7 ms·

Honestly, I don't get it. While approach to usernames and privacy varies, participation in FB is voluntary. And real names have some advantages (e.g. much hard

by stared 14y ago

Honestly, I don't get it. While approach to usernames and privacy varies, participation in FB is voluntary. And real names have some advantages (e.g. much harder time for trolls); sure, they have disadvantages as well... ...but I don't like the idea of a country saying about features a certain product needs to have (or even - thinking that they can say, because AFAIK in the current state Germany can make usage of FB illegal for their citizens, as it is no located in Germany).

anaheim 14y ago
When looking at social networks, always remember to look for applications other than "sharing pictures of my lunch with friends". Participation in FB is voluntary, but also one of the few ways to quickly reach an audience of millions worldwide to promote your cause. Imagine people in Syria or Egypt wanting to communicate their plight anonymously with the world. If Facebook applies its ham-fisted "real name" policies, this can result in very real and deadly consequences for them.
islon 14y ago
Why do you need to protect yourself from trolls on facebook? Those are your friends. Unless you add every stranger that send you a friend request. I'm not in favor of Germany on this one but sometimes the law/government should interfere to ensure people freedom. Just because it's a private company doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with our data even if we were the ones providing the data.
- stared 14y ago
  I use FB mainly for information distribution and conversation. It means that I interact with friends of friends, and with people who "are going" to my event (and I'm not knowing them in person). (And yes, I add Internet-only acquaintances, but not guys I don't know.) Some of my personal experience says that (usually, not always) people under names don't troll that much. Of course, the situation is different for small communities, or skill-driven communities, but (usually) not for open ones. (E.g. on HN anonymity works well.) I don't say that I agree with FB's rules (personally I prefer "real names encouraged, but not required" policy on such "for everyone" sites). I'm just saying that there are pros and cons, both for FB and for its users.
  - omd 14y ago
    > personally I prefer "real names encouraged, but not required" policy That's what the German government is saying. They're not outlawing the use of real names.
- thirdtruck 14y ago
  Boyfriends/girlfriends turned stalker. Having others add you to groups without permissions. Hacked accounts.
drx 14y ago
I guess you could make a case for FB being a de facto monopoly on connecting with friends and therefore needing to behave in certain consumer-friendly ways. Alternatively, "you want to do business in our country, you must follow our rules". Not that I agree.
- stared 14y ago
  Sure, monopolies needs to be controlled. (Especially then there is no longer free market.) However, for me there is a strong difference whether a monopoly chances rules (or as time goes by, the world changes - see move/music distributors) or people accepted it before it was a monopoly. E.g. imagine that Germany say that HN needs to have pictures or, at very least, thumbnails. ;)
  - pacala 14y ago
    > E.g. imagine that Germany say that HN needs to have pictures or, at very least, thumbnails. ;) This is a weak slippery slope argument. Germany is not making arbitrary requests on web sites. Rather it is protecting the right of its citizens to anonymity, according to pre-existing laws.
- Roybatty 14y ago
  Alternatively, North Korea, Mozambique, Cubs, and France can also say that, but why does it matter?
throwaway125 14y ago
You can turn the same thing around, no one is forcing Facebook to do business in Germany. If they want to do business in Germany they have to follow German regulations.
- icebraining 14y ago
  It's not the same thing at all, because the German regulations would be stopping two consenting parties from interacting with each other, while Facebook does not such thing (it just prevents some from interacting with Facebook itself). EDIT: People assuming that I'm against all kinds of such regulations: cut that out, I never claimed that.
  - eru 14y ago
    > [...] because the German regulations would be stopping two consenting parties from interacting with each other [...] That might be a moral problem for libertarians. But there are lots of (not only German) laws along these lines.
    - icebraining 14y ago
      I never said it can never be justified. I live in the EU and agree with most of our consumer protection laws. I'm just drawing an important distinction. Not participating in a transaction is a personal issue, which doesn't need justification. Not letting others participate in it should need to be very well justified, at least in a State that is supposed to be democratic and just. Personally, and in this particular case, I find the justification lacking.
      - gurkendoktor 14y ago
        If it helps - many FB users are minors. The gov't is making sure that they can post "LOL PUKED FROM TEQUILA FOR THE FIRST TIME" under a pseudonym.
  - rickmb 14y ago
    The 800 pound gorilla Facebook and the average German teenage girl (to name just an example) aren't exactly equal consenting parties. The law is there to protect individual citizens against the ruthless exploitation by major corporations like Facebook. Especially when those corporations hold the key to either social isolation or abandoning your civil rights. The laws are there to prevent companies from abusing their power from effectively undermining individual people's rights and freedoms.
wes-exp 14y ago
... participation in FB is voluntary. Facebook is used as the exclusive sign-on system for various services besides Facebook itself. For instance, Spotify uses it, and last I checked it is not possible to use Spotify at all without using Facebook. If Facebook continues to grow, the consequences of not using Facebook could be more severe than at present. It's a classic example of network effects. Once something becomes a necessity, such as telephone or internet, I think you have a strong case to say that even though using it is technically voluntary, the price of not using it is so high that most people have no choice. Is Facebook at that level of necessity today? Not for me, but maybe it is for some people.
- AdamFernandez 14y ago
  Technically voluntary, is still very much voluntary. As is using Spotify, or any other service that requires a Facebook login. I disagree with the philosophy that true online identity is better for all, but also disagree that Facebook should be forced to do this. People have other choices, and had other choices while Facebook was growing. People chose the 'true' identity social network long before it was the dominant player in the space. People kept choosing it before the super network effects kicked in.
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    And when your ISP starts requiring you to sign in with Facebook via a captive portal before you can browse the Internet at home, will you still continue to "choose" the "true identity social network"?
- lostlogin 14y ago
  I have never used Facebook and signed up to Spotify yesterday with no problemss.
  - panacea 14y ago
    The ability to do that is very well hidden.
michaelfeathers 14y ago
That is the extreme disconnect between libertarian and other perspectives. In the libertarian perspective all that matters is that two parties agree. There is no consideration given to the relative power of the two parties or the effect of their agreement.
axusgrad 14y ago
Let's say that Facebook required you to have a well-lit photo of your face, taken within the last year. Would it be ok for Germany to restrict this requirement? How about if Facebook required users to submit a form detailing all sources and amounts of income for the previous year? Strictly confidential, of course. Germany would certainly have a double standard barring those practices, but they should.
- rmc 14y ago
  It is quite common for countries to have an explicit double standard for themselves and private companies, especially with things like documentation (and doing trials and locking people up, and fining people). This is not new.
greggman 14y ago
Disqus says people with pseudonyms participate more http://disqus.com/research/pseudonyms/ http://disqus.com/research/pseudonyms/
rmc 14y ago
as it is no located in Germany Facebook have an office in Germany. Here's some job postings: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/hamburg https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/hamburg and their Facebook page for the office https://www.facebook.com/FacebookHamburg https://www.facebook.com/FacebookHamburg

by stared 14y ago

anaheim 14y ago

When looking at social networks, always remember to look for applications other than "sharing pictures of my lunch with friends". Participation in FB is voluntary, but also one of the few ways to quickly reach an audience of millions worldwide to promote your cause. Imagine people in Syria or Egypt wanting to communicate their plight anonymously with the world. If Facebook applies its ham-fisted "real name" policies, this can result in very real and deadly consequences for them.

islon 14y ago

Why do you need to protect yourself from trolls on facebook? Those are your friends. Unless you add every stranger that send you a friend request. I'm not in favor of Germany on this one but sometimes the law/government should interfere to ensure people freedom. Just because it's a private company doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with our data even if we were the ones providing the data.

stared 14y ago
I use FB mainly for information distribution and conversation. It means that I interact with friends of friends, and with people who "are going" to my event (and I'm not knowing them in person). (And yes, I add Internet-only acquaintances, but not guys I don't know.) Some of my personal experience says that (usually, not always) people under names don't troll that much. Of course, the situation is different for small communities, or skill-driven communities, but (usually) not for open ones. (E.g. on HN anonymity works well.) I don't say that I agree with FB's rules (personally I prefer "real names encouraged, but not required" policy on such "for everyone" sites). I'm just saying that there are pros and cons, both for FB and for its users.
- omd 14y ago
  > personally I prefer "real names encouraged, but not required" policy That's what the German government is saying. They're not outlawing the use of real names.
thirdtruck 14y ago
Boyfriends/girlfriends turned stalker. Having others add you to groups without permissions. Hacked accounts.

drx 14y ago

I guess you could make a case for FB being a de facto monopoly on connecting with friends and therefore needing to behave in certain consumer-friendly ways. Alternatively, "you want to do business in our country, you must follow our rules". Not that I agree.

stared 14y ago
Sure, monopolies needs to be controlled. (Especially then there is no longer free market.) However, for me there is a strong difference whether a monopoly chances rules (or as time goes by, the world changes - see move/music distributors) or people accepted it before it was a monopoly. E.g. imagine that Germany say that HN needs to have pictures or, at very least, thumbnails. ;)
- pacala 14y ago
  > E.g. imagine that Germany say that HN needs to have pictures or, at very least, thumbnails. ;) This is a weak slippery slope argument. Germany is not making arbitrary requests on web sites. Rather it is protecting the right of its citizens to anonymity, according to pre-existing laws.
Roybatty 14y ago
Alternatively, North Korea, Mozambique, Cubs, and France can also say that, but why does it matter?

throwaway125 14y ago

You can turn the same thing around, no one is forcing Facebook to do business in Germany. If they want to do business in Germany they have to follow German regulations.

icebraining 14y ago
It's not the same thing at all, because the German regulations would be stopping two consenting parties from interacting with each other, while Facebook does not such thing (it just prevents some from interacting with Facebook itself). EDIT: People assuming that I'm against all kinds of such regulations: cut that out, I never claimed that.
- eru 14y ago
  > [...] because the German regulations would be stopping two consenting parties from interacting with each other [...] That might be a moral problem for libertarians. But there are lots of (not only German) laws along these lines.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    I never said it can never be justified. I live in the EU and agree with most of our consumer protection laws. I'm just drawing an important distinction. Not participating in a transaction is a personal issue, which doesn't need justification. Not letting others participate in it should need to be very well justified, at least in a State that is supposed to be democratic and just. Personally, and in this particular case, I find the justification lacking.
    - gurkendoktor 14y ago
      If it helps - many FB users are minors. The gov't is making sure that they can post "LOL PUKED FROM TEQUILA FOR THE FIRST TIME" under a pseudonym.
- rickmb 14y ago
  The 800 pound gorilla Facebook and the average German teenage girl (to name just an example) aren't exactly equal consenting parties. The law is there to protect individual citizens against the ruthless exploitation by major corporations like Facebook. Especially when those corporations hold the key to either social isolation or abandoning your civil rights. The laws are there to prevent companies from abusing their power from effectively undermining individual people's rights and freedoms.

wes-exp 14y ago

... participation in FB is voluntary. Facebook is used as the exclusive sign-on system for various services besides Facebook itself. For instance, Spotify uses it, and last I checked it is not possible to use Spotify at all without using Facebook. If Facebook continues to grow, the consequences of not using Facebook could be more severe than at present. It's a classic example of network effects. Once something becomes a necessity, such as telephone or internet, I think you have a strong case to say that even though using it is technically voluntary, the price of not using it is so high that most people have no choice. Is Facebook at that level of necessity today? Not for me, but maybe it is for some people.

AdamFernandez 14y ago
Technically voluntary, is still very much voluntary. As is using Spotify, or any other service that requires a Facebook login. I disagree with the philosophy that true online identity is better for all, but also disagree that Facebook should be forced to do this. People have other choices, and had other choices while Facebook was growing. People chose the 'true' identity social network long before it was the dominant player in the space. People kept choosing it before the super network effects kicked in.
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  And when your ISP starts requiring you to sign in with Facebook via a captive portal before you can browse the Internet at home, will you still continue to "choose" the "true identity social network"?
lostlogin 14y ago
I have never used Facebook and signed up to Spotify yesterday with no problemss.
- panacea 14y ago
  The ability to do that is very well hidden.

michaelfeathers 14y ago

That is the extreme disconnect between libertarian and other perspectives. In the libertarian perspective all that matters is that two parties agree. There is no consideration given to the relative power of the two parties or the effect of their agreement.

axusgrad 14y ago

Let's say that Facebook required you to have a well-lit photo of your face, taken within the last year. Would it be ok for Germany to restrict this requirement? How about if Facebook required users to submit a form detailing all sources and amounts of income for the previous year? Strictly confidential, of course. Germany would certainly have a double standard barring those practices, but they should.

rmc 14y ago
It is quite common for countries to have an explicit double standard for themselves and private companies, especially with things like documentation (and doing trials and locking people up, and fining people). This is not new.

greggman 14y ago

Disqus says people with pseudonyms participate more http://disqus.com/research/pseudonyms/ http://disqus.com/research/pseudonyms/

rmc 14y ago

as it is no located in Germany Facebook have an office in Germany. Here's some job postings: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/hamburg https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/hamburg and their Facebook page for the office https://www.facebook.com/FacebookHamburg https://www.facebook.com/FacebookHamburg