5 ms·
Enforcing real names has pros and cons. For Facebook as a business, the pros certainly outweigh the value lost when accounts can't be mapped directly to real pe
by Smudge 14y ago
Enforcing real names has pros and cons. For Facebook as a business, the pros certainly outweigh the value lost when accounts can't be mapped directly to real people. Names are a key part of that mapping.
In general, I prefer an option for pseudonymity, because it is much more inclusive (allowing certain people at the fringes to feel more comfortable joining in -- victims of abuse, political dissidents, etc), and is much less messy than total anonymity (which wouldn't really work for something like Facebook, not that there isn't a place for it elsewhere on the web). That said, pseudonymity can still get messy, so I see why Facebook might want to keep it in check.
One can also make the argument that the level of discourse is much higher on services where people are more personally accountable for what they say, and where confusing or offensive usernames don't get in the way of conversations. But I would say that the actual level of discourse sometimes found on Facebook throws that argument into question.
- nodemaker 14y agoOne can also make the argument that the level of discourse is much higher on services where people are more personally accountable for what they say, and where confusing or offensive usernames don't get in the way of conversations. Based on the level of discourse here on hacker news and even on reddit, I don't think one can reasonably say that.
- Smudge 14y agoI don't personally agree with the argument, but I've seen it come up numerous times, first on Google Plus and now on Facebook.
- andreasvc 14y agoIndeed, it seems much more sensible to directly do Q/A on messages, instead of on the names being used. I think the argument simply confuses a correlation with causation.
- prodigal_erik 14y agoWhat Facebook and Google+ gain in politesse, they lose in depth and honesty. I can't assume I'll be held "accountable" in a just way by every prospective employer, apartment manager, or lover I'll ever meet, so these venues get empty pleasantries from me, certainly nothing controversial in any way.
- psbp 14y agoNow imagine a whole generation socializing under these artificial restrictions. Can you imagine how stifling being raised under an umbrella of constant surveillance by your peer group, family, future employers and advertisers would be to your personality and relationships? We're developing a society of sociopatic egotists.
- jsemrau 14y agoI should upvote you more than once! This is exactly one of the items nobody has on the radar right now.
- jordanthoms 14y ago... and the only cure is 4chan!
- wisenhymr 14y agoWould that it were. The owner/admin's made some bad decisions that opened it up to being restricted/gamed and as a result the site is suffering as a platform for free and independent speech. Sic transit gloria mundi, I guess. Some people cite backroom lobbying by people from places with authoritarian factions, e.g. Reddit and SA, but I don't have the resources to verify the rumors.
- ANTSANTS 14y agoAs someone who practically grew up on 4chan, I have to ask: What on earth are you talking about?
- 14y ago
- psbp 14y agoSo is facebook meant to be a service for your close friends and family or a broader social network that promotes businesses, news, celebrities; a wider discussion? If it wants to be both, there are only cons. You can't conflate personal relationships with media discussions and advertising. This is why facebook is ultimately a doomed prospect (either socially and/or financially). It's either successful as a true social network, or it's an ad/personal information scam.
- fauigerzigerk 14y agoReal names policies are questionable but debatable. Asking friends to report friends to some authority reveals utter contempt for the very personal relationships that Facebook supposedly thrives on.