't have a western or "white" naming scheme than you are literally not considered to have a "real name" according to Facebook's algorithm. This has stirred up controversy before with Native American groups, LGBTQ people(the person who helped implement the Facebook genders had their own account suspended for "fake name"!), and and other groups. Facebook still hasn't put in place a policy for these people and for access to a significant social media to be denied due to assuming you have a "fake name" for not fitting in with a very narrow, very western white ideal(wasp?) of a name, is a pretty good example of a phenomenon that almost exclusively excludes minority demographics from a majority service or culture. Sure, it isn't something that will kill someone, but it kind of sucks and kind of leaves a demographic of people out in the cold and unable to participate in a big social media medium without faking or modifying their presented identity to fit in the conventions of a majority culture.
  - pc86 10y ago
    Does FB allow Arabic text in names? I have several middle eastern friends (people born there and some who still live there, not middle eastern Americans) so see it in comments a fairly often but it comes to mind that I've never seen an Arabic name. How does one's LGBTQ status affect their legal name?
    - kemayo 10y ago
      I assume that the parent was referring to the odds of someone LGBTQ being "in the closet", and hiding their status to avoid social penalties (in repressive areas / with family / etc), while still wanting to have a pseudonym-account which in a fairly valid way represents the "real them".
    - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
      LGBTQ people can legally change their name to match their new identity or adopt a pseudonym to avoid harassment from people who know them offline. LGBTQ people who legally change their name(s) to something less conventional are often pinged by facebook as not having a real name. For example, Zoe Cat, a transwoman who worked at Facebook with that name and helped develop the gender options on Facebook had their account suspended for having a "fake name". [1] According to another anonymous source, Facebook refused their name despite presenting government-issued documents.[2] [1]https://medium.com/@zip/my-name-is-only-real-enough-to-work-at-facebook-not-to-use-on-the-site-c37daf3f4b0 https://medium.com/@zip/my-name-is-only-real-enough-to-work-... [2]http://www.dailydot.com/via/facebook-real-names-cracking-down-transgender/ http://www.dailydot.com/via/facebook-real-names-cracking-dow...

pc86 10y ago

> Classic. "I'm not at risk, so we need not change anything. Your behavior is therefore at fault." I'm sure you meant to say "Classic strawman:" because that's not at all what I said, or meant. Please actually respond to what I said and not whatever argument you heard other people make. I think it's demonstrably true that if using Facebook is an acute risk to your life, you are better off not using. That doesn't mean you're at fault if you use it and someone kills you. But it doesn't mean that Facebook needs to change its real name policy. It means you need to weight the pros and cons of why you want to use Facebook and why using it could get you killed, and whether you're willing to risk that. > Would you say that being able to freely live your life without threat of death (as you most likely already do) should be? Yes. But that doesn't mean that it's a right to do things that could engender threats to your life. A Tutsi has an inalienable right to live in Rwanda without fear of persecution or death. A Tutsi does not have an inalienable right to use Facebook (nor does anyone). If you're a Rwandan Tutsi, and you use Facebook, you should understand the risks. You should be able to use Facebook without fear or persecution or death but it's not a right any more than it's a right to have an email address or drive a particular type of car or eat a certain food on a certain day. They're separate issues and it's Facebook's decision whether or not they want to require real names. To make that the issue ignores the fact that people are being killed because of their beliefs, or because they're transgender, or whatever the actual problem is. > People harass me at the laundromat because of my appearance, to the point where I fear for my life. "Don't go to that laundromat ever again." Well no, my response would be "Call the police." There are a lot of things that could happen from there. If it's actually harassment and the police address it, potentially problem solved. If it's actually harassment and police do nothing, that's a related but separate issue, and yes I would say that not going there again is the smart move. You have a right not to be killed and you have a right to wash your clothes but you don't have a right to wash your clothes in that specific laundromat at that specific time. If it's not actually harassment then it depends what's actually happening. A group of teenagers pointing at laughing at you is uncomfortable and wrong but probably not harassment. A group of rough looking guys in a bad part of town staring at you will make most people feel uncomfortable but is also not harassment. > People shout threats at me at the grocery store. "Don't go to that grocery store." Call the police. > this attitude is precisely what is meant by "white privilege." I know you are going to hate this, but why is it the first person to bring up race is usually someone saying that something is offensive or privilege? I tend to agree that a certain level of privilege exists in the world and some of it has to do with race but Facebook's real name policy is a piss poor example of it.

SolaceQuantum 10y ago
Actually I think Facebook's real name policy is a good example of a kind of subtle privilege. Specifically, if you don't have a western or "white" naming scheme than you are literally not considered to have a "real name" according to Facebook's algorithm. This has stirred up controversy before with Native American groups, LGBTQ people(the person who helped implement the Facebook genders had their own account suspended for "fake name"!), and and other groups. Facebook still hasn't put in place a policy for these people and for access to a significant social media to be denied due to assuming you have a "fake name" for not fitting in with a very narrow, very western white ideal(wasp?) of a name, is a pretty good example of a phenomenon that almost exclusively excludes minority demographics from a majority service or culture. Sure, it isn't something that will kill someone, but it kind of sucks and kind of leaves a demographic of people out in the cold and unable to participate in a big social media medium without faking or modifying their presented identity to fit in the conventions of a majority culture.
- pc86 10y ago
  Does FB allow Arabic text in names? I have several middle eastern friends (people born there and some who still live there, not middle eastern Americans) so see it in comments a fairly often but it comes to mind that I've never seen an Arabic name. How does one's LGBTQ status affect their legal name?
  - kemayo 10y ago
    I assume that the parent was referring to the odds of someone LGBTQ being "in the closet", and hiding their status to avoid social penalties (in repressive areas / with family / etc), while still wanting to have a pseudonym-account which in a fairly valid way represents the "real them".
  - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
    LGBTQ people can legally change their name to match their new identity or adopt a pseudonym to avoid harassment from people who know them offline. LGBTQ people who legally change their name(s) to something less conventional are often pinged by facebook as not having a real name. For example, Zoe Cat, a transwoman who worked at Facebook with that name and helped develop the gender options on Facebook had their account suspended for having a "fake name". [1] According to another anonymous source, Facebook refused their name despite presenting government-issued documents.[2] [1]https://medium.com/@zip/my-name-is-only-real-enough-to-work-at-facebook-not-to-use-on-the-site-c37daf3f4b0 https://medium.com/@zip/my-name-is-only-real-enough-to-work-... [2]http://www.dailydot.com/via/facebook-real-names-cracking-down-transgender/ http://www.dailydot.com/via/facebook-real-names-cracking-dow...