5 ms·

First, most the comments say this is a white american (where american means United States, sigh) policy, but as a tiny brown low-middle-class Mexican I have no

First, most the comments say this is a white american (where american means United States, sigh) policy, but as a tiny brown low-middle-class Mexican I have no problem going with my real name. Second, Is Facebook's 'No custom HTML/CSS on profiles' policy is an abuse of power? How is that having a rule on a social network is an abuse of power? You don't like FB's boring profiles? use MySpace. You don't like using your real name? Go hangout on Twitter or 4Chan for that matter. I can see why some people don;t like using their real names, but calling it an abuse of power is such a ridiculous overstatement.

silverbax88 15y ago
Yes, because the policy works for you, it should therefore work for everyone. Also, according to you, a policy which prevents compromising a system is exactly the same as forcing people to divulge information that could cause them harm.
- walexander 15y ago
  It doesn't matter who the policy works for. The point is, it's a social network. Owned by Google. Who cares if you don't like their TOS? Vote with your feet, don't make ridiculous claims like they're abusing power and oppressing minorities.
  - sid0 15y ago
    Who cares if you don't like their TOS? That is an unsatisfying way to look at it. I think a better way to look at it is "it's public knowledge, therefore the public has the freedom to complain about it and hope that Google will listen."
    - walexander 15y ago
      And that's fine. That's essentially the point I was making. No one forces you to sign up for Google+. If you complain about the lack of anonymity and refuse to sign up, maybe Google will budge. It will cost them to block pseudonyms and I'm sure they'll weigh those costs. What's ridiculous is acting like this is somehow a breach of human rights.
- tomica 15y ago
  forcing people? who the actual f-- is forcing anyone to use g+? you would have far better luck arguing that you are forced to use your real name on facebook (as it seems "everyone is on facebook", and thus "you must be also" is a valid sentiment), but even there it's a biiig stretch.. and i don't ever remember the controversy of real names on facebook..

silverbax88 15y ago

Yes, because the policy works for you, it should therefore work for everyone. Also, according to you, a policy which prevents compromising a system is exactly the same as forcing people to divulge information that could cause them harm.

walexander 15y ago
It doesn't matter who the policy works for. The point is, it's a social network. Owned by Google. Who cares if you don't like their TOS? Vote with your feet, don't make ridiculous claims like they're abusing power and oppressing minorities.
- sid0 15y ago
  Who cares if you don't like their TOS? That is an unsatisfying way to look at it. I think a better way to look at it is "it's public knowledge, therefore the public has the freedom to complain about it and hope that Google will listen."
  - walexander 15y ago
    And that's fine. That's essentially the point I was making. No one forces you to sign up for Google+. If you complain about the lack of anonymity and refuse to sign up, maybe Google will budge. It will cost them to block pseudonyms and I'm sure they'll weigh those costs. What's ridiculous is acting like this is somehow a breach of human rights.
tomica 15y ago
forcing people? who the actual f-- is forcing anyone to use g+? you would have far better luck arguing that you are forced to use your real name on facebook (as it seems "everyone is on facebook", and thus "you must be also" is a valid sentiment), but even there it's a biiig stretch.. and i don't ever remember the controversy of real names on facebook..