8 ms·

"Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." -- Mark Zuckerberg[1], defending Facebook's "Real" Name policy. Based on his total d

"Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." -- Mark Zuckerberg[1], defending Facebook's "Real" Name policy. Based on his total disregard for privacy and his clear thirst for power, I want nothing coming from him or his company to ever influence actual policies. [1] http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/01/30/quoted-mark-zuckerberg-softens-stance-on-real-identity/?doing_wp_cron=1553980868.3785629272460937500000 http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/01/30/quoted-mark-zuckerberg...

Barrin92 8y ago
I agree with Mark as far as social networks are concerned. The 'social' part of the name is important, and social relationships cannot function without some sort of stake. Having a unified identity guarantees that people are held accountable for what they say, it reduces fraud, trolling, and it means people have 'skin in the game' when participating in a social environment, it's the basis for trust.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  > ...social relationships cannot function without some sort of stake... Depends on what you mean by "function". Enjoying cat photos or playing a round of a video game doesn't take any stake at all.
- int_19h 8y ago
  But in social networks IRL, it doesn't really work that way - because real life bubbles mostly don't intersect, it's as if the person had a separate identity in each. Online social media effectively pushes all the bubbles together, which transforms accountability into witch hunts, where a singular misstep is quickly propagated and results in outrage mobs across all the bubbles. Thus, the scope of social ostracism is rarely proportionate to the transgression.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    Very well put! I don't think I had quite connected the two that far. It's not even because the person actually used their real name while "transgressing", but because there's usually enough other real name metadata laying around to create an expectation that anyone can be doxxed. This is a great concrete example of a rule that Zuckerberg himself worked to promulgate, and is presently causing real ongoing harm.
- moomin 8y ago
  Having separate identities is literally “being a woman on the internet 101” so forgive me if I don’t think it’s a solution to trolling.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  Having a unified identity guarantees that people are held accountable for what they say, it reduces fraud, trolling, and it means people have 'skin in the game' when participating in a social environment, it's the basis for trust. Awesome. So you're going to change your HN username to your real name and put your address and phone number in your "about" section?
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    No, because I don't treat this website as a social network. I have no friend connections here, don't expose private information, it's a technical discussion board in my opinion. Facebook on the other hand is a network for the exchange of private or personal information, including for example people forming groups about particularly sensitive topics (abuse experiences, disease and so on), in which personal identity is important to not open yourself up to potential intrusion by people who are not trustworthy. (Cynically enough stalkers for example trying to inject themselves into support groups) Which is also of course why privacy and identity considerations between HN and Facebook differ.
    - jeena 8y ago
      > Facebook on the other hand is a network for the exchange of private or personal information No, it's not for me.
    - greenyoda 8y ago
      > people forming groups about particularly sensitive topics (abuse experiences, disease and so on) It seems exactly the opposite to me: I would not want to use my real name to publicly discuss sensitive personal topics. For example, I may not want my friends or employer to find out that I'm a drug addict. In many workplaces, it could cost me my job. What if someone else in my support group happens to be a co-worker of mine?
- danmg 8y ago
  It also raises the stakes for impersonation and identity theft. This can be the difference between life and death in some cases. Also, maybe some of us don't want to live in a creepy ad-supported pan-option where the links you click become your actual identity.
- randartie 8y ago
  This sure is getting a fair bit of downvotes. I mostly agree with you though. Having a single identity reduces trolling, it's as simple as looking at Facebook vs Twitter. People are less likely to message nasty things to others if their real life reputation is on the line, I take that as fact.
  - usrusr 8y ago
    I see the exact opposite: the reasonable voices are chilled into silence due to lack of identity siloing, the grotesquely uninhibited remain vocal.
- jeena 8y ago
  "Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals" https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155923 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
  - salty_biscuits 8y ago
    That is really not what I would have expected, very interesting.
- krapp 8y ago
  >Having a unified identity guarantees that people are held accountable for what they say, it reduces fraud, trolling, and it means people have 'skin in the game' when participating in a social environment, it's the basis for trust. No, it doesn't. People are perfectly willing to troll under their real name. When Youtube forced people's G+ accounts to merge into their comments and people suddenly found themselves commenting under their real names, it stopped the trolling and hate... for like a week. Hell, plenty of people on Usenet were assholes with their real names and emails in their signatures.
bitxbit 8y ago
By now it's pretty clear, to me at least, that Zuckerberg simply doesn't get it. He could have fixed the issues for over a decade. And even in 2019, after all the evidence of mismanagement and public distrust, he still refuses to relinquish any control of the company. This is a tone-deaf opinion piece. I'd argue as far back as 2010 that indiscriminately selling user data was a bad idea especially when you are the sole network. A lot of people on here (HN) and elsewhere have been repeating those sentiments for years. As naive as it sounds, I simply wish Facebook was not so focused on building its ad platform but rather took on a more custodial role (albeit much less profitable).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- cc2zu3 8y ago
  If someone wants easy karma, post that Upton Sinclair quote.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- quadrangle 8y ago
  As Roger McNamee is now excellently describing, the solution might be the sort of regulation Zuck does not want: regulation that makes it illegal to even get/gather/have a huge portion of all the data they amass. Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly, they use it to sell ads. They actually buy data so that they can get more insights than what they get from only their own direct tracking.
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    > Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly There are probably plenty of ways you could word statements along these lines that make them technically correct. I've got a two-word response to all of them: Cambridge Analytica.
    - 8y ago
hellllllllooo 8y ago
Yeah it's nonsense. Having a separation between my work and personal life is a completely valid reason for having multiple online identities. There are plenty of other valid reasons. Obviously Mark would love us to be constrained to single username so that he can create a more complete profile for selling to advertisers. Data from a real name user is more valuable for correlation with other data sources. This "philosophy" is driven by the bottom line and nothing to do with "integrity".
- beenBoutIT 8y ago
  An individual with multiple online identities generates more data than the same individual would if they were using a single account for everything.
- kristianc 8y ago
  He can't have his cake and eat it. Either he has to deal with two separate identities, or he gets a sanitized 'work me' which will be as good as useless for advertising. Your choice Mark.
joe_the_user 8y ago
Yes, the "privacy" regulation Zuckerberg describes in this article have no relation to an individual keeping their identity private from an online service - they merely involve strictures on companies' use of the knowledge they gain about their clients. It is taken as a given that the companies will have this information. Which is to say it requires customers to trust companies rather than actually have any control.
xfitm3 8y ago
Yeah, when pigs fly. I never use my real name except for commerce.
nydel 8y ago
> "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." -- Mark Zuckerberg[1], defending Facebook's "Real" Name policy. then, does each user with multiple friends sub-lists exhibit a lack of integrity as well? only if by 'identity' he means 'set of collectable data' and this seems to be the case.
mannykannot 8y ago
"Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." -- Mark Zuckerberg "Having two identities is a reflection of how much trust I have in your integrity." -- me, to Mark Zuckerberg.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Two? He's making an issue about having two identities? Over the past decade, I've probably had ~50 identities. Most have been minor, basically just an email address for some project or activity that I don't want linked to such persistent personas as Mirimir. And it's also somewhat amusing, given how Facebook doesn't exactly advertize its origins as FaceMash. And this gem: > I'm a little intoxicated, not gonna lie. So what if it's not even 10 pm and it's a Tuesday night? What? The Kirkland dormitory facebook is open on my desktop and some of these people have pretty horrendiedous facebook pics. I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of some farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive.
hopler 8y ago
Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook Corporation because he doesn't believe his own claims.
ridgeguy 8y ago
He's utterly clueless. Having two identities can save your life if you're a battered woman. Or of the wrong political persuasion in some countries. I'm ok not 'liking' Zuckerberg's idea of integrity.
- sandov 8y ago
  He's not clueless. He perfectly knows that what he's saying is complete bullshit.
- tomc1985 8y ago
  He cares more that his advertising database is accurate
  - edejong 8y ago
    You still believe it’s for advertising?
    - simonjgreen 8y ago
      You don't? Please elaborate.
      - kacamak 8y ago
        Not the original comment poster, but control over people is probably becoming if not already worth more than the ad business. Facebook is not a small entity, they have overthrown governments and caused civil wars in third countries already.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - edejong 8y ago
        Facebook is fundamentally a behavioral data company. Maximizing profits entails extracting, predicting, prescribing and controlling behavior, which is in the shareholders best interest. However, FB needs a moot around their castle, so it acts via third parties, such as Cambridge Analytica. And even if FB would not engage in large scale behavioral influencing, then through US law, various three letter agencies can force FB to hand over the data, all the while muting the company to disclose such practices.
lostapathy 8y ago
I have reported obvious violations of the real name policy and Facebook always replies with some BS about it not being verifiable. Things like a “person” profile setup for a storefront instead of a proper page for it. They obviously don’t care.
syshum 8y ago
I agree, I question the people that have only 2 identities, people need 4 or 5 these days
- mirimir 8y ago
  More like one for each online account :)
sadris 8y ago
If discrimination was disallowed for your personal opinions, then this might be a valid argument.
eplanit 8y ago
Yeah, and very clever: a regulation that serves him well, and one that that's appealing to the government, as well. Surely his people/lobbyists are even using the phrase "win-win" when pitching this idea to Congress. They (Congress) will get to say "we regulated FAANG", and Zuck can claim his virtue prize, to boot.
johnisgood 8y ago
Yes, we have multiple identities. It is not a lack of integrity. "An identity is the set of meanings that define who one is when one is an occupant of a particular role in society, a member of a particular group, or claims particular characteristics that identify him or her as a unique person. For example, individuals have meanings that they apply to themselves when they are a student, worker, spouse, or parent (these are roles they occupy), when they are a member of a fraternity, when they belong to the Democratic Party, when they are Latino (these are memberships in particular groups), or when they claim they are outgoing individuals or moral persons (these are personal characteristics that identify themselves as unique persons). People possess multiple identities because they occupy multiple roles, are members of multiple groups, and claim multiple personal characteristics, yet the meanings of these identities are shared by members of society. Identity theory seeks to explain the specific meanings that individuals have for the multiple identities they claim; how these identities relate to one another for any one person; how their identities influence their behavior, thoughts, and feelings or emotions; and how their identities tie them in to society at large." - https://global.oup.com/academic/product/identity-theory-9780195388282 https://global.oup.com/academic/product/identity-theory-9780...

Barrin92 8y ago

I agree with Mark as far as social networks are concerned. The 'social' part of the name is important, and social relationships cannot function without some sort of stake. Having a unified identity guarantees that people are held accountable for what they say, it reduces fraud, trolling, and it means people have 'skin in the game' when participating in a social environment, it's the basis for trust.

humanrebar 8y ago
> ...social relationships cannot function without some sort of stake... Depends on what you mean by "function". Enjoying cat photos or playing a round of a video game doesn't take any stake at all.
int_19h 8y ago
But in social networks IRL, it doesn't really work that way - because real life bubbles mostly don't intersect, it's as if the person had a separate identity in each. Online social media effectively pushes all the bubbles together, which transforms accountability into witch hunts, where a singular misstep is quickly propagated and results in outrage mobs across all the bubbles. Thus, the scope of social ostracism is rarely proportionate to the transgression.
- mindslight 8y ago
  Very well put! I don't think I had quite connected the two that far. It's not even because the person actually used their real name while "transgressing", but because there's usually enough other real name metadata laying around to create an expectation that anyone can be doxxed. This is a great concrete example of a rule that Zuckerberg himself worked to promulgate, and is presently causing real ongoing harm.
moomin 8y ago
Having separate identities is literally “being a woman on the internet 101” so forgive me if I don’t think it’s a solution to trolling.
reaperducer 8y ago
Having a unified identity guarantees that people are held accountable for what they say, it reduces fraud, trolling, and it means people have 'skin in the game' when participating in a social environment, it's the basis for trust. Awesome. So you're going to change your HN username to your real name and put your address and phone number in your "about" section?
- Barrin92 8y ago
  No, because I don't treat this website as a social network. I have no friend connections here, don't expose private information, it's a technical discussion board in my opinion. Facebook on the other hand is a network for the exchange of private or personal information, including for example people forming groups about particularly sensitive topics (abuse experiences, disease and so on), in which personal identity is important to not open yourself up to potential intrusion by people who are not trustworthy. (Cynically enough stalkers for example trying to inject themselves into support groups) Which is also of course why privacy and identity considerations between HN and Facebook differ.
  - jeena 8y ago
    > Facebook on the other hand is a network for the exchange of private or personal information No, it's not for me.
  - greenyoda 8y ago
    > people forming groups about particularly sensitive topics (abuse experiences, disease and so on) It seems exactly the opposite to me: I would not want to use my real name to publicly discuss sensitive personal topics. For example, I may not want my friends or employer to find out that I'm a drug addict. In many workplaces, it could cost me my job. What if someone else in my support group happens to be a co-worker of mine?
danmg 8y ago
It also raises the stakes for impersonation and identity theft. This can be the difference between life and death in some cases. Also, maybe some of us don't want to live in a creepy ad-supported pan-option where the links you click become your actual identity.
randartie 8y ago
This sure is getting a fair bit of downvotes. I mostly agree with you though. Having a single identity reduces trolling, it's as simple as looking at Facebook vs Twitter. People are less likely to message nasty things to others if their real life reputation is on the line, I take that as fact.
- usrusr 8y ago
  I see the exact opposite: the reasonable voices are chilled into silence due to lack of identity siloing, the grotesquely uninhibited remain vocal.
jeena 8y ago
"Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals" https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155923 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- salty_biscuits 8y ago
  That is really not what I would have expected, very interesting.
krapp 8y ago
>Having a unified identity guarantees that people are held accountable for what they say, it reduces fraud, trolling, and it means people have 'skin in the game' when participating in a social environment, it's the basis for trust. No, it doesn't. People are perfectly willing to troll under their real name. When Youtube forced people's G+ accounts to merge into their comments and people suddenly found themselves commenting under their real names, it stopped the trolling and hate... for like a week. Hell, plenty of people on Usenet were assholes with their real names and emails in their signatures.

bitxbit 8y ago

By now it's pretty clear, to me at least, that Zuckerberg simply doesn't get it. He could have fixed the issues for over a decade. And even in 2019, after all the evidence of mismanagement and public distrust, he still refuses to relinquish any control of the company. This is a tone-deaf opinion piece. I'd argue as far back as 2010 that indiscriminately selling user data was a bad idea especially when you are the sole network. A lot of people on here (HN) and elsewhere have been repeating those sentiments for years. As naive as it sounds, I simply wish Facebook was not so focused on building its ad platform but rather took on a more custodial role (albeit much less profitable).

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cc2zu3 8y ago
If someone wants easy karma, post that Upton Sinclair quote.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
quadrangle 8y ago
As Roger McNamee is now excellently describing, the solution might be the sort of regulation Zuck does not want: regulation that makes it illegal to even get/gather/have a huge portion of all the data they amass. Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly, they use it to sell ads. They actually buy data so that they can get more insights than what they get from only their own direct tracking.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  > Do note: Facebook doesn't sell data directly There are probably plenty of ways you could word statements along these lines that make them technically correct. I've got a two-word response to all of them: Cambridge Analytica.
  - 8y ago

hellllllllooo 8y ago

Yeah it's nonsense. Having a separation between my work and personal life is a completely valid reason for having multiple online identities. There are plenty of other valid reasons. Obviously Mark would love us to be constrained to single username so that he can create a more complete profile for selling to advertisers. Data from a real name user is more valuable for correlation with other data sources. This "philosophy" is driven by the bottom line and nothing to do with "integrity".

beenBoutIT 8y ago
An individual with multiple online identities generates more data than the same individual would if they were using a single account for everything.
kristianc 8y ago
He can't have his cake and eat it. Either he has to deal with two separate identities, or he gets a sanitized 'work me' which will be as good as useless for advertising. Your choice Mark.

joe_the_user 8y ago

Yes, the "privacy" regulation Zuckerberg describes in this article have no relation to an individual keeping their identity private from an online service - they merely involve strictures on companies' use of the knowledge they gain about their clients. It is taken as a given that the companies will have this information. Which is to say it requires customers to trust companies rather than actually have any control.

xfitm3 8y ago

Yeah, when pigs fly. I never use my real name except for commerce.

nydel 8y ago

> "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." -- Mark Zuckerberg[1], defending Facebook's "Real" Name policy. then, does each user with multiple friends sub-lists exhibit a lack of integrity as well? only if by 'identity' he means 'set of collectable data' and this seems to be the case.

mannykannot 8y ago

"Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." -- Mark Zuckerberg "Having two identities is a reflection of how much trust I have in your integrity." -- me, to Mark Zuckerberg.

mirimir 8y ago
Two? He's making an issue about having two identities? Over the past decade, I've probably had ~50 identities. Most have been minor, basically just an email address for some project or activity that I don't want linked to such persistent personas as Mirimir. And it's also somewhat amusing, given how Facebook doesn't exactly advertize its origins as FaceMash. And this gem: > I'm a little intoxicated, not gonna lie. So what if it's not even 10 pm and it's a Tuesday night? What? The Kirkland dormitory facebook is open on my desktop and some of these people have pretty horrendiedous facebook pics. I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of some farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive.

hopler 8y ago

Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook Corporation because he doesn't believe his own claims.

ridgeguy 8y ago

He's utterly clueless. Having two identities can save your life if you're a battered woman. Or of the wrong political persuasion in some countries. I'm ok not 'liking' Zuckerberg's idea of integrity.

sandov 8y ago
He's not clueless. He perfectly knows that what he's saying is complete bullshit.
tomc1985 8y ago
He cares more that his advertising database is accurate
- edejong 8y ago
  You still believe it’s for advertising?
  - simonjgreen 8y ago
    You don't? Please elaborate.
    - kacamak 8y ago
      Not the original comment poster, but control over people is probably becoming if not already worth more than the ad business. Facebook is not a small entity, they have overthrown governments and caused civil wars in third countries already.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - edejong 8y ago
      Facebook is fundamentally a behavioral data company. Maximizing profits entails extracting, predicting, prescribing and controlling behavior, which is in the shareholders best interest. However, FB needs a moot around their castle, so it acts via third parties, such as Cambridge Analytica. And even if FB would not engage in large scale behavioral influencing, then through US law, various three letter agencies can force FB to hand over the data, all the while muting the company to disclose such practices.

lostapathy 8y ago

I have reported obvious violations of the real name policy and Facebook always replies with some BS about it not being verifiable. Things like a “person” profile setup for a storefront instead of a proper page for it. They obviously don’t care.

syshum 8y ago

I agree, I question the people that have only 2 identities, people need 4 or 5 these days

mirimir 8y ago
More like one for each online account :)

sadris 8y ago

If discrimination was disallowed for your personal opinions, then this might be a valid argument.

eplanit 8y ago

Yeah, and very clever: a regulation that serves him well, and one that that's appealing to the government, as well. Surely his people/lobbyists are even using the phrase "win-win" when pitching this idea to Congress. They (Congress) will get to say "we regulated FAANG", and Zuck can claim his virtue prize, to boot.

johnisgood 8y ago

Yes, we have multiple identities. It is not a lack of integrity. "An identity is the set of meanings that define who one is when one is an occupant of a particular role in society, a member of a particular group, or claims particular characteristics that identify him or her as a unique person. For example, individuals have meanings that they apply to themselves when they are a student, worker, spouse, or parent (these are roles they occupy), when they are a member of a fraternity, when they belong to the Democratic Party, when they are Latino (these are memberships in particular groups), or when they claim they are outgoing individuals or moral persons (these are personal characteristics that identify themselves as unique persons). People possess multiple identities because they occupy multiple roles, are members of multiple groups, and claim multiple personal characteristics, yet the meanings of these identities are shared by members of society. Identity theory seeks to explain the specific meanings that individuals have for the multiple identities they claim; how these identities relate to one another for any one person; how their identities influence their behavior, thoughts, and feelings or emotions; and how their identities tie them in to society at large." - https://global.oup.com/academic/product/identity-theory-9780195388282 https://global.oup.com/academic/product/identity-theory-9780...