Facebook was made large by the fact that you can find people you used to know, or haven't spoken to in a while, or aren't that close to.
You can find anyone, it's easy.
Removing the real names policy does away with that, and I would say seriously threaten's facebook's business/growth/future. If you don't know your old girlfriend or your cousin or your highschool bandmate's username, how are you going to get in touch with them?
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, or that I think facebook should have real names, but I'm saying that I seriously doubt they are going to change that policy because it'd cost them too much in the long term.
EDIT: People, I understand the arguments against real names. Facebook's counterargument is money. Which argument do you think they support and will listen to?
Downvoting me is crass, I'm not even stating a position, I'm just stating the obvious reasons for Facebook's continuing denial of a chosen-name policy.
First, the most common use of a "chosen name" policy would be to let you find someone by the name they actually use - stage name, pen name, drag name, or unofficially changed name.
Second, the less common but equally important use of a chosen name policy would be to make it hard to find someone who doesn't want to be found eg: by an abusive, dangerous ex.
That can all be dealt with by making your profile private, and not public. Additionally, you simply block the bad/dangerous/stalking party (assuming you are aware of them).
I see countless individuals making their Facebook profiles entirely public, and it's quite frankly scary. At that point they have no control over what the internet sees of them. You can't even change it after the fact, as it's probably been indexed in search engines and cached in internet archives.
Abusers make new accounts, and they search you from public computers. Abusers are human, they can think around incomplete protections. Honestly I'm personally of the opinion that the best way to deal with abusive people is to shoot them, several times, and possibly stake and burn the corpse, but the law gets grumpy. So second best is taking a new name and making a new life, and I don't agree that people ought to have vanish themselves from the internet just to preserve Facebook's fetish for government-issued names.
That view is incredibly short sighted. People get better at being good people and killing them instantly destroys and chance that they can become better people. Killing them also doesn't allow for mistakes or for learning. Also what about the people dependent on the person who is abusing for survival. The abused should never be exposed to abuse but if their abuser provides for them and is killed then they have to go through another hellish situation by being homeless. I don't know what the solution is and what we have in place is barely better than killing them but it does sometimes allow for the growth of individuals.
I was thinking something along those lines. I think the strenght of Facebooks is that people use their real name. I wasn't even thinking about searchability, but that's potentially going right out the window.
3rd. parties that are using Facebook for logins are frequently using/allowing Facebook precisely because you're relative sure that it's "a real person". I know that's one reason why we're using it.
I might be wrong, but it certainly seems like people are less likely to engage in trolling or extremely bad behaviour if things are linked to Facebook, and I suspect that the real name policies are the reason.
It's not that I don't understand some peoples need for privacy or the use of pseudonyms, but you are playing in Facebooks walled garden, they make the rules. You don't have to be on Facebook, nor are you entitled to a Facebook account. Maybe you would be wise to avoid Facebook if you have the need to hide your identity.
> certainly seems like people are less likely to engage in trolling or extremely bad behaviour if things are linked to Facebook
People do jihadi recruiting on Facebook, despite obviously being under surveillance. I think we'd need figures to back up this idea that "real name" policies reduce abuse, rather than content policies, codes of conduct and IP bans.
I try to point out that real names policies only affect
1.) People who aren't using a fake but real-sounding name
2.) People who say something that someone else doesn't like (this can be everyone from a future employer who found something not very PC to jihadis who want to kill you)
3.) People who are smart enough to understand the above (I see grown up people shouting about how certain countries should be nuked, yes. signed Full Name, Teacher at such and such childrens school)
But if I want a fake account, it is no problem to pick a name that is a totally standard name that won't raise any suspicion, so the real-name policy doesn't add anything.
Facebook profiles use names that look reasonable, but they aren't necessarily real names.
I have at least three friends who don't use their official names in normal life, and have Facebook profiles under slightly modified versions of their names [1] to make them look "normal". (Contriving an example, change "Tall David" to "Taal David" and everyone that knows Tall David can work it out.)
[1] name = what they call themselves, as far as I'm concerned
That ability to call yourself something at your option is more than just a name - it's the very definition of privacy in the modern age.
It used to be that you had privacy when you moved away from society. Acquiring privacy was mostly an exercise in hiding information. In the modern world where logfiles exist forever and the difficulty of getting away form all network-connected microphones is rising fast.
When you know you cannot hide from eavesdroppers, the tactics switch form concealment to steganography. You have the possibility of privacy if-and-only-if you have the effective capacity to misrepresent yourself.
Unfortunately, real-name policies are de facto attacks on privacy and the right of to chose how to present yourself to the world. Worse, suggests a new interpretation for the "real-names make social interaction more polite" argument, societies without privacy resist experimentation because of chilling effects.
As for the proposed workaround of using a fake name: I guess they are supposed simply hope that Facebook doesn't ask about their name, everybody they know doesn't tell them the truth
This is a very good point. Perhaps their drive for a "real names" policy is not for the actual real name, but rather to not have an obviously fake name. E.g. in your scenario an obviously fake name would be "Taal TheSexMan David". That's the sort of stuff that killed-off MySpace, if you ask me.
A relative of a friend of mine uses a pseudonym to escape harassment they suffered due to being gay. They're Facebook friend of their parents, their sibs, and other relatives.
How does that work exactly? They were already harassed, so the harassers already knew their real name, I take it? How would abolishing the real-names policy help them in this scenario? Genuinely confused.
> the harassers already knew their real name, I take it? How would abolishing the real-names policy help
Without the policy they don't have to use their real name, which means harassers can't find them (as easily) on Facebook. The ability to use a real name that is not your actual name is just a clunky workaround for the policy, not a proof that the policy works.
> Facebook's counterargument is money. Which argument do you think they support and will listen to?
The heavy hand of law! I don't understand why people are so worried about introducing regulation. Asking to argue against money is like asking to argue against gun. You can't have a meaningful argument with such an entity, because convincing on arguments assumes the other party is not a psychopath.
That aside, there are many options. I think "having a choice" is a good argument. Or they could allow to actually use pseudonym which you could link your real name or not (so the FB would know the connection but other people wouldn't).
I don't think that's an issue, they have enough data that as soon as you can find one person they can probably extrapolate the rest of them. It's kind of creepy but whatever.
You're asking the wrong question. You should ask the question of how forcing people to use their legal name instead of any old random arbitrary name they might make up equals less money.
And I think that's reasonably obvious. Facebook got to be as big as it is by forcing people to use their real names, so that all their acquaintances could find them easily.
Good, I'm glad this is getting traction. Seems like every week I read about another trans person or someone who uses a psuedonym in day-to-day life getting "reported" by some asshole and getting locked out of their Facebook, and Facebook seems uninterested in fixing the issue.
Honestly, it's heartbreaking, as someone who uses many Facebook open source projects, to talk to engineers at Facebook and find out how many don't know this is even an issue. It's certainly kept me from responding to FB recruitment emails.
It doesn't just affect people with pseudonyms, too. If you're from some ethnic background which has unusual names, if you have some uncommon or fake-sounding real name, you might also get tripped up.
I don't get this. This is a company, a product, which no one is forced to use.*
If you disagree, walk away and don't touch Facebook; there are trillions of other options out there to build community sites, some much, much better than FB. That is how you make a change, not by enforcing ideas on a company.
*ED.
For some situations I understand that it's inevitable - even schools use it as a generic broadcasting media nowadays. But for that, you can clearly use your 'real' name, can't you?
I don't get why you think the only options should be to agree entirely or walk away. If a company has a product which you mostly enjoy but which you think could be improved, is it not reasonable to complain to try to get them to improve it?
Not really; the only way to force companies is by spending your money somewhere else.
They just simply won't care while you're still making the same money for them.
Complaining is a signal that you're considering moving. Smart companies absolutely will care. It's usually far easier to keep an existing customer than to win them back after they leave.
I'm pretty sure pmlnr meant "the only way to peacefully/morally force companies is by spending your money somewhere else".
We all know violence and threat (what you suggest) works. Some of us are trying to decrease the amount of what you suggest in the world.
New legislation is a direct threat to companies, backed by the power of the government to fine and arrest those who disobey. Why go to such lengths when it's much easier just to stop going to Facebook? Only a perverse sadist would prefer legislation over ostracism.
> New legislation is a direct threat to companies, backed by the power of the government to fine and arrest those who disobey. Why go to such lengths when it's much easier just to stop going to Facebook? Only a perverse sadist would prefer legislation over ostracism.
Right, this is why the US is such a shiny beacon of safe products, consumer-friendliness, and consumer rights compared to the horrible European markets... :)
I always find this sentiment on HN so amusing. "Legislation hurts companies, we should all just ostracise/boycott companies instead!" despite all practical evidence suggesting that legislation actually gets things done. Like, I can actually get fast affordable internet here, unlike when I was in the US :)
I do think that legislation should be avoided if it's not necessary. If complaining or boycotting gets the job done, then that should be the first option. I'll never understand people who think we shouldn't complain or boycott. Surely this is just an exercise of one's right to free association? (Not saying you're objecting to them. But a lot of people seem to think that it's somehow wrong.)
On the other hand, if an issue is important and legislation can get the job done, we shouldn't shy away from it. To describe someone as "a perverse sadist" for wanting to legislate pseudonyms on social networks is bonkers.
True.
I've asked myself the question that if I do want to leave Facebook, but my 'friends' doesn't care and not willing to do any other form of communication, are they really my friends?
Are you saying it's fine that Facebook chooses to discriminate against GLBT+ people?
What happens if we sub in other minorities? "If black people disagree, walk away and don't touch Facebook"; "If Jews disagree, walk away and don't touch Facebook".
They're not discriminating against GLBT+ people, they're discriminating against people using pseudonyms. I can't show up to a job interview, use a fake name, and claim I'm being discriminated against...
> I can't show up to a job interview, use a fake name, and claim I'm being discriminated against...
You could if you're in the process of transitioning. (UK; the US needs to catch up).
And it's not a fake name. It's their name. You seem to think that people have this single thing which is their name - that might be true in the US (I dunno) but it's not true in many other places.
And because the US rules for changing names on documents are inconsistent a person may have a passport in one name but a driving licence in another.
> You seem to think that people have this single thing which is their name - that might be true in the US (I dunno) but it's not true in many other places.
Even people with one "real name" may have slight variations on it that they use. Many people use their nickname and don't show their middle name. If your name isn't written in Latin script, you might have the original script version and a romanised version, possibly even more than one romanised version. If you're Chinese, you might have a Western name alias which you're known by professionally.
You could probably go further — at most only HR need to know an official name, probably with a note on the file reminding them that it's confidential. That need only be revealed once you're accepting the job offer.
I have recently moved to Denmark, and several public or semi-public database systems have had special attention drawn to how my name might be used, and instructions to avoid certain uses. (For example, there seemed to be a special way to register in a municipality under an assumed name, to avoid stalkers etc.)
> And it's not a fake name. It's their name. You seem to think that people have this single thing which is their name - that might be true in the US (I dunno) but it's not true in many other places.
Not according to the current laws.
You may want to change the laws as well. ( No, I'm not cynical. )
> Most states in the United States follow the common law which permits name changing for non-fraudulent purposes. This is actually the most common method, since most women who marry do not petition a court under the statutorily prescribed method, but simply use a new name (typically the husband's, a custom which started under the theory of coverture where a woman lost her identity and most rights when she married).[2] Most state courts have held that a legally assumed name (i.e., for a non-fraudulent purpose) is a legal name and usable as their true name, though assumed names are often not considered the person's technically true name.[3]
In the US the different rules for getting a name changed on official documents sometimes leaves people with official documents in different names, so even if you restrict yourself to documents issued by US government authorities a person can have two names.
Yep. In my state to officially change your name all you have to do is start using the new name, though you'll end up putting both down on the "AKA" section of official documents.
Serious question - What's a fake name? Plenty of people go by names that aren't the same as on their official government ID, even childhood nicknames. Your name is whatever people call you. There's no reason why future employers need to know your "legal" name on a job interview. When you get a job you need to fill out some HR forms and that's basically extent of it. Your coworkers/boss/clients/customers aren't obligated to address you by what is on your government issued ID. Probably half my office goes by something different than what's on their government IDs. Many childhood nicknames and many middle names. Even commonly used diminutives - Peggy for Margaret for example; JP for John Paul; Dick for Richard. If my legal name is Margaret Samathia Jones and I put Peggy Jones on my resume is that going by a fake name? You may have changed your name at marriage and are addressed by that name in personal circles but still are addressed as your birth name in a professional circles in order to better preserve your professional contacts. In plenty of professions it is extremely common to establish yourself professionally under a stage name or pen name or other types of "fake" names. Your legal name may be "cutesy" so you are addressed professionally by an assumed name.
And nobody is having their Facebook account flagged for using "Peggy" instead of "Margaret," they're getting flagged for using "John TheSexMan Doe" instead of the "John Doe" or "Samantha Applebee" instead of "Mark Applebee." So it's a false comparison.
People are getting their facebook flagged for pen names, stage names, derby names, drag names, and other professional names. As well as names that are too common or not common enough, nicknames, and names that contain nouns, adjectives, or adverbs without regards to what shows up on their birth certificate. Not to mention Native American names or other "ethnic" or non-Anglo Saxon names or anything that looks "unusual" (such as, say, Picabo Street or Dick Trickle)
Look, if you have established yourself professionally as The Edge being forced to use facebook as David Howell Evans obviously isn't desirable to you especially if you want to use facebook to promote your works or other professional activities.
And who in the fuck cares if someone is using a feminine sounding name that appears to be masculine. Nobody (and I mean nobody) should be the gender police, seriously. I have a female friend who is named "Robert" anyways.
If you make your living as "The Edge" and your birth certificate says "David Howell Evans," the former is a Facebook page and the latter is a Facebook profile. That's pretty much always been the case and purpose of that distinction.
Pen/stage/derby/drag names are not real names and Facebook's policy has always been that you have to use your real name. This includes any sort of transition, in which case you should be required to use your real name until it's not your real name anymore.
I agree with this. Facebook is a service with a business model. I'm all for people who have legitimate concerns trying to convince the company to adjust policy, but I don't like the way pressure groups try to strong-arm companies.
In this case, though, I will make one exception: As my extended family got FB accounts they started posting family pictures that included me, and identified me by name. If you go back through enough posts you could get a pretty good idea what my habits are just by analyzing what other people have posted.
If they hear them from someone they're actively attempting to recruit, I expect it would carry more weight. At the very least it will make FBs HR department aware of the issue. As the parent commenter said, there are a lot of people at FB who aren't even aware of these issues.
I don't think so. I regularly response to Amazon recruiters with "your reputation for treatment of your developers is poor, and therefore I'm not interested." It helps provide a data point to drive change, something that someone can point to when arguing with their higher-ups.
I'm somewhat optimistic that Facebook will fix this someday, and I didn't want to end on a recruitment blacklist or something in that case. Still, you're right, next time I get one I'll make it clear that this is the biggest reason I'm uninterested, and that if they fix it they should feel free to contact me again :)
Oh yeah. Just looking at my chat contact sidebar (is that what it's called? the thing on the right of the Facebook homepage), 3/15 friends aren't using their face in their profile pic.
I've got some negative votes as well. It could be that people here are REALLY into Facebook. Or there might be a slight chance that some of the users here work for FB and are slightly partial...
They should just re-introduce the ability that they removed about a year or two ago: ability to remove your name from being searchable on facebook, unless the user knows your actual facebook.com/url.
Someone mentioned that FB may want to be the world's identity broker. I personally hate the idea, but if that's the case, they'll hardly give up their policy. Governmental ID brokers have exceptions to protect someone's identity. If FB wants to be taken seriously they should implement similar possibilities. The next one will then be please send us a police report stating you are in need of etc etc.
I am not well versed in law at all but that sounds pretty fair. I guess FB doesnt behave as an org you can apply with whatever name you want, but more as a gov which wants to keep track of its citizens. They can also do so because their members have few alternatives, just like citizens of countries.
The whole reason Facebook has any enforceable standards as a community is because of that policy. The community standards uphold themselves because there are be real-life social consequences for saying something hateful / sexually harassing somebody / posting pornography - the list goes on. Having to use your real name on Facebook is what keeps you accountable. If you want to see Facebook turn into a sewer, get rid of the real names policy. Witness 4Chan and YouTube comments.
They should make exceptions for certain cases, such as when someone is avoiding harassment, or has changed names due to being transgender, or lives under an authoritarian regime. But they can and should do so on a case-by-case basis.
No, no. Not having your given or legal name associated with your online presence does not automatically make you a troll, nor does having them associated make people less likely to watch what they say.
For example, me. I've been very careful about what I say even though my real name and my alias are not associated. I care about what people think about trajing, even if they can't trace it back to me in real life.
As for the second part, I've read facebook comments in political articles. I will never make that mistake again.
I don't use facebook, but I understand where these people are coming from and support them.
Just the fact that facebook asks an official ID is maddening.
They aren't a governmental agency. In Portugal the official ID card has your SS number, fiscal number, and health number. I don't want facebook to know any of those, seriously.
You're projecting a bit, I think. I disagree with their policy even though it doesn't affect me personally. For many communities there's simply no alternative to FB right now. Why should I just expect affected people to leave instead of expecting the problem to be fixed?
Why should I? That alternative is FB, without bad rules.
Facebook already won with features and has approximately all the people already registered. From the communities I know, nobody would consider switching to a different service. It would just be a worse FB with fewer people on it.
Yes I have. It works for tech communities. It works for topic discussions. It works for many things. What it would completely fail for is a worldwide group of people who have a lot of personal connections between them, organise and announce semi-public events (100s a year), have local groups (1000s), and share a lot of information within one of those relationships. Also ~100% of them are already on FB and successfully do all of the above.
So again, no. Monopoly is bad, Facebook is bad/good depending on use case, sure. But this is not possible to migrate to a forum. Very simplified situation exists for developers - with the personal part reduced and with very limited local groups you have this information spread over twitter / local boards / meetup.com / etc. anyway. If I wanted to check events in some area, it's actually not trivial. It would be also a complete pain to centralise. You know what I do for the other use case? Post to facebook, share it in a group that's approximately in the same area in the world, and I get all information I need in a few minutes / hours: links to specific groups, specific events, and if needed I've got FB messenger contact to people who posted it.
You can find anyone, it's easy.
Removing the real names policy does away with that, and I would say seriously threaten's facebook's business/growth/future. If you don't know your old girlfriend or your cousin or your highschool bandmate's username, how are you going to get in touch with them?
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, or that I think facebook should have real names, but I'm saying that I seriously doubt they are going to change that policy because it'd cost them too much in the long term.
EDIT: People, I understand the arguments against real names. Facebook's counterargument is money. Which argument do you think they support and will listen to?
Downvoting me is crass, I'm not even stating a position, I'm just stating the obvious reasons for Facebook's continuing denial of a chosen-name policy.