I'm going to go a limb here and assume it's a proof of concept. The article is pretty thorough at explaining the process, which can be refined if the user decides to go further.
I've had a clearly fake name on Facebook for years. A couple weeks ago I got message from one of their reps, letting me know that there was an issue about my name, and that it was currently being reviewed. I had no intention to link that account to my real name, as it was mostly political whining and interaction with a few close friends. I basically told them that I wouldn't change the name and that they should just delete the account. A couple days later they responded by telling me that my name did not break TOS and that I was free to use my fake name. So I'm not even sure that policy is even enforced, steered... maybe.
Because real name policies are like putting a band-aid on a cancer patient. The biggest difference is that anonymity on the internet is a feature not a bug. If your service relies on having real names to prevent TOS violations you're going to have a bad time.
I'm pretty sure I was reported by someone I disagreed with in the comments of a political post. My point was that I bypassed "proving" because I refused to comply to their rule.
I've seen no evidence of different treatment based on race. Would you mind citing your source?
Yes. For example, Begay is a common Navajo surname. Others use traditional names (such as Standing Bear, for example). Odds are the people at facebook making these decisions have never known anyone with such a name.
Well odds are that these people at not even in the USA and would have even less idea or impose there cultures pov - this may explain why the is real name policy seems to be targeted at LBGT people.
At least if the real name policy wasn't required they could go by an inoffensive alternate name... but I think it's also unfair to police real names like that.
An interesting footnote is that one of the examples in that article was a Facebook employee and the company still treated them like shit.
Constipation has sometimes produced the bloodiest scenes. My grandfather, who died a centenarian, was Cromwell's apothecary; he has often told me that Cromwell had not been to the toilet for a week when he had his king's head cut off. - Voltaire
Weren't they recently caught silently logging GPS coordinates and transmitting them once the phone was connected to a computer? How is it not in there interest to utilize personalized data?
Other than obeying the law and paying taxes, he has no responsibility to the city. Why has it become so fashionable to project obligation onto others? The guy is creating 20+ jobs this year, what more would he need to do to fulfill this "responsibility to the overall city?"
Where does someone's butterfly effect responsibility end?
If I create a startup and hire 20 people, and some of those 20 people like to eat some particular type of food for team lunches, and their presence at that eatery makes the lunch line longer for other patrons, do I have some obligation to apologize to those patrons for the long line?
If my 20 employees don't elect my $500 stipend to live within walking distance, what pennance would adequate for me to apologize to citizens of earth for the increased CO2 emissions from their driving and to the citizens of San Francisco for the extra 40 vehicle trips that would be foist upon the city? For good measure, he's paying people $500 a month extra to live within walking distance. For this, he gets a river of crap?!
At some point, companies employ people, those people get paid, those people spend their money consuming other items, but the company has no responsibility to apologize for that 3rd level effect consumption, IMO.
When you've already hobbled the market mechanism on the seller side the only thing that seems to make sense is to try to browbeat the amorphous tide of the demand side, i.e. shouting at the ocean.
