3 ms·

"...The Zuckerberg Doctrine claims that forcing people to use their own names is a way to ensure civility. This is an idea so radioactively wrong, it can be spo

"...The Zuckerberg Doctrine claims that forcing people to use their own names is a way to ensure civility. This is an idea so radioactively wrong, it can be spotted from orbit." The idea isn't wrong and there are certainly people who will think twice about anti-social behavior if their real name is attached to it. The only issue here is that some people think they're entitled to use a pseudonym online on somebody else's platform that doesn't want them to. Ya'll need to go spin up a 5-person Mastodon server to echo-chamber a bit and hopefully learn you're behavior isn't acceptable to most for reasons that go well beyond you thinking you're a victim. And for the few people who want to use a pseudonym online for reasons beyond anti-social behavior, FB has tools to protect your account notably for journalist. I get you'll have to use someone else's platform for communications at times, but FB has no interest in quelling this and you should just do what you need to do without trying to publicly sway opinion for likely other and hopefully unrelated anti-social reasons. FB is a social network, not the front page of the internet, and they have their own position to uphold that is beyond its users and clearly documented in TOS that people like pretending doesn't exist or cherry-picking to promote victim-hood. FB and Zuck are not some boogieman out to get people lol, and there's plenty of different platforms to do whatever it is you need to do safely, or not at all.

gmerc 3y ago
it’s bullshit. Facebook comments are no different from youtube.
bezier-curve 3y ago
If anything, real name identification just gives people ways to harm themselves socially in the real world. It's not going to deter antisocial behavior. Like the stereotypical crazy uncle at Thanksgiving - He's just no longer invited to Thanksgiving because they saw his extremist views in a much greater detail than otherwise. This is why I stopped using Facebook years ago. It's bad enough that recruiters will filter me from a job opportunity over my GitHub activity grid. I know they are also researching my social media activity and most people have realized this now, and are not sincere when they feel like they are being surveilled.
- Espionage724 3y ago
  If the crazy uncle is interested in socializing more, they can see how their social-media behavior influences that. If they lose followers, friends, or if it escalates to platform bans and restrictions, that can be data used to realize that that behavior is... anti-social. So if they're interested in socializing more, they change that anti-social behavior. If they aren't interested in socializing more and just want to get their believes out there to as many people who are willing to listen, the social media platform absolutely does not have to tolerate that and should shut them right down. This will be evident by the loss of followers, friends, and eventual platform restrictions and ban. People that want to change will do so before the ban, and people that don't will get banned, and find some other community to try to be a part of; that glorious 5-person self-hosted Mastodon server nobody has heard of :p Having a real-name attached to a public social media profile makes people think twice about associating themselves with less-than-mainstream views, publicly. Anti-social behavior isn't tolerated mainstream, and it's not hard to figure out what other kinds of communities fall under this. I fully support employers scraping public social media platforms to determine if employees are a fit for their company. Don't like it? Don't work for em, or change your public views. Other people, platforms, and companies do not have to tolerate your views; you have that first-amendment right in the US to say your opinion, can choose to exercise it publicly, and thus choose to accept the repercussions that come with that. Yeah it would suck if I was working at a company, said something not ideal on a social media platform, and got fired. Yeah I'd be upset. What's the problem? Most for-profit companies don't screen employees, train them, integrate them into their workforce, and then fire them for dumb reasons. If someone has a scenario that doesn't match any of that, share it as I'd be more interested in a different view that doesn't come down to bigoted people being entitled.

gmerc 3y ago

it’s bullshit. Facebook comments are no different from youtube.

bezier-curve 3y ago

If anything, real name identification just gives people ways to harm themselves socially in the real world. It's not going to deter antisocial behavior. Like the stereotypical crazy uncle at Thanksgiving - He's just no longer invited to Thanksgiving because they saw his extremist views in a much greater detail than otherwise. This is why I stopped using Facebook years ago. It's bad enough that recruiters will filter me from a job opportunity over my GitHub activity grid. I know they are also researching my social media activity and most people have realized this now, and are not sincere when they feel like they are being surveilled.

Espionage724 3y ago
If the crazy uncle is interested in socializing more, they can see how their social-media behavior influences that. If they lose followers, friends, or if it escalates to platform bans and restrictions, that can be data used to realize that that behavior is... anti-social. So if they're interested in socializing more, they change that anti-social behavior. If they aren't interested in socializing more and just want to get their believes out there to as many people who are willing to listen, the social media platform absolutely does not have to tolerate that and should shut them right down. This will be evident by the loss of followers, friends, and eventual platform restrictions and ban. People that want to change will do so before the ban, and people that don't will get banned, and find some other community to try to be a part of; that glorious 5-person self-hosted Mastodon server nobody has heard of :p Having a real-name attached to a public social media profile makes people think twice about associating themselves with less-than-mainstream views, publicly. Anti-social behavior isn't tolerated mainstream, and it's not hard to figure out what other kinds of communities fall under this. I fully support employers scraping public social media platforms to determine if employees are a fit for their company. Don't like it? Don't work for em, or change your public views. Other people, platforms, and companies do not have to tolerate your views; you have that first-amendment right in the US to say your opinion, can choose to exercise it publicly, and thus choose to accept the repercussions that come with that. Yeah it would suck if I was working at a company, said something not ideal on a social media platform, and got fired. Yeah I'd be upset. What's the problem? Most for-profit companies don't screen employees, train them, integrate them into their workforce, and then fire them for dumb reasons. If someone has a scenario that doesn't match any of that, share it as I'd be more interested in a different view that doesn't come down to bigoted people being entitled.