4 ms·

> Why? How so? And - why do we care? If users want to choose their name, how is it relevant if it's frustrating for _other_ people to be unable to locate them?

> Why? How so? And - why do we care? If users want to choose their name, how is it relevant if it's frustrating for _other_ people to be unable to locate them? Well, because that's the way Facebook works. They made a decision early on to require real names because most of the value of Facebook hinged upon the ease of finding friends and family. Imagine if the white pages allowed people to use pseudonyms. It wouldn't be worth much, would it? > How many people are searching the ex-gf/-bf by name to stalk and see what they're up to? Dunno, lots? Who cares? > And - frankly: I know more people on FB with 'fake' names than with 'real' ones. Family, friends, random acquaintances, 70% don't use their real name. The range is from fantasy names (like, obviously invalid/~random~), to play on words/phrases (localized variants of 'Some Dude' or similar) to the braindead exercise of writing your name backwards (you'd be there as "Kram Rettun"). This is purely anecdotal but I would put the rate of actual names used among my friends at around 99%. Now, granted, that may because I haven't found the acquaintances from my past who do use fake names, but that only bolsters my point. If most people used fake names then a large part of the appeal of Facebook would dissipate. > Isn't it very frustrating as well if people got married and - whoa - just give Facebook their _current_ 'real name'. You wouldn't be able to find them. Maybe the service should require you to list the maiden name, blocking you for failing to do so? Facebook has a solution for the maiden name problem, btw, (by allowing users to enter an "alternate name")[https://www.facebook.com/help/131728300237162/ https://www.facebook.com/help/131728300237162/], and again, this is purely anecdotal, but I see a very high percentage of people in my network taking advantage of this feature. I would wager it's because most people want to be found by their friends and family. > Against the TOS? Yeah, sure. Impossible to enforce for localized jokes or seemingly valid names anyway. And quite frankly, if it's 'frustrating' for people that want to search for old contacts is really, really not interesting _for those users_. I don't personally have a problem with people circumventing Facebook's TOS and I'd gather that Facebook probably doesn't care all that much either. What I do have a problem with is a government arbitrarily setting a TOS for a website that people can choose whether or not to use.

darklajid 14y ago
The government isn't. It's not _limiting_ anyone (except FB, and even there we seem to agree that enforcing that particular rule isn't happening/hard/no priority). It just requires FB to allow pseudonyms, officially. People still _can_ register with their 'real name', so your use case wouldn't be broken. Unless the people around you would prefer to use another name.. Which is, frankly, their choice to make (and in practice _is_ already happening today).
- marknutter 14y ago
  Right, but you're missing the point. If Facebook had prominently allowed pseudonyms in the first place it likely wouldn't have become as popular as it is today. It's the White Pages of the 21st century, and as I stated above, the White Pages would have been practically worthless had it allowed people to use pseudonyms.
  - darklajid 14y ago
    You listed twitter as a "proof" that you have alternatives, as an example that FB is no monopoly. I agree that Twitter is quite successful and big. In spite of allowing pseudonyms? White pages don't apply. No idea how these work over there, but here they are a service to find a phone number - and sell a couple ads. You don't communicate via White Pages. In fact, you'd only use those to find people _that you usually don't communicate with_. And then _move the conversation to a different medium (phone)_. Facebook is not related. It's not a simple register. It is not the same thing. It's like comparing the hand-selected early Yahoo! link collection with the current Google, including Search, GMail, GTalk, G+.

darklajid 14y ago

The government isn't. It's not _limiting_ anyone (except FB, and even there we seem to agree that enforcing that particular rule isn't happening/hard/no priority). It just requires FB to allow pseudonyms, officially. People still _can_ register with their 'real name', so your use case wouldn't be broken. Unless the people around you would prefer to use another name.. Which is, frankly, their choice to make (and in practice _is_ already happening today).

marknutter 14y ago
Right, but you're missing the point. If Facebook had prominently allowed pseudonyms in the first place it likely wouldn't have become as popular as it is today. It's the White Pages of the 21st century, and as I stated above, the White Pages would have been practically worthless had it allowed people to use pseudonyms.
- darklajid 14y ago
  You listed twitter as a "proof" that you have alternatives, as an example that FB is no monopoly. I agree that Twitter is quite successful and big. In spite of allowing pseudonyms? White pages don't apply. No idea how these work over there, but here they are a service to find a phone number - and sell a couple ads. You don't communicate via White Pages. In fact, you'd only use those to find people _that you usually don't communicate with_. And then _move the conversation to a different medium (phone)_. Facebook is not related. It's not a simple register. It is not the same thing. It's like comparing the hand-selected early Yahoo! link collection with the current Google, including Search, GMail, GTalk, G+.