13 ms·

Real name policies and ruling the world

158 points by killer1loop 9y ago

_jal 9y ago
I would be fine with whatever policy they like, if they stayed in their own walled garden. But building what amounts to a commercial intelligence/surveillance firm that is very difficult to avoid is, yes, evil. And the true names policy is a big part of that.
raverbashing 9y ago
"Naive, dangerous and evil" is a good description of most things involving Fb and its founder (maybe not Naive in the latter case)
- kevingadd 9y ago
  FB seems like an example of how a team can go from accidentally naive to intentionally naive because it has advantages for engineering or revenue. :(
  - oliv__ 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure all naiveté is accidental. There's a word for intentional naiveté: manipulation.
kevingadd 9y ago
I was already really unhappy with their real name policy (to the point of deleting my account and not going back), but recent incidents - like the policy resulting in moderators' profiles & names getting exposed to terrorists) - just blow my mind. Such a broad impact from a policy that may have no real upsides. I hope recent events lead them to reconsider this policy but at this point it seems like they never will.
- quickben 9y ago
  Of course. It's money. Or does anybody thinks that $40 per IPO on user just happens? It's real money to state you advertise to targeted audience by names, jobs and all that. It will never change because FB likes money more than it cares about its users being harassed.
tyrw 9y ago
I understand the concept of a click bait headline, but "inherently evil" is a bit strong for a service that is completely optional.
- dandelion_lover 9y ago
  "Do not use the Internet. Do not use phones. Do not use bank accounts. Do not travel by plane. Do not enter public spaces. Do not show your face. Otherwise you accept our Terms of Service. Thank you for trusting us." (C) QuantumRoar, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12958035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12958035
  - gfredtech 9y ago
    Exactly, the inherent problem is the creation of shadow profiles of non Facebook users. The most annoying part is the fact that they can make your friends snitch on you, just in case you're not using your real name
    - Tharkun 9y ago
      And they'll steal your phone number from your friends' phones and add it your account without your knowledge. Every once in a while I log in to FB and it will ask me if I want to share my phone number with them, with my number conveniently pre-entered in the input field. I never gave them my number.
  - tyrw 9y ago
    Still use all those things to your heart's content; just don't create a Facebook account...
    - dandelion_lover 9y ago
      When 99% of your friends use Facebook, it becomes very hard to avoid it [0]. If you want to advertise your new book among them, what would you do, for example? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
vivekd 9y ago
Forcing moderators scrutinizing terrorists to use their real identities was a stupid, stupid idea that I hope facebook will change going forward. Perhaps facebook can look into getting some sort of anonymous identity for its moderators. At the same time, it seems a false equivalency to use a story about people using real identities to scrutinize terrorist to support a position that it is dangerous for anyone to post real identity and photos online. Certainly it is dangerous for children, teenagers, or people involved in dangerous work to post their identities online. As to ordinary adults who not involved in dangerous lines of work and with sufficient discretion . . . any danger inherent in this is a much weaker position that this article doesn't give much in the way of support for.
- kevingadd 9y ago
  Domestic violence and sexual assault are extremely common, and this policy results in victims getting isolated since their attackers can use FB to locate and pursue them.
  - sverige 9y ago
    In addition to these sorts of serious, immediate dangers, certainly others of us prefer to never use our real name online because it is so uncommon. It's one thing to be Jim Smith, it's another to have a unique name and have your entire online history available to google. I figured this out in the 90s (via dejanews, before google even existed), and have never ever used my real name online since. Further, I don't understand why some feel the need for me or anyone else to justify this position. It's real simple. I don't use services that try to enforce real ID or sometimes I use a fake name. It's extraordinarily creepy to me that facebook and google can not only determine my real name, but want to force me to use it online.
- teddyh 9y ago
  > Certainly it is dangerous for […] Here’s a more exhaustive list: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...
- deleted 9y ago
jhvh1134 9y ago
I've had a clearly fake name on Facebook for years. A couple weeks ago I got message from one of their reps, letting me know that there was an issue about my name, and that it was currently being reviewed. I had no intention to link that account to my real name, as it was mostly political whining and interaction with a few close friends. I basically told them that I wouldn't change the name and that they should just delete the account. A couple days later they responded by telling me that my name did not break TOS and that I was free to use my fake name. So I'm not even sure that policy is even enforced, steered... maybe.
- kevingadd 9y ago
  It's enforced if people choose to report you, and 'proving' your name to them can be somewhat involved It's also more likely they will hassle you over it if your name isn't white. Maybe those sorts of names tend to be fake more often, but probably not.
  - jhvh1134 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure I was reported by someone I disagreed with in the comments of a political post. My point was that I bypassed "proving" because I refused to comply to their rule. I've seen no evidence of different treatment based on race. Would you mind citing your source?
    - gweinberg 9y ago
      I've been told Native Americans often have problem with the "real names" policy because they often sound "fake" to people used to European names.
      - sverige 9y ago
        Yes. For example, Begay is a common Navajo surname. Others use traditional names (such as Standing Bear, for example). Odds are the people at facebook making these decisions have never known anyone with such a name.
seltzered_ 9y ago
Im pretty critical of aspects of fb, but it's hard to take this blog seriously. The same author has a recent post ( http://theartificialintelligenceblog.com/being-overheard/ http://theartificialintelligenceblog.com/being-overheard/ ) referencing the terrible WhatsApp guardian article written in January, something declared as false journalism by several researchers: http://technosociology.org/?page_id=1687 http://technosociology.org/?page_id=1687
- killer1loop 9y ago
  I can't blame you, I don't even take myself seriously. But going back to the point, is anything in my article inaccurate – as far as you know? The being overheard thingy isn't scientific research, one would reckon. Do we agree that trying to inform and empower people is a sensible way to progress? I could argue that our blog is probably doing better than FB and the philanthropist Zuckerberg. Going back to WhatsApp, some of the aspects of its encryption layer are still unclear, to quote your link: "The threat is remote, quite limited in scope, applicability (requiring a server or phone number compromise) and stealthiness (users who have the setting enabled still see a warning–even if after the fact). The fact that warnings exist means that such attacks would almost certainly be quickly detected by security-aware users. This limits this method." This paragraph alone, when put in context, would at least ring a bell and make you question the security and encrypted statement. Especially when it's coming from one of Zuckerberg subsidiaries.
- newscracker 9y ago
  If I read your comment in a different way, I might take it as saying that we should never ever trust anyone who's ever made a mistake (or someone who trusted someone who's made a mistake). I don't think our world can function at all if everyone adopts the same thinking without adequate reflection on content vs. the person/messenger. Of course, there is value in questioning the credibility of a source of information over a period of time when multiple issues have surfaced. But judging an entire blog based on one single post and dismissing that? It neither seems fair nor useful to me.
Animats 9y ago
Without real names, Facebook would be as junky as Myspace was.
- Cozumel 9y ago
  Here's just two examples as to why online anonymity is so critical, there's cases like this every single day. You might think, so what? You're free to keep on thinking that right up until you're the one going to jail for criticising your boss. http://www.eutimes.net/2016/12/facebook-bans-german-woman-for-posting-picture-of-migrant-rapist/ http://www.eutimes.net/2016/12/facebook-bans-german-woman-fo... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-woman-prison-two-word-facebook-message-reply-a7022116.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-woman-...
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Facebook does not represent the end of online anonymity because Facebook is one single site. There is nothing objectionable about one site having a rule to use your real name or not at all, and it is the height of entitlement to claim otherwise. (It's popular, so now they have to do X Y and Z) Doubly so given how granular the controls are regarding who can see what. Sharing on Facebook is a completely opt-in process, so if you don't want your boss seing your pictures, you have a litany of options, including lists, person-to-person sharing, blocking, and not friending them in the first place. The problem is that this requires a modicum of effort, and people don't want to have to expend that effort. They want to be able to blast everything out there and just kinda hope that it doesn't get them in trouble. It takes effort to use stuff that's not Facebook.
    - killer1loop 9y ago
      Being naive means refusing to recognize that most people confuse the internet with facebook. Most true in developing countries, where facebook's plan for universal internet access includes setting facebook as their homepage.
      - 9y ago
aestetix 9y ago
Despite the assurances from Facebook, I've seen no evidence that these policies help anything, and plenty of evidence that they cause problems. Here are a few things that Facebook could answer that might help clear this up: 1. What specific kinds of abuses are primarily due to someone's name, and what percentage of total abuses do they constitute? 2. What criteria does Facebook use to determine if a name is "real"? 3. Under what authority can Facebook compel government issued identification to release suspensions on accounts that are "under review"? There are many more things that need to be answered, but having data points to answer those questions would be a fantastic start.
- daveFNbuck 9y ago
  Facebook can ask for identification under the same authority that you can ask to see someone's identification before letting them into your house.
  - aestetix 9y ago
    The difference is that I'm not retaining any data when I do this, which opens the door to questions about data use and data retention. I've seen no statements from Facebook about how the data is used, how it is stored, and how long it is retained. Another difference is that Facebook suspends you when you are already using Facebook. The analogy would be more apt if you let someone into your house, they hung out for a few hours, and then you physically remove them, and don't let them back in unless they show you an ID.
    - daveFNbuck 9y ago
      Do you agree that you would have the authority to ask to take a picture of someone's identification before allowing them into your house?
      - aestetix 9y ago
        Do you agree that the person I ask has the right to know why I am asking for the ID, why I'm taking the photo, and what I plan to do with it?
justin_vanw 9y ago
I don't know why there are special rules for popular websites. If there was some building in town where you had to show ID to get in and participate in whatever activity was going on, imagine when the ankle biters showed up and announced that it was 'dangerous and evil' to require people to have to use their real identity to come inside the building. If you have some reason to not go on facebook, don't go on facebook. There is basically nothing worthwhile there anyway, you aren't being personally attacked because they want to run their community the way they think is best.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
SagelyGuru 9y ago
My dog never had any trouble from the Facebook representatives. But then, he did use his real name....
lwhalen 9y ago
Is there some reason I'm not aware of that makes "leaving Facebook" not the reasonable, default, option? If they REALLY are "naive, dangerous, and evil", just... don't use their service. Hit them where it hurts and take your eyeballs elsewhere.
- newscracker 9y ago
  For many people, not being on Facebook is neither a choice nor an option because their social network - the ones they depend on - are all there and nowhere else (except probably WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook and where the contact metadata is shared between the two). In my opinion, only some privileged people are able to really have this choice and act on it. The rest don't know (not privileged enough to know/understand) or don't care (because their social network is already on Facebook).
  - lwhalen 9y ago
    It's a 'privilege' to not be on Facebook? On Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs, nowhere is there any mention of 'online services' or 'Facebook access', or even 'Internet access'. If ever there was a textbook "Sh*t HN Says" comment worthy of the moniker, yours is it. Facebook is a business, just like your local grocer, just like any number of restaurants, just like a bookstore. If any of the above aren't giving you the service you desire, you are welcome to pack up and take your custom elsewhere. Rinse and repeat this pattern enough times, and the 'giant' will either go out of business or change their behavior as to woo you back. That's commerce. If your friends will only ever interact with you on Facebook (or any single online service), my suspicion is that they aren't really your friends and it's time to find some new ones.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      You might want to educate yourself on concepts called monopolies and network effects before you make yourself look even more clueless. Also, ever noticed how Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs also doesn't mention electricity or gasoline? You are kindof at the wrong level of abstraction there.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
newscracker 9y ago
It's been known for a long time that the "authentic name" policy is dangerous and is used as a device of suppression on many people. [1] [2] But Facebook, in its desire to target ads and network connections based on real names, has not shown much interest in removing that policy and allowing pseudonyms. Even now the policy and its enforcement are not clear, and what happens depends on the flagging system and who reviews the account. Coming from Facebook, this news about moderators' details being shared with suspected terrorists is neither surprising nor shocking to me. Frustrated and upset? Yes. But, shocked? Not even a bit! I personally would be shocked if I found that Facebook had taken preemptive measures to not allow this to happen or if Facebook responds quickly to allow these people to use pseudonyms or not even sharing their information with the suspects. We know none of that will happen because Facebook's outlook has never ever favored better privacy and protection for Facebook users. If it has, that's probably only an accidental one and not the result of any kind of introspection that produces a different vision, which in turn drives and sustains positive changes. Facebook has made it quite clear through its actions and responses where its priorities lie and where it just doesn't give a damn. Though termed as a "social network", I'd call Facebook "a net antisocial network for humankind" based on its policies and actions. P.S.: I realize this may look like a bad rant reflecting my personal views strongly. But this is how I see and understand Facebook through the years. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9455071/nameless-coalition-facebook-real-name-policy https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9455071/nameless-coalitio... [2]: https://act.eff.org/action/dear-facebook-authentic-names-are-authentically-dangerous-for-your-users https://act.eff.org/action/dear-facebook-authentic-names-are...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
GuB-42 9y ago
There is a funny anecdote about this. A friend of mine has "Bastardo" as her real last name. Facebook didn't let her use it, so she was actually forced, by Facebook, to use a fake name.
- Asooka 9y ago
  A clbuttic mistake. I hope they manage to resolve it. It's not like people don't have weird names. E.g. Semen is a popular Russian name with an unfortunate latinisation - the original is spelled Семён, but the umlaut is not always written, since it's clear from context, and the pronunciation is Simyon.
circadiam 9y ago
The real irony of these threads on HN: no one has ever run a social network. If they did, they would realize that mixing pseudonyms with real names is a formula for disaster. It’s probably the easiest way to continuously bother someone and troll groups to no end.
- ng12 9y ago
  Seriously. Twitter gets crucified for a lack of accountability, now Facebook gets criticized for having too much. You can't embrace online anonymity only when it benefits you.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Accountability and de-anonymisation (which with enough information turns into "doxxing") are not the same thing. For twitter, people don't need to know who the persistent abusers are on their government ID, only that there are rules and they will be effectively banned if the rules are broken. De-anonymisation enables random mobs to apply "accountability" through death threats offline. For some people this is a serious risk. (Or in CS101: authentication and authorisation are not the same thing)
    - varjag 9y ago
      Is authorization generally possible without authentication?
      - yellowapple 9y ago
        I suppose it could be in a capability-based security scheme. In such a scheme, authorization is based upon tokens that are passed around and could be owned by any user or process, making authorization separate from identification.
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        Yes.
  - 9y ago
perfectstorm 9y ago
anyone remember Orkut ? One of the reasons why I quit Orkut was because they didn't care about real names. so people started using weird characters and unicodes instead of their real name. This won't be a problem when you're not friends with them but once you're friends with them and your friend changes their name to some weird characters, you don't know who you're talking to. I hated that. I think the article is looking at an extreme scenario and calling the policy naive. This case wouldn't matter to people in the developed nations (and most developing countries as well).
- webwanderings 9y ago
  One could have solved that problem by bringing consistency with ranking - or some other form of instituting consistency. The key is to let the person adopt whatever pseudo-name he/she wants, but have it go with a consistent and single form identity (avatar or any other form which stays consistent). The forcing of real names has been a ridiculous idea. It solves one problem but causes many other.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  How the fuck does stability of names require that it's from your government ID? How about you simply allow users to put labels on their contacts to identify them for themselves? No need to introduce a police state in order to keep you unconfused.
- Santosh83 9y ago
  A trivial way to mitigate this is to allow users to create psuedonyms, but not the ability to change them after they've been created, except to create another account. Most people won't bother.
Eerie 9y ago
1. You don't have to use Facebook. You really, really don't. 2. Facebook is under no obligation to provide societal benefits for you. It doesn't even have a moral duty to act upon your complaints. Why? See 1. It's not a government program, you are not forced to use it, you are not even buying anything from it. You are just complaining about free stuff. So. Seriously. Just stop using it. PS. I'm not defending Facebook here. Facebook is objectively abhorrent. I'm just stating facts. They best way to fight Facebook is to stop using it.
- carvalho 9y ago
  In Europe there is a mindset that companies can become so big that you can not avoid them anymore. Nobody forces you to use Google or Facebook, but you are put at a disadvantage if you do not use them. Facebook is not free. You trade your data for usage.
  - blfr 9y ago
    Google? Maybe. Facebook? I would argue that using Facebook is a net negative and you're at an advantage if you ditch it.
    - kobeya 9y ago
      Facebook is used in different markets in different ways. In Japan for example it is a common medium for corporate communication, much like slack.
    - Normal_gaussian 9y ago
      For uk students Facebook is almost a requirement of the social life. Few people have other contact lists, if you aren't on Facebook you can't be contacted. Event invitation is done through Facebook - the event is rarely advertised elsewhere nor is it a deliberate topic conversation. The few people I knew who didn't use Facebook at uni ended up using it through others whether they are were willing to admit it or not.
      - 9y ago
peter303 9y ago
Quora has among the more civilized discussions due to its real name policy.
- chopin 9y ago
  As has HN which does not have a real name policy. We're in unproven territory, I think.
grandalf 9y ago
By requiring real names, Facebook is trying to combat the sort of social discord that occurs on sites like Reddit where people routinely abandon identities, or create throwaway identities to participate in specific fora. Imagine if car license plates had our name and home address on them, would we be as likely to commit road rage, pick our noses, double park, etc. Facebook sees itself as a commons first, and the product vision seems to be to incorporate as many of the kinds of constraints common in meatspace to nudge specific kinds of behaviors and discourage others. Recall in its origin the biggest difference between Facebook and Myspace was Facebook's calming blue, un-customizable color scheme. Blue is commonly used in police uniforms and hospital scrubs. Facebook also reinvented the feed, moving very early on to an algorithmic feed when competitors were still under the impression that people just wanted to see all updates from all friends. Facebook very quickly understood that the right algorithm can turn a boring feed into engagement dopamine. Consider that unlike a purely online forum, posts on Facebook are much more likely connected to people we met first in real life where our status is already well-established. Nonetheless people use Facebook to signal activities, pictures or beliefs that they feel will increase their status. When normal meatspace dynamics matter so much to a site's content, allowing fake names pretty much breaks voyeurism, which is a feature, not a bug. It is precisely the dark pattern of being able to look up anyone on Facebook and peer into their life that creates Facebook's opportunity to arbitrage between the feeling that what we are posting is mundane, yet it being far from mundane when assembled by Facebook into a complete dossier for anyone who wishes to look us up. But these are side-effects. My interpretation of this is that Zuck has a strong conviction that meatspace and online life should fully merge. I think he believes this as part of the same utopian conviction that led him to envision Facebook as a "social utility", and I think the same one that is leading him on a path to holding public office. In his ideal world, politicians would not be two-faced, and internet users would not have multiple avatars and identities to flippantly switch between to avoid facing up to reality or to explore a part of themselves that they do not put on display for all to see. I think the question Zuck must also ask himself in his moments of reflection is "How can Facebook truly do good?". The good that needs to be done in the world needs to be done by (and for) real people, not screen names and throwaways. Thus as building blocks of that utopian edifice, we must all bear the weight of social responsibility that goes with our actual name being attached to everything we do.
webwanderings 9y ago
> The web was originally invented and gifted to humanity to promote individual freedoms and knowledge. Thank you. This is indeed what web was all about, until the suits showed up to make money!
ericd 9y ago
If we had some valuable online identity that persisted across multiple sites with a reputation attached that mattered, it wouldn't need to be linked with real identity to make people care enough about it not to soil it.
Tharkun 9y ago
If I can go to a bar and talk to people without revealing my full (or real) identity, then why can't I do the same online? "Real name policies" don't make any sense to me. The meatspace analogies are all flawed. The pretty server at the bakery doesn't know my name, and she doesn't need to. We can be perfectly civil to one another without crossing that boundary.
- pricechild 9y ago
  You can't behave badly in meatspace and expect to maintain anonymity either. Say for example if you cause damage? You might be arrested, ordered to provide compensation etc.?
  - Tharkun 9y ago
    Depends on how badly I behave. It's perfectly well within my rights to call anyone in the bar a cunt. Some might be offended. There might be an argument. I might be asked to leave. There might even be fisticuffs. But at no point during any of that will my real identity matter an iota.
    - pricechild 9y ago
      And that's the same both on and offline. Sure you can behave badly to a point and there's nothing anybody can really do. But there's a line you can cross after which... it's not your choice...
    - GhostVII 9y ago
      But if you were able to come back into the bar in a disguise a minute later, they would want to know your real identity to prevent you from coming back.
dredmorbius 9y ago
"In practice, the forced revelation of information makes individual privilege and power more important. When everyone has to play with their cards on the table, so to speak, then people who feel like they can be themselves without consequence do so freely -- these generally being people with support groups of like-minded people, and who are neither economically nor physically vulnerable. People who are more vulnerable to consequences use concealment as a method of protection: it makes it possible to speak freely about controversial subjects, or even about any subjects, without fear of harassment." Yonatan Zunger, former chief architect of Google+, writing after thevservice had rescinded its Real Names policy. https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/WegYVNkZQqq https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/WegYVNkZQqq

158 points by killer1loop 9y ago

_jal 9y ago

I would be fine with whatever policy they like, if they stayed in their own walled garden. But building what amounts to a commercial intelligence/surveillance firm that is very difficult to avoid is, yes, evil. And the true names policy is a big part of that.

raverbashing 9y ago

"Naive, dangerous and evil" is a good description of most things involving Fb and its founder (maybe not Naive in the latter case)

kevingadd 9y ago
FB seems like an example of how a team can go from accidentally naive to intentionally naive because it has advantages for engineering or revenue. :(
- oliv__ 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure all naiveté is accidental. There's a word for intentional naiveté: manipulation.

kevingadd 9y ago

I was already really unhappy with their real name policy (to the point of deleting my account and not going back), but recent incidents - like the policy resulting in moderators' profiles & names getting exposed to terrorists) - just blow my mind. Such a broad impact from a policy that may have no real upsides. I hope recent events lead them to reconsider this policy but at this point it seems like they never will.

quickben 9y ago
Of course. It's money. Or does anybody thinks that $40 per IPO on user just happens? It's real money to state you advertise to targeted audience by names, jobs and all that. It will never change because FB likes money more than it cares about its users being harassed.

tyrw 9y ago

I understand the concept of a click bait headline, but "inherently evil" is a bit strong for a service that is completely optional.

dandelion_lover 9y ago
"Do not use the Internet. Do not use phones. Do not use bank accounts. Do not travel by plane. Do not enter public spaces. Do not show your face. Otherwise you accept our Terms of Service. Thank you for trusting us." (C) QuantumRoar, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12958035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12958035
- gfredtech 9y ago
  Exactly, the inherent problem is the creation of shadow profiles of non Facebook users. The most annoying part is the fact that they can make your friends snitch on you, just in case you're not using your real name
  - Tharkun 9y ago
    And they'll steal your phone number from your friends' phones and add it your account without your knowledge. Every once in a while I log in to FB and it will ask me if I want to share my phone number with them, with my number conveniently pre-entered in the input field. I never gave them my number.
- tyrw 9y ago
  Still use all those things to your heart's content; just don't create a Facebook account...
  - dandelion_lover 9y ago
    When 99% of your friends use Facebook, it becomes very hard to avoid it [0]. If you want to advertise your new book among them, what would you do, for example? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

vivekd 9y ago

Forcing moderators scrutinizing terrorists to use their real identities was a stupid, stupid idea that I hope facebook will change going forward. Perhaps facebook can look into getting some sort of anonymous identity for its moderators. At the same time, it seems a false equivalency to use a story about people using real identities to scrutinize terrorist to support a position that it is dangerous for anyone to post real identity and photos online. Certainly it is dangerous for children, teenagers, or people involved in dangerous work to post their identities online. As to ordinary adults who not involved in dangerous lines of work and with sufficient discretion . . . any danger inherent in this is a much weaker position that this article doesn't give much in the way of support for.

kevingadd 9y ago
Domestic violence and sexual assault are extremely common, and this policy results in victims getting isolated since their attackers can use FB to locate and pursue them.
- sverige 9y ago
  In addition to these sorts of serious, immediate dangers, certainly others of us prefer to never use our real name online because it is so uncommon. It's one thing to be Jim Smith, it's another to have a unique name and have your entire online history available to google. I figured this out in the 90s (via dejanews, before google even existed), and have never ever used my real name online since. Further, I don't understand why some feel the need for me or anyone else to justify this position. It's real simple. I don't use services that try to enforce real ID or sometimes I use a fake name. It's extraordinarily creepy to me that facebook and google can not only determine my real name, but want to force me to use it online.
teddyh 9y ago
> Certainly it is dangerous for […] Here’s a more exhaustive list: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...
deleted 9y ago

jhvh1134 9y ago

I've had a clearly fake name on Facebook for years. A couple weeks ago I got message from one of their reps, letting me know that there was an issue about my name, and that it was currently being reviewed. I had no intention to link that account to my real name, as it was mostly political whining and interaction with a few close friends. I basically told them that I wouldn't change the name and that they should just delete the account. A couple days later they responded by telling me that my name did not break TOS and that I was free to use my fake name. So I'm not even sure that policy is even enforced, steered... maybe.

kevingadd 9y ago
It's enforced if people choose to report you, and 'proving' your name to them can be somewhat involved It's also more likely they will hassle you over it if your name isn't white. Maybe those sorts of names tend to be fake more often, but probably not.
- jhvh1134 9y ago
  I'm pretty sure I was reported by someone I disagreed with in the comments of a political post. My point was that I bypassed "proving" because I refused to comply to their rule. I've seen no evidence of different treatment based on race. Would you mind citing your source?
  - gweinberg 9y ago
    I've been told Native Americans often have problem with the "real names" policy because they often sound "fake" to people used to European names.
    - sverige 9y ago
      Yes. For example, Begay is a common Navajo surname. Others use traditional names (such as Standing Bear, for example). Odds are the people at facebook making these decisions have never known anyone with such a name.

seltzered_ 9y ago

Im pretty critical of aspects of fb, but it's hard to take this blog seriously. The same author has a recent post ( http://theartificialintelligenceblog.com/being-overheard/ http://theartificialintelligenceblog.com/being-overheard/ ) referencing the terrible WhatsApp guardian article written in January, something declared as false journalism by several researchers: http://technosociology.org/?page_id=1687 http://technosociology.org/?page_id=1687

killer1loop 9y ago
I can't blame you, I don't even take myself seriously. But going back to the point, is anything in my article inaccurate – as far as you know? The being overheard thingy isn't scientific research, one would reckon. Do we agree that trying to inform and empower people is a sensible way to progress? I could argue that our blog is probably doing better than FB and the philanthropist Zuckerberg. Going back to WhatsApp, some of the aspects of its encryption layer are still unclear, to quote your link: "The threat is remote, quite limited in scope, applicability (requiring a server or phone number compromise) and stealthiness (users who have the setting enabled still see a warning–even if after the fact). The fact that warnings exist means that such attacks would almost certainly be quickly detected by security-aware users. This limits this method." This paragraph alone, when put in context, would at least ring a bell and make you question the security and encrypted statement. Especially when it's coming from one of Zuckerberg subsidiaries.
newscracker 9y ago
If I read your comment in a different way, I might take it as saying that we should never ever trust anyone who's ever made a mistake (or someone who trusted someone who's made a mistake). I don't think our world can function at all if everyone adopts the same thinking without adequate reflection on content vs. the person/messenger. Of course, there is value in questioning the credibility of a source of information over a period of time when multiple issues have surfaced. But judging an entire blog based on one single post and dismissing that? It neither seems fair nor useful to me.

Animats 9y ago

Without real names, Facebook would be as junky as Myspace was.

Cozumel 9y ago
Here's just two examples as to why online anonymity is so critical, there's cases like this every single day. You might think, so what? You're free to keep on thinking that right up until you're the one going to jail for criticising your boss. http://www.eutimes.net/2016/12/facebook-bans-german-woman-for-posting-picture-of-migrant-rapist/ http://www.eutimes.net/2016/12/facebook-bans-german-woman-fo... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-woman-prison-two-word-facebook-message-reply-a7022116.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-woman-...
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Facebook does not represent the end of online anonymity because Facebook is one single site. There is nothing objectionable about one site having a rule to use your real name or not at all, and it is the height of entitlement to claim otherwise. (It's popular, so now they have to do X Y and Z) Doubly so given how granular the controls are regarding who can see what. Sharing on Facebook is a completely opt-in process, so if you don't want your boss seing your pictures, you have a litany of options, including lists, person-to-person sharing, blocking, and not friending them in the first place. The problem is that this requires a modicum of effort, and people don't want to have to expend that effort. They want to be able to blast everything out there and just kinda hope that it doesn't get them in trouble. It takes effort to use stuff that's not Facebook.
  - killer1loop 9y ago
    Being naive means refusing to recognize that most people confuse the internet with facebook. Most true in developing countries, where facebook's plan for universal internet access includes setting facebook as their homepage.
    - 9y ago

aestetix 9y ago

Despite the assurances from Facebook, I've seen no evidence that these policies help anything, and plenty of evidence that they cause problems. Here are a few things that Facebook could answer that might help clear this up: 1. What specific kinds of abuses are primarily due to someone's name, and what percentage of total abuses do they constitute? 2. What criteria does Facebook use to determine if a name is "real"? 3. Under what authority can Facebook compel government issued identification to release suspensions on accounts that are "under review"? There are many more things that need to be answered, but having data points to answer those questions would be a fantastic start.

daveFNbuck 9y ago
Facebook can ask for identification under the same authority that you can ask to see someone's identification before letting them into your house.
- aestetix 9y ago
  The difference is that I'm not retaining any data when I do this, which opens the door to questions about data use and data retention. I've seen no statements from Facebook about how the data is used, how it is stored, and how long it is retained. Another difference is that Facebook suspends you when you are already using Facebook. The analogy would be more apt if you let someone into your house, they hung out for a few hours, and then you physically remove them, and don't let them back in unless they show you an ID.
  - daveFNbuck 9y ago
    Do you agree that you would have the authority to ask to take a picture of someone's identification before allowing them into your house?
    - aestetix 9y ago
      Do you agree that the person I ask has the right to know why I am asking for the ID, why I'm taking the photo, and what I plan to do with it?

justin_vanw 9y ago

I don't know why there are special rules for popular websites. If there was some building in town where you had to show ID to get in and participate in whatever activity was going on, imagine when the ankle biters showed up and announced that it was 'dangerous and evil' to require people to have to use their real identity to come inside the building. If you have some reason to not go on facebook, don't go on facebook. There is basically nothing worthwhile there anyway, you aren't being personally attacked because they want to run their community the way they think is best.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

SagelyGuru 9y ago

My dog never had any trouble from the Facebook representatives. But then, he did use his real name....

lwhalen 9y ago

Is there some reason I'm not aware of that makes "leaving Facebook" not the reasonable, default, option? If they REALLY are "naive, dangerous, and evil", just... don't use their service. Hit them where it hurts and take your eyeballs elsewhere.

newscracker 9y ago
For many people, not being on Facebook is neither a choice nor an option because their social network - the ones they depend on - are all there and nowhere else (except probably WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook and where the contact metadata is shared between the two). In my opinion, only some privileged people are able to really have this choice and act on it. The rest don't know (not privileged enough to know/understand) or don't care (because their social network is already on Facebook).
- lwhalen 9y ago
  It's a 'privilege' to not be on Facebook? On Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs, nowhere is there any mention of 'online services' or 'Facebook access', or even 'Internet access'. If ever there was a textbook "Sh*t HN Says" comment worthy of the moniker, yours is it. Facebook is a business, just like your local grocer, just like any number of restaurants, just like a bookstore. If any of the above aren't giving you the service you desire, you are welcome to pack up and take your custom elsewhere. Rinse and repeat this pattern enough times, and the 'giant' will either go out of business or change their behavior as to woo you back. That's commerce. If your friends will only ever interact with you on Facebook (or any single online service), my suspicion is that they aren't really your friends and it's time to find some new ones.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    You might want to educate yourself on concepts called monopolies and network effects before you make yourself look even more clueless. Also, ever noticed how Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs also doesn't mention electricity or gasoline? You are kindof at the wrong level of abstraction there.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

newscracker 9y ago

It's been known for a long time that the "authentic name" policy is dangerous and is used as a device of suppression on many people. [1] [2] But Facebook, in its desire to target ads and network connections based on real names, has not shown much interest in removing that policy and allowing pseudonyms. Even now the policy and its enforcement are not clear, and what happens depends on the flagging system and who reviews the account. Coming from Facebook, this news about moderators' details being shared with suspected terrorists is neither surprising nor shocking to me. Frustrated and upset? Yes. But, shocked? Not even a bit! I personally would be shocked if I found that Facebook had taken preemptive measures to not allow this to happen or if Facebook responds quickly to allow these people to use pseudonyms or not even sharing their information with the suspects. We know none of that will happen because Facebook's outlook has never ever favored better privacy and protection for Facebook users. If it has, that's probably only an accidental one and not the result of any kind of introspection that produces a different vision, which in turn drives and sustains positive changes. Facebook has made it quite clear through its actions and responses where its priorities lie and where it just doesn't give a damn. Though termed as a "social network", I'd call Facebook "a net antisocial network for humankind" based on its policies and actions. P.S.: I realize this may look like a bad rant reflecting my personal views strongly. But this is how I see and understand Facebook through the years. [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9455071/nameless-coalition-facebook-real-name-policy https://www.theverge.com/2015/10/5/9455071/nameless-coalitio... [2]: https://act.eff.org/action/dear-facebook-authentic-names-are-authentically-dangerous-for-your-users https://act.eff.org/action/dear-facebook-authentic-names-are...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

GuB-42 9y ago

There is a funny anecdote about this. A friend of mine has "Bastardo" as her real last name. Facebook didn't let her use it, so she was actually forced, by Facebook, to use a fake name.

Asooka 9y ago
A clbuttic mistake. I hope they manage to resolve it. It's not like people don't have weird names. E.g. Semen is a popular Russian name with an unfortunate latinisation - the original is spelled Семён, but the umlaut is not always written, since it's clear from context, and the pronunciation is Simyon.

circadiam 9y ago

The real irony of these threads on HN: no one has ever run a social network. If they did, they would realize that mixing pseudonyms with real names is a formula for disaster. It’s probably the easiest way to continuously bother someone and troll groups to no end.

ng12 9y ago
Seriously. Twitter gets crucified for a lack of accountability, now Facebook gets criticized for having too much. You can't embrace online anonymity only when it benefits you.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Accountability and de-anonymisation (which with enough information turns into "doxxing") are not the same thing. For twitter, people don't need to know who the persistent abusers are on their government ID, only that there are rules and they will be effectively banned if the rules are broken. De-anonymisation enables random mobs to apply "accountability" through death threats offline. For some people this is a serious risk. (Or in CS101: authentication and authorisation are not the same thing)
  - varjag 9y ago
    Is authorization generally possible without authentication?
    - yellowapple 9y ago
      I suppose it could be in a capability-based security scheme. In such a scheme, authorization is based upon tokens that are passed around and could be owned by any user or process, making authorization separate from identification.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      Yes.
- 9y ago

perfectstorm 9y ago

anyone remember Orkut ? One of the reasons why I quit Orkut was because they didn't care about real names. so people started using weird characters and unicodes instead of their real name. This won't be a problem when you're not friends with them but once you're friends with them and your friend changes their name to some weird characters, you don't know who you're talking to. I hated that. I think the article is looking at an extreme scenario and calling the policy naive. This case wouldn't matter to people in the developed nations (and most developing countries as well).

webwanderings 9y ago
One could have solved that problem by bringing consistency with ranking - or some other form of instituting consistency. The key is to let the person adopt whatever pseudo-name he/she wants, but have it go with a consistent and single form identity (avatar or any other form which stays consistent). The forcing of real names has been a ridiculous idea. It solves one problem but causes many other.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
How the fuck does stability of names require that it's from your government ID? How about you simply allow users to put labels on their contacts to identify them for themselves? No need to introduce a police state in order to keep you unconfused.
Santosh83 9y ago
A trivial way to mitigate this is to allow users to create psuedonyms, but not the ability to change them after they've been created, except to create another account. Most people won't bother.

Eerie 9y ago

1. You don't have to use Facebook. You really, really don't. 2. Facebook is under no obligation to provide societal benefits for you. It doesn't even have a moral duty to act upon your complaints. Why? See 1. It's not a government program, you are not forced to use it, you are not even buying anything from it. You are just complaining about free stuff. So. Seriously. Just stop using it. PS. I'm not defending Facebook here. Facebook is objectively abhorrent. I'm just stating facts. They best way to fight Facebook is to stop using it.

carvalho 9y ago
In Europe there is a mindset that companies can become so big that you can not avoid them anymore. Nobody forces you to use Google or Facebook, but you are put at a disadvantage if you do not use them. Facebook is not free. You trade your data for usage.
- blfr 9y ago
  Google? Maybe. Facebook? I would argue that using Facebook is a net negative and you're at an advantage if you ditch it.
  - kobeya 9y ago
    Facebook is used in different markets in different ways. In Japan for example it is a common medium for corporate communication, much like slack.
  - Normal_gaussian 9y ago
    For uk students Facebook is almost a requirement of the social life. Few people have other contact lists, if you aren't on Facebook you can't be contacted. Event invitation is done through Facebook - the event is rarely advertised elsewhere nor is it a deliberate topic conversation. The few people I knew who didn't use Facebook at uni ended up using it through others whether they are were willing to admit it or not.
    - 9y ago

peter303 9y ago

Quora has among the more civilized discussions due to its real name policy.

chopin 9y ago
As has HN which does not have a real name policy. We're in unproven territory, I think.

grandalf 9y ago

By requiring real names, Facebook is trying to combat the sort of social discord that occurs on sites like Reddit where people routinely abandon identities, or create throwaway identities to participate in specific fora. Imagine if car license plates had our name and home address on them, would we be as likely to commit road rage, pick our noses, double park, etc. Facebook sees itself as a commons first, and the product vision seems to be to incorporate as many of the kinds of constraints common in meatspace to nudge specific kinds of behaviors and discourage others. Recall in its origin the biggest difference between Facebook and Myspace was Facebook's calming blue, un-customizable color scheme. Blue is commonly used in police uniforms and hospital scrubs. Facebook also reinvented the feed, moving very early on to an algorithmic feed when competitors were still under the impression that people just wanted to see all updates from all friends. Facebook very quickly understood that the right algorithm can turn a boring feed into engagement dopamine. Consider that unlike a purely online forum, posts on Facebook are much more likely connected to people we met first in real life where our status is already well-established. Nonetheless people use Facebook to signal activities, pictures or beliefs that they feel will increase their status. When normal meatspace dynamics matter so much to a site's content, allowing fake names pretty much breaks voyeurism, which is a feature, not a bug. It is precisely the dark pattern of being able to look up anyone on Facebook and peer into their life that creates Facebook's opportunity to arbitrage between the feeling that what we are posting is mundane, yet it being far from mundane when assembled by Facebook into a complete dossier for anyone who wishes to look us up. But these are side-effects. My interpretation of this is that Zuck has a strong conviction that meatspace and online life should fully merge. I think he believes this as part of the same utopian conviction that led him to envision Facebook as a "social utility", and I think the same one that is leading him on a path to holding public office. In his ideal world, politicians would not be two-faced, and internet users would not have multiple avatars and identities to flippantly switch between to avoid facing up to reality or to explore a part of themselves that they do not put on display for all to see. I think the question Zuck must also ask himself in his moments of reflection is "How can Facebook truly do good?". The good that needs to be done in the world needs to be done by (and for) real people, not screen names and throwaways. Thus as building blocks of that utopian edifice, we must all bear the weight of social responsibility that goes with our actual name being attached to everything we do.

webwanderings 9y ago

> The web was originally invented and gifted to humanity to promote individual freedoms and knowledge. Thank you. This is indeed what web was all about, until the suits showed up to make money!

ericd 9y ago

If we had some valuable online identity that persisted across multiple sites with a reputation attached that mattered, it wouldn't need to be linked with real identity to make people care enough about it not to soil it.

Tharkun 9y ago

If I can go to a bar and talk to people without revealing my full (or real) identity, then why can't I do the same online? "Real name policies" don't make any sense to me. The meatspace analogies are all flawed. The pretty server at the bakery doesn't know my name, and she doesn't need to. We can be perfectly civil to one another without crossing that boundary.

pricechild 9y ago
You can't behave badly in meatspace and expect to maintain anonymity either. Say for example if you cause damage? You might be arrested, ordered to provide compensation etc.?
- Tharkun 9y ago
  Depends on how badly I behave. It's perfectly well within my rights to call anyone in the bar a cunt. Some might be offended. There might be an argument. I might be asked to leave. There might even be fisticuffs. But at no point during any of that will my real identity matter an iota.
  - pricechild 9y ago
    And that's the same both on and offline. Sure you can behave badly to a point and there's nothing anybody can really do. But there's a line you can cross after which... it's not your choice...
  - GhostVII 9y ago
    But if you were able to come back into the bar in a disguise a minute later, they would want to know your real identity to prevent you from coming back.

dredmorbius 9y ago

"In practice, the forced revelation of information makes individual privilege and power more important. When everyone has to play with their cards on the table, so to speak, then people who feel like they can be themselves without consequence do so freely -- these generally being people with support groups of like-minded people, and who are neither economically nor physically vulnerable. People who are more vulnerable to consequences use concealment as a method of protection: it makes it possible to speak freely about controversial subjects, or even about any subjects, without fear of harassment." Yonatan Zunger, former chief architect of Google+, writing after thevservice had rescinded its Real Names policy. https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/WegYVNkZQqq https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/WegYVNkZQqq