3 ms·

Not strictly accurate if a) they create shadow profiles b) it's almost impossible to permanently delete an account c) the site puts a login wall on every single

Not strictly accurate if a) they create shadow profiles b) it's almost impossible to permanently delete an account c) the site puts a login wall on every single page forcing you to have an account to access anything

fc417fc802 2y ago
You left out d) required for some important task.
- alex1138 2y ago
  Yeah like connecting with people you'd like to reach (which Facebook doesn't do a terribly good job of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6090712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6090712) but people here seem to think email/calling is the only acceptable form of social media (but what if you don't have someone's contact info? well, that gets justified as "nobody needs to connect with long lost contacts")
  - BoredPositron 2y ago
    If you're not banned, why not simply create an account and message them properly? If following the platform's basic guidelines feels like too much effort, perhaps the communication wasn't that important to begin with. The barrier to entry is quite low (for a human) and you don’t even need to connect the account in anyway to your other online personas. The biggest benefit would also be that YOU can be found when people want to connect with you…
    - fc417fc802 2y ago
      "Banned", "too much effort", these are straw men. Real name systems (for routine discourse) are bad. Walled gardens are bad. I should not need to forsake my privacy unless I wish to or alternatively a material need exists. Don't need to connect the account? What sort of joke is that? They require you to use your government recognized name.
      - BoredPositron 2y ago
        There are no straw mans here the only thing that shows is your entitlement. Maybe read it again because it looks like you either took everything out of context or didn’t comprehend it. Your last sentence also just doesn’t make any sense. Why would you worry about platform x if „they“ „know“ everything anyways. I was talking about your anonymous online personas. Complaining about potential guidelines on one platform when numerous unrestricted spaces exist online seems rather narrow minded, especially given the abundance of alternatives available. Just use it as a modern telephone book. You have total agency over yourself and if or how you use it.
        balamatom 2y ago
        >You have total agency over yourself and if or how you use it. Nir Eyal would like a word >If following the platform's basic guidelines feels like too much effort, That's the straw elephant in the room >perhaps the communication wasn't that important to begin with. And this is the particularly dehumanizing part >entitlement Is that what entitlement is? Preferring to avoid using the services of an unethical vendor if possible? Or is the entitlement in the "being able to afford to avoid..."?
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        True, "banned" was likely a non sequitur as opposed to a straw man. Many of your other remarks are as well. If multiple services require you to use the same identifier then those accounts are trivial for anyone to find and link. The existence of alternative services with different terms does not address the issues raised in this thread. Neither does it change the fact that I think the existence of real name policies makes society worse. Of course I'm going to complain about that. > Just use it as a modern telephone book. Other people upload information about me into said book. There are various things that I can't do unless I use said book and those have nothing to do with looking up contact information. It would be bad enough if the only issue were that the provider of the telephone book could every contact lookup. Unfortunately that is but the tip of the metaphorical iceberg.
        2y ago
    - immibis 2y ago
      Hang on, so if I got this right, paraphrasing: You: "You don't have to use Facebook if you don't want to" Them: "Sometimes it's required for some important task" You: "Why not simply sign up for Facebook and use it?"
      - BoredPositron 2y ago
        We were talking about a potential new non profit platform not facebook. (Well, I was until one child comment had to bring up fucking Facebook again.) That was the whole point of the discussion and now everyone and their mom ignores it because you all seem to love condescending rage comments. Eh… not worth the keystrokes.
        fc417fc802 2y ago
        > We were talking about a potential new non profit platform not facebook. We were talking about the impact that platforms with real name policies have on society simply by existing and being widely used. Particularly relevant considering that the first comment in the thread was about just such a platform being officially provided by the government and tying accounts to a government issued ID. The second comment in the chain, which you responded to, explicitly referenced Facebook. > you all seem to love condescending rage comments. Your arguments don't hold any water and you're having difficulty accepting that fact.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

fc417fc802 2y ago

You left out d) required for some important task.

alex1138 2y ago
Yeah like connecting with people you'd like to reach (which Facebook doesn't do a terribly good job of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6090712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6090712) but people here seem to think email/calling is the only acceptable form of social media (but what if you don't have someone's contact info? well, that gets justified as "nobody needs to connect with long lost contacts")
- BoredPositron 2y ago
  If you're not banned, why not simply create an account and message them properly? If following the platform's basic guidelines feels like too much effort, perhaps the communication wasn't that important to begin with. The barrier to entry is quite low (for a human) and you don’t even need to connect the account in anyway to your other online personas. The biggest benefit would also be that YOU can be found when people want to connect with you…
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    "Banned", "too much effort", these are straw men. Real name systems (for routine discourse) are bad. Walled gardens are bad. I should not need to forsake my privacy unless I wish to or alternatively a material need exists. Don't need to connect the account? What sort of joke is that? They require you to use your government recognized name.
    - BoredPositron 2y ago
      There are no straw mans here the only thing that shows is your entitlement. Maybe read it again because it looks like you either took everything out of context or didn’t comprehend it. Your last sentence also just doesn’t make any sense. Why would you worry about platform x if „they“ „know“ everything anyways. I was talking about your anonymous online personas. Complaining about potential guidelines on one platform when numerous unrestricted spaces exist online seems rather narrow minded, especially given the abundance of alternatives available. Just use it as a modern telephone book. You have total agency over yourself and if or how you use it.
      - balamatom 2y ago
        >You have total agency over yourself and if or how you use it. Nir Eyal would like a word >If following the platform's basic guidelines feels like too much effort, That's the straw elephant in the room >perhaps the communication wasn't that important to begin with. And this is the particularly dehumanizing part >entitlement Is that what entitlement is? Preferring to avoid using the services of an unethical vendor if possible? Or is the entitlement in the "being able to afford to avoid..."?
      - fc417fc802 2y ago
        True, "banned" was likely a non sequitur as opposed to a straw man. Many of your other remarks are as well. If multiple services require you to use the same identifier then those accounts are trivial for anyone to find and link. The existence of alternative services with different terms does not address the issues raised in this thread. Neither does it change the fact that I think the existence of real name policies makes society worse. Of course I'm going to complain about that. > Just use it as a modern telephone book. Other people upload information about me into said book. There are various things that I can't do unless I use said book and those have nothing to do with looking up contact information. It would be bad enough if the only issue were that the provider of the telephone book could every contact lookup. Unfortunately that is but the tip of the metaphorical iceberg.
        2y ago
  - immibis 2y ago
    Hang on, so if I got this right, paraphrasing: You: "You don't have to use Facebook if you don't want to" Them: "Sometimes it's required for some important task" You: "Why not simply sign up for Facebook and use it?"
    - BoredPositron 2y ago
      We were talking about a potential new non profit platform not facebook. (Well, I was until one child comment had to bring up fucking Facebook again.) That was the whole point of the discussion and now everyone and their mom ignores it because you all seem to love condescending rage comments. Eh… not worth the keystrokes.
      - fc417fc802 2y ago
        > We were talking about a potential new non profit platform not facebook. We were talking about the impact that platforms with real name policies have on society simply by existing and being widely used. Particularly relevant considering that the first comment in the thread was about just such a platform being officially provided by the government and tying accounts to a government issued ID. The second comment in the chain, which you responded to, explicitly referenced Facebook. > you all seem to love condescending rage comments. Your arguments don't hold any water and you're having difficulty accepting that fact.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]