7 ms·

Help, I’m Trapped in Facebook’s Absurd Pseudonym Purgatory

54 points by rl3 11y ago

jjaredsimpson 11y ago
Eh, you want to use a free service and get mad when they dictate terms. This is why I don't use Facebook as a primary online presence. I don't give them all my data, and locations, and relationships, and baby pictures, etc. Author is just making a play at getting special treatment if her whiny article goes viral. Don't depend on things you don't control.
- danso 11y ago
  It seems you're getting downvoted even though you are mostly right (some people might have considered "whiny" to be unnecessarily pejorative and unhelpful). I have the same mindset...I like Facebook, a lot. I haven't yet reached the point of burnout, but that's because when I am in a negative mood -- which apparently is a bad time to be on Facebook because you subject yourself to a constant stream of your friends' happiness -- I log out. I actually set my password to a random arrangement of my fingers smacking the keyboard, which I copy-paste from a text file, and I move that file somewhere that's just annoying enough that I can't reflexively just recopy-paste the password. It's not hard to retrieve, and I can always reset my password...but it's annoying enough that the only time I'll go back on to facebook is when I really want to go back. But how to practice self-control and etc. is tangential to the OP's point. It's a little more complicated than that but I think much of it does boil down to cost and security. The pseudonym policy cuts both ways: it inconveniences those who have good reasons to not want to be easily found. But it also inconveniences those who use anonymity to abuse people. And when you're targeted by such people, you'll appreciate that flag button. So Facebook has to deal with both kinds of flagging. How does it do that so that it's not just a flimsy process that a troll can dodge, and yet not be overly burdensome to the innocent? Well, the answer is not (well, not yet, anyway), "more machine learning". The OP wants a (more) human decision and FB apparently thinks such a process is too burdensome to scale.
- Retra 11y ago
  If people didn't depend on things they didn't control, the economy would probably collapse and we'd all be hunters and gatherers again.
  - cactusface 11y ago
    Well said. Also, there would be no interpersonal relationships.
- peteretep 11y ago
  There's this idea bandied about that Internet access is a human right. There are certain services — currently centralised — that are large enough to start to be thought of as utilities. My family, friends, and colleagues are 100% bought in to Facebook. Family reunions, and literally every social event I go to (except weddings) are coordinated via Facebook. Friends and families announce engagements, deaths, and major life events through it. I don't know the email addresses and phone numbers for many of my friends, because it all goes through FB Messenger. I don't live in the same city as many old friends, and I travel a lot, and I know when they're in town and vice versa through FB. This is not my choice. This is th collective choice made by friends and family. Stepping away from Facebook would mean my in-person social life would significantly diminish. I understand that some people's lives don't work that way, or they have fifteen friends from high school and three family members who are the only people they coordinate with regularly. Family alone accounts for 50 connections for me, and people I see in person at least once a month another 200. There comes a point where we figure out that Facebook and Twitter are monopoly utilities, and need regulation as such. I can't sever my ties with Facebook in any meaningful way, and it seems odd that they should be able to do the same to me; my water provider can't cut me off, and my electricity provider can't either without legal recourse — that Facebook can seems odd.
time4hn 11y ago
When this happened to me I just provided a fake (photoshopped) ID with my pseudonym and they accepted it.
- thaumaturgy 11y ago
  That was my thinking too -- if I had a Facebook account, and this happened, I'd just shop a couple things together, print them back out, and give them the finger while scanning them back in.
- fiatjaf 11y ago
  "just".
- danso 11y ago
  i actually think that's a pretty reasonable process. I'm assuming that the verification process is light...maybe there's a offshore human who goes through a queue and eyeballs each submission? Either way, there's no way that that person has knowledge of what each countries/states IDs look like. So they might err on the side of reasonable caution. If you're a threatened person, and yet you still need to be on Facebook...then the time it takes to Photoshop something will be insignificant to the apparent benefits you get from Facebook. For the troll? Not so much...getting to be an asshole is not the strongest incentive to jump through the hoops.
- SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
  I have a friend who unfortunately has the same name as a movie star. She sent in her ID and they still wouldn't let her have her own name. To this day she has an account with her name misspelled.
- mythealias 11y ago
  I think that is an other can of worms. I would assume there will be some law to not allow that esp if it is a govt. issued document. Right now they might not be connected to govt database, but if they ever do then one can be in unnecessary trouble. All for an useless (imo) account.
- pluma 11y ago
DiabloD3 11y ago
I support people leaving Facebook forever. Facebook is selling you as the product, and does not care about making your life easier or better, or making it easier to connect with friends and family. I agree with the article's stance on how Facebook enables stalkers to stalk their victims, and the very nature of Facebook makes it easy for them to do that. If you are at risk of such things, please do not have a Facebook account. With the example of being homosexual in a country where the punishment is death, foreign governments may be able to use Facebook to find you due to any number of security issues that have existed, exist currently, and will exist in the future, so please, just stay off Facebook altogether.
- onedev 11y ago
  > Facebook is selling you as the product, and does not care about making your life easier or better, or making it easier to connect with friends and family. Why can't it be that they can care about both of these things and acknowledge that it's a balance which can shift in either direction depending on the product they're putting out?
  - dethstar 11y ago
    Because only one of those generates them profit and thus keeps them existing.
    - yuhong 11y ago
      But I don't think Facebook is that bad. I do think that Facebook isn't for everyone and real name policies are a bad idea.
- sneak 11y ago
  People who say this don't have a lot of friends, or don't care about their friends. Participating in facebook's quagmire is the only way to keep in touch with some people. It sucks, but it's true. You can argue with the ideological purity of it all you want, but it boils down to the fact that you must choose between purity, and staying in touch. Period.
imron 11y ago
I'm not sure why the author thinks Facebook should let her know who flagged the account. After going on about how stalking and protection from stalkers is important, surely she should be able to realise that protecting the reporter's privacy is important to prevent any sort of retaliation (not saying the author would do this, however it should be a cornerstone of any reporting/flagging policy to keep the flagger/reporter confidential). Besides, it might not have even been anyone she knows or knows well. 'Nads' is a pretty common slang term for male genitals so I can see why some random person might flag it as a fake name.
- darkarmani 11y ago
  > I'm not sure why the author thinks Facebook should let her know who flagged the account. Isn't that Facebook's whole argument thought? You should be accountable for your actions in real life by using your real name on facebook? If pseudonyms are against their philosophy, being fully anonymous should be even worse.
  - mc32 11y ago
    I dont think so. Just like when you contact the feds to report something, they know who you are but you re sin anonymous to the person you're reporting. And in any event, like it or not, anyone with tos can pretty much establish whatever tos they want within the bounds of the law. But again, I don't see a discrepancy. On the other hand, as others will say, treat everything you say and do on fb as if it's broadcast and permanent.
- caf 11y ago
  Because leaving the snitch anonymous leaves the process wide open to be abused as a method of harassment?
  - imron 11y ago
    No, it protects people from abuse/retaliation for flagging the account. It's also not really wide open for abuse either because at most it can happen once to one person, and then their details are on file and any future reports/flagging can be automated away/ignored.
danso 11y ago
I don't think FB is infallible in its policies and service implementation; for example, I think Eric Meyer was 100% on point with his (very calm and empathetic) essay, "Inadvertent Algorithmic Cruelty" [1] That said, while I don't think the OP is wrong to feel upset or worried, but what she wants can be done without equal unintended negative consequence. A couple things stuck out: 1. When Facebook took one user’s pseudonym away, an abuser showed up to events that person had RSVP’d to before the name was changed 2. Perhaps the most frustrating part of this is that the person who flags your account is afforded more privacy than you are. Even when it’s a matter of personal safety, Facebook will not reveal the accuser. ----------- 1. This is easy: don't RSVP for public events. Or don't do so in such a way that requires Facebook. Though I concede that there may be some events that logistically require Facebook login (through some 3rd party service, like Eventbrite)...I guess, don't go to those? Or privately call the event? Either way, the OP describes a drastic situation in which a stalker is so committed that he/she kept searching for the victim, even after early searches returned no results (because the victim had a pseudonym). OK, besides the possibility that, just maybe, the situation has elevated to the point where police should be involved...the more disturbing part is that the victim thinks a pseudonym is sufficient security-through-obscurity. No. Just no. If you have a pseudonym, and you insist on using a recognizable photo, and just a few of your friends have their profile public enough to show listed friends...then a committed stalker has everything they need to find you. 2. And this is an easier objection to rebut: the OP sees no downside to Facebook exposing the identities of accusers? Really? [1] http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2014/12/24/inadvertent-algorithmic-cruelty/ http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2014/12/24/inadvertent-alg...
yuhong 11y ago
Personally, I agree that real name policies are not a good idea. Fixing the problems with using real names is a better idea, though often not easy.
foopants 11y ago
I've never used my real name on Facebook. I suspect most people have at least one fake name account.
- pavedwalden 11y ago
  I don't think most people have multiple Facebook accounts.
  - cactusface 11y ago
    I don't think most people have even one Facebook account.
JesperRavn 11y ago
The article critique Facebook on free speech grounds, and yet when people on the political right bring up free speech, they are direct to this [0] cartoon. So which is it? Are big companies going to be bound be free speech requirements that allow right wing free speech, or are we going to define a new notion of freedom that includes the right to be transgender but excludes the right to express right wing opinions. [0] https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- cactusface 11y ago
  If I understand what you're saying, that's an interesting point. With a smaller government and less regulation, corporations tend to have more influence over your day to day freedoms. When there isn't much choice or variety when it comes to picking corporations - such as your choice of online social network - then sometimes it doesn't mean very much that in theory the governments grant you much more freedom.
  - JesperRavn 11y ago
    Yes, that was one part of the point I was making. The other is that the left want to have it both ways. They want to argue that because of the point you made, corporations have a duty to provide the same kind of freedoms that governments are required to allow in public forums. On the other hand, when right wingers are censored by corporations, they deny that there is any duty for a private corporation to provide a venue for people to express speech that the corporation doesn't allow. EDIT: e.g. jjaredsimpson's downvoted comment would probably not be downvoted if this article was about a "racist" post being removed from facebook.
    - cactusface 11y ago
      I don't really think "the left" and "the right" are useful categories, unless you want to talk about people who don't think for themselves, which granted is a lot of people. I think it's perfectly acceptable to demand that some kinds of speech be allowed on Facebook and the rest prohibited - Hacker News functions well enough with restrictions on speech - but it's a total misunderstanding of the legal system in the US to demand it under the first amendment. And to say that the first amendment applies in one case but not the other is hypocritical, yes.
sigmagerta 11y ago
Everyone seems to miss the simple solution proposed by the author. If the goal is authentication, ask friends. If, say, 30% of your friends (at least 3) confirm they know you by that name IRL that should be enough. They are your friends, if you need to show your ID to someone, ley it be someone you can trust. FWIW, linkedin does a similar thing, suspending accounts until ot receives a gov't issued photo id with the id number and birthdate. Same solution (ask the connected "friends" in linked!) works. At least provide friend-auth as an option. It's good enough to restore access if you lose it, why not for name recognition?
mirimir 11y ago
Anyone can use as many pseudonymous Facebook accounts as they want, if they're willing to spend enough money. Most simply, they can pay employees, consultants, homeless people, etc, etc. Or they can buy fake identities wholesale, including documentation. And those are the folks who arguably do the most damage on Facebook: spammers, scammers, etc, etc. Funny, isn't it?
yawaramin 11y ago
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the product, you are the product.
SixSigma 11y ago
I share this problem. They locked me out until I changed it or proved it. In The UK names are legally fluid. To the police you must tell them "the name by which you are known" not your birth certificate. So I can go to prison with less ID than I can post on Facebook. I had used my old family name: McNutty and Facebook don't like that. Our family name was changed to Nutty and then Nutt as being Irish was a negative (the Mc) and then Nutty was slang for crazy. But I have gone back to our roots. So I changed it to an even faker name, similar in tone to Mike Hunt, in order to log in that day. But after I pressed "yes I'm sure" they said "thank you, please note: you will never be able to change it" so I am stuck with a stupid name. Hahaha joke's on them.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rhinoceraptor 11y ago
> Our speech right (...) is expansive and it doesn’t stop at (...) a website’s login page. You don't have free speech rights in a private venue. If you invite me to dinner at your house and I insult your mother, you have every right to kick me out.
- kuschku 11y ago
  If the site is having a monopoly due to driving competitors illegally out of business (compare internet.org, 0.facebook.com), then the site is automatically treated like a governmental monopoly, meaning it can be legally forced to secure people’s rights similar to a governmental institution. Same reason why the EU can have such strict laws about Google. The author should just go to the EU, here the author would have a better chance at succeeding.
- 1ris 11y ago
  If you own every house in town I should have that right the insult your mother in one of these. The idea that one has not rights if one is on property one does not own is absurd. In 1939, Justice Owen Josephus Roberts stated that "use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges [...] of citizens." Facebook is a public place by all means. Proably even more so than a street.
Wildgoose 11y ago
I've just had a similar problem with Quora. My surname is "Wildgoose". It happens to be one of the oldest English surnames from when people were given names after animal attributes. Geese were guard animals, and I have an ancestor known for his wariness. And so Quora demanded I stop using "David Wildgoose" and insisted I use my real name. Which it is, of course. Appeals pointing out that animal names were common and giving well known examples like Ryan Gosling and Michael J. Fox got me nowhere and so I told them to delete my account. Only then did they relent and accept I was using my real name.
georgeecollins 11y ago
I have opened so many fake accounts on facebook (to test things in apps) and had no problems that I can't believe they care very much about fake accounts. It seems like: its ok to have a fake account to juice traffic, but please don't be obvious about it.
parnellm 11y ago
My girlfriend can't use her real name on Facebook that is because she is trying to hide from her crazy father in law and his rapist son, who raped her when she was 3! This is crazy, she can't feel safe on Facebook because of there stupid real name requirement crap! Now NO accounts can be made without an ID being required to be submitted.
parnellm 11y ago
My girlfriend can't use her real name on Facebook that is because she is trying to hide from her crazy father in law and his rapist son, who raped her when she was 3! This is crazy, she can't feel safe on Facebook because of there stupid real name requirement crap! Now NO accounts can be made without an ID being required to be submitted.

54 points by rl3 11y ago

Eh, you want to use a free service and get mad when they dictate terms. This is why I don't use Facebook as a primary online presence. I don't give them all my data, and locations, and relationships, and baby pictures, etc. Author is just making a play at getting special treatment if her whiny article goes viral. Don't depend on things you don't control.

danso 11y ago
It seems you're getting downvoted even though you are mostly right (some people might have considered "whiny" to be unnecessarily pejorative and unhelpful). I have the same mindset...I like Facebook, a lot. I haven't yet reached the point of burnout, but that's because when I am in a negative mood -- which apparently is a bad time to be on Facebook because you subject yourself to a constant stream of your friends' happiness -- I log out. I actually set my password to a random arrangement of my fingers smacking the keyboard, which I copy-paste from a text file, and I move that file somewhere that's just annoying enough that I can't reflexively just recopy-paste the password. It's not hard to retrieve, and I can always reset my password...but it's annoying enough that the only time I'll go back on to facebook is when I really want to go back. But how to practice self-control and etc. is tangential to the OP's point. It's a little more complicated than that but I think much of it does boil down to cost and security. The pseudonym policy cuts both ways: it inconveniences those who have good reasons to not want to be easily found. But it also inconveniences those who use anonymity to abuse people. And when you're targeted by such people, you'll appreciate that flag button. So Facebook has to deal with both kinds of flagging. How does it do that so that it's not just a flimsy process that a troll can dodge, and yet not be overly burdensome to the innocent? Well, the answer is not (well, not yet, anyway), "more machine learning". The OP wants a (more) human decision and FB apparently thinks such a process is too burdensome to scale.
Retra 11y ago
If people didn't depend on things they didn't control, the economy would probably collapse and we'd all be hunters and gatherers again.
- cactusface 11y ago
  Well said. Also, there would be no interpersonal relationships.
peteretep 11y ago
There's this idea bandied about that Internet access is a human right. There are certain services — currently centralised — that are large enough to start to be thought of as utilities. My family, friends, and colleagues are 100% bought in to Facebook. Family reunions, and literally every social event I go to (except weddings) are coordinated via Facebook. Friends and families announce engagements, deaths, and major life events through it. I don't know the email addresses and phone numbers for many of my friends, because it all goes through FB Messenger. I don't live in the same city as many old friends, and I travel a lot, and I know when they're in town and vice versa through FB. This is not my choice. This is th collective choice made by friends and family. Stepping away from Facebook would mean my in-person social life would significantly diminish. I understand that some people's lives don't work that way, or they have fifteen friends from high school and three family members who are the only people they coordinate with regularly. Family alone accounts for 50 connections for me, and people I see in person at least once a month another 200. There comes a point where we figure out that Facebook and Twitter are monopoly utilities, and need regulation as such. I can't sever my ties with Facebook in any meaningful way, and it seems odd that they should be able to do the same to me; my water provider can't cut me off, and my electricity provider can't either without legal recourse — that Facebook can seems odd.

time4hn 11y ago

When this happened to me I just provided a fake (photoshopped) ID with my pseudonym and they accepted it.

thaumaturgy 11y ago
That was my thinking too -- if I had a Facebook account, and this happened, I'd just shop a couple things together, print them back out, and give them the finger while scanning them back in.
fiatjaf 11y ago
"just".
danso 11y ago
i actually think that's a pretty reasonable process. I'm assuming that the verification process is light...maybe there's a offshore human who goes through a queue and eyeballs each submission? Either way, there's no way that that person has knowledge of what each countries/states IDs look like. So they might err on the side of reasonable caution. If you're a threatened person, and yet you still need to be on Facebook...then the time it takes to Photoshop something will be insignificant to the apparent benefits you get from Facebook. For the troll? Not so much...getting to be an asshole is not the strongest incentive to jump through the hoops.
SomeCallMeTim 11y ago
I have a friend who unfortunately has the same name as a movie star. She sent in her ID and they still wouldn't let her have her own name. To this day she has an account with her name misspelled.
mythealias 11y ago
I think that is an other can of worms. I would assume there will be some law to not allow that esp if it is a govt. issued document. Right now they might not be connected to govt database, but if they ever do then one can be in unnecessary trouble. All for an useless (imo) account.
pluma 11y ago

DiabloD3 11y ago

I support people leaving Facebook forever. Facebook is selling you as the product, and does not care about making your life easier or better, or making it easier to connect with friends and family. I agree with the article's stance on how Facebook enables stalkers to stalk their victims, and the very nature of Facebook makes it easy for them to do that. If you are at risk of such things, please do not have a Facebook account. With the example of being homosexual in a country where the punishment is death, foreign governments may be able to use Facebook to find you due to any number of security issues that have existed, exist currently, and will exist in the future, so please, just stay off Facebook altogether.

onedev 11y ago
> Facebook is selling you as the product, and does not care about making your life easier or better, or making it easier to connect with friends and family. Why can't it be that they can care about both of these things and acknowledge that it's a balance which can shift in either direction depending on the product they're putting out?
- dethstar 11y ago
  Because only one of those generates them profit and thus keeps them existing.
  - yuhong 11y ago
    But I don't think Facebook is that bad. I do think that Facebook isn't for everyone and real name policies are a bad idea.
sneak 11y ago
People who say this don't have a lot of friends, or don't care about their friends. Participating in facebook's quagmire is the only way to keep in touch with some people. It sucks, but it's true. You can argue with the ideological purity of it all you want, but it boils down to the fact that you must choose between purity, and staying in touch. Period.

imron 11y ago

I'm not sure why the author thinks Facebook should let her know who flagged the account. After going on about how stalking and protection from stalkers is important, surely she should be able to realise that protecting the reporter's privacy is important to prevent any sort of retaliation (not saying the author would do this, however it should be a cornerstone of any reporting/flagging policy to keep the flagger/reporter confidential). Besides, it might not have even been anyone she knows or knows well. 'Nads' is a pretty common slang term for male genitals so I can see why some random person might flag it as a fake name.

darkarmani 11y ago
> I'm not sure why the author thinks Facebook should let her know who flagged the account. Isn't that Facebook's whole argument thought? You should be accountable for your actions in real life by using your real name on facebook? If pseudonyms are against their philosophy, being fully anonymous should be even worse.
- mc32 11y ago
  I dont think so. Just like when you contact the feds to report something, they know who you are but you re sin anonymous to the person you're reporting. And in any event, like it or not, anyone with tos can pretty much establish whatever tos they want within the bounds of the law. But again, I don't see a discrepancy. On the other hand, as others will say, treat everything you say and do on fb as if it's broadcast and permanent.
caf 11y ago
Because leaving the snitch anonymous leaves the process wide open to be abused as a method of harassment?
- imron 11y ago
  No, it protects people from abuse/retaliation for flagging the account. It's also not really wide open for abuse either because at most it can happen once to one person, and then their details are on file and any future reports/flagging can be automated away/ignored.

danso 11y ago

I don't think FB is infallible in its policies and service implementation; for example, I think Eric Meyer was 100% on point with his (very calm and empathetic) essay, "Inadvertent Algorithmic Cruelty" [1] That said, while I don't think the OP is wrong to feel upset or worried, but what she wants can be done without equal unintended negative consequence. A couple things stuck out: 1. When Facebook took one user’s pseudonym away, an abuser showed up to events that person had RSVP’d to before the name was changed 2. Perhaps the most frustrating part of this is that the person who flags your account is afforded more privacy than you are. Even when it’s a matter of personal safety, Facebook will not reveal the accuser. ----------- 1. This is easy: don't RSVP for public events. Or don't do so in such a way that requires Facebook. Though I concede that there may be some events that logistically require Facebook login (through some 3rd party service, like Eventbrite)...I guess, don't go to those? Or privately call the event? Either way, the OP describes a drastic situation in which a stalker is so committed that he/she kept searching for the victim, even after early searches returned no results (because the victim had a pseudonym). OK, besides the possibility that, just maybe, the situation has elevated to the point where police should be involved...the more disturbing part is that the victim thinks a pseudonym is sufficient security-through-obscurity. No. Just no. If you have a pseudonym, and you insist on using a recognizable photo, and just a few of your friends have their profile public enough to show listed friends...then a committed stalker has everything they need to find you. 2. And this is an easier objection to rebut: the OP sees no downside to Facebook exposing the identities of accusers? Really? [1] http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2014/12/24/inadvertent-algorithmic-cruelty/ http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2014/12/24/inadvertent-alg...

yuhong 11y ago

Personally, I agree that real name policies are not a good idea. Fixing the problems with using real names is a better idea, though often not easy.

foopants 11y ago

I've never used my real name on Facebook. I suspect most people have at least one fake name account.

pavedwalden 11y ago
I don't think most people have multiple Facebook accounts.
- cactusface 11y ago
  I don't think most people have even one Facebook account.

JesperRavn 11y ago

The article critique Facebook on free speech grounds, and yet when people on the political right bring up free speech, they are direct to this [0] cartoon. So which is it? Are big companies going to be bound be free speech requirements that allow right wing free speech, or are we going to define a new notion of freedom that includes the right to be transgender but excludes the right to express right wing opinions. [0] https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

cactusface 11y ago
If I understand what you're saying, that's an interesting point. With a smaller government and less regulation, corporations tend to have more influence over your day to day freedoms. When there isn't much choice or variety when it comes to picking corporations - such as your choice of online social network - then sometimes it doesn't mean very much that in theory the governments grant you much more freedom.
- JesperRavn 11y ago
  Yes, that was one part of the point I was making. The other is that the left want to have it both ways. They want to argue that because of the point you made, corporations have a duty to provide the same kind of freedoms that governments are required to allow in public forums. On the other hand, when right wingers are censored by corporations, they deny that there is any duty for a private corporation to provide a venue for people to express speech that the corporation doesn't allow. EDIT: e.g. jjaredsimpson's downvoted comment would probably not be downvoted if this article was about a "racist" post being removed from facebook.
  - cactusface 11y ago
    I don't really think "the left" and "the right" are useful categories, unless you want to talk about people who don't think for themselves, which granted is a lot of people. I think it's perfectly acceptable to demand that some kinds of speech be allowed on Facebook and the rest prohibited - Hacker News functions well enough with restrictions on speech - but it's a total misunderstanding of the legal system in the US to demand it under the first amendment. And to say that the first amendment applies in one case but not the other is hypocritical, yes.

sigmagerta 11y ago

Everyone seems to miss the simple solution proposed by the author. If the goal is authentication, ask friends. If, say, 30% of your friends (at least 3) confirm they know you by that name IRL that should be enough. They are your friends, if you need to show your ID to someone, ley it be someone you can trust. FWIW, linkedin does a similar thing, suspending accounts until ot receives a gov't issued photo id with the id number and birthdate. Same solution (ask the connected "friends" in linked!) works. At least provide friend-auth as an option. It's good enough to restore access if you lose it, why not for name recognition?

mirimir 11y ago

Anyone can use as many pseudonymous Facebook accounts as they want, if they're willing to spend enough money. Most simply, they can pay employees, consultants, homeless people, etc, etc. Or they can buy fake identities wholesale, including documentation. And those are the folks who arguably do the most damage on Facebook: spammers, scammers, etc, etc. Funny, isn't it?

yawaramin 11y ago

Remember kids, if you're not paying for the product, you are the product.

SixSigma 11y ago

I share this problem. They locked me out until I changed it or proved it. In The UK names are legally fluid. To the police you must tell them "the name by which you are known" not your birth certificate. So I can go to prison with less ID than I can post on Facebook. I had used my old family name: McNutty and Facebook don't like that. Our family name was changed to Nutty and then Nutt as being Irish was a negative (the Mc) and then Nutty was slang for crazy. But I have gone back to our roots. So I changed it to an even faker name, similar in tone to Mike Hunt, in order to log in that day. But after I pressed "yes I'm sure" they said "thank you, please note: you will never be able to change it" so I am stuck with a stupid name. Hahaha joke's on them.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rhinoceraptor 11y ago

> Our speech right (...) is expansive and it doesn’t stop at (...) a website’s login page. You don't have free speech rights in a private venue. If you invite me to dinner at your house and I insult your mother, you have every right to kick me out.

kuschku 11y ago
If the site is having a monopoly due to driving competitors illegally out of business (compare internet.org, 0.facebook.com), then the site is automatically treated like a governmental monopoly, meaning it can be legally forced to secure people’s rights similar to a governmental institution. Same reason why the EU can have such strict laws about Google. The author should just go to the EU, here the author would have a better chance at succeeding.
1ris 11y ago
If you own every house in town I should have that right the insult your mother in one of these. The idea that one has not rights if one is on property one does not own is absurd. In 1939, Justice Owen Josephus Roberts stated that "use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges [...] of citizens." Facebook is a public place by all means. Proably even more so than a street.

Wildgoose 11y ago

I've just had a similar problem with Quora. My surname is "Wildgoose". It happens to be one of the oldest English surnames from when people were given names after animal attributes. Geese were guard animals, and I have an ancestor known for his wariness. And so Quora demanded I stop using "David Wildgoose" and insisted I use my real name. Which it is, of course. Appeals pointing out that animal names were common and giving well known examples like Ryan Gosling and Michael J. Fox got me nowhere and so I told them to delete my account. Only then did they relent and accept I was using my real name.

georgeecollins 11y ago

I have opened so many fake accounts on facebook (to test things in apps) and had no problems that I can't believe they care very much about fake accounts. It seems like: its ok to have a fake account to juice traffic, but please don't be obvious about it.

parnellm 11y ago

My girlfriend can't use her real name on Facebook that is because she is trying to hide from her crazy father in law and his rapist son, who raped her when she was 3! This is crazy, she can't feel safe on Facebook because of there stupid real name requirement crap! Now NO accounts can be made without an ID being required to be submitted.

parnellm 11y ago