Facebook Tweaks Its "Real Names" Policy (thestack.com) 114
An anonymous reader writes: Facebook has announced a US-based trial of minor changes to its controversial process of name verification, apparently in response to last year's controversy over LGBT and transgender users who were penalized for determining their own identity.
The post about the changes reveals that users who report someone else for using a 'fake' name can now provide more background information, and that users who have been asked to confirm their identity by uploading documents, such as a passport or birth certificate, can now also provide additional background information for Facebook to take into account.
This article argues that a frivolous social network should not be allowed to co-opt government-level identity checks simply because it began life in the university arena, and has telescoped the necessary supervision of teenagers transiting to adulthood into a far wider and more diverse network of users.
The post about the changes reveals that users who report someone else for using a 'fake' name can now provide more background information, and that users who have been asked to confirm their identity by uploading documents, such as a passport or birth certificate, can now also provide additional background information for Facebook to take into account.
This article argues that a frivolous social network should not be allowed to co-opt government-level identity checks simply because it began life in the university arena, and has telescoped the necessary supervision of teenagers transiting to adulthood into a far wider and more diverse network of users.
A right? (Score:4, Insightful)
is a disposition towards citizen identity that is usually only allowed to governments
I don't get this idea that doing this level of check is somehow a restricted right. No one is being forced to use facebook, if they want to require users send them a blood sample, their left tooth, and 5 million dollars to keep their account, I don't see how they shouldn't be "allowed" to demand this. At what points does facebook become something to which fair access to is governed by law (not snark, really curious.. I know there are laws regarding say, restricting access to a restaurant, so possible some of those apply?)
Personally I strongly dislike this recent trend of pushing the use of your real identity, especially with recent actual occurrences of people being harassed in real life due to online activities. It's one of the many reasons I choose not to use facebook (the other being I find whatever voodoo they do to recommend friends disturbing, I signed up with fake info awhile back and it started recommending people I actually did know from both family and work.. which honestly creeped me the fuck out). I don't feel like my rights are being violated though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Libertarian in me says they're not violating any law and you are not actually required by law to make use of their services. Thus, it is their property. They can require you only type with your left thumb, type without capital letters, use a real name, provide proof, or pay any sum they insist they want you to pay. You are, of course, free to not make use of their services. Until such time as they're forced, by law, to be used then they're free to make any and all stupid choices they want that are still
Re:A right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you do, and many of the choices that you have involve attempting to persuade Facebook to change its policies.
You are free to publicly protest their rules. You are free to state your case about why you think Facebook's requirements are ridiculous. You are free to publicly shame them if you believe they are acting in a way contrary to social moires or the moral sensibilities of their target audience. You have the right to tell the world that Facebook is just a web site and maybe it should get over itself.
You even have the right to rant in Slashdot comments. Truly, the Internet is a grand place to be.
Re: (Score:2)
But of course. I don't believe I implied you didn't have a right to complain.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> You can opt-out of participation.
Considering that facebook builds shadow profiles [ibtimes.com] of people who have chosen not to create accounts [makeuseof.com] I have to call bullshit - a big steaming pile of bullshit - on you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> That's not you participating. You can opt out.
That is a meaningless, empty statement. There is no opting out, facebook won't even acknowledge that they have built a shadow profile to track you much less let you "opt out." Don't be one of those ideologues who can't see the real world for what it is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> I repeat, that's not you participating.
Correct. It is not me participating it is them tracking me without my consent, without my participation and without any recourse.
>. If you don't want to play by their rules, don't use their site.
Fuck off you dumbshit. I AM NOT USING THEIR SITE. Ca-fucking-piche? Read the goddamn links, I didn't put them there for my benefit.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not you. That's some dumb ass company using your name. Don't participate. If you want to go further then block their tracking cookies, block their scripts, opt out. If I can figure out how to block their shit, you can. Don't participate, don't join their site, don't give them content of your own volition, don't give them views, and don't use any services that require their services. It's *really* not that hard. Use something like uMatrix or NoScript if it bugs you. Follow the APK and use hosts files.
Re: (Score:1)
That too. I've even asked family members to avoid that. Let me be in peace.
I also figured out where the confusion was with a prior post. You can opt out. No, you can opt out of participating. That seems to have not been clear with my earlier post. I'd assumed it was clear but, given the replies and some thought, I think that's probably where the confusion lies. Don't take part, you don't have to. The profile isn't you. That's just data in storage somewhere. Give 'em as little as you can and move along.
Re: (Score:1)
Not only do I manage but many of the people I know, most of whom are not Libertarians, do not participate. You don't have to. It's not that hard to go through life without it. I'm not *that* far from normal.
Err... As to the fiat currency? I'm not sure why we should do away with the idea but I do participate in the barter system quite frequently. That's a personal choice and probably not suitable for everyone so I'm not sure why you think I'd advocate such. Oh, wait, no - I'm not an extremist, really. I'm pr
Re:A right? (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that social network sites are becoming required for things, such as having a job, arranging meetings, group conversations, messaging, and other items.
I know I lost a job interview because I didn't have a Twitter account, and the interview called me a "fossil" because of that. (I really don't need Twitter because I have better things to do with my time) So, social media is important, and is moving to almost a message board for everyone.
It gets me wondering about someone setting up a social network, registering as a common carrier (so they are not responsible for people's hate speech.) Then, with a reputation system (person "A" is a friend of person "B" who sets person "A"'s opinion weight at 1.0. Person trolls person "A" who blocks person "C"... person "B" then auto-blocks person "C" as the reputation propagates.) Of course, something needs to be done about speech not protected by the 1A or equivalent (threats of bodily harm or damage), but with a reputation system in place, a troll would wind up completely ignored after a while as negative reputations propagate.
Re: (Score:1)
Requested, not really required. You have options. Stop letting people, including yourself, forget that.
Re: (Score:1)
I do not have an account. I still have a fine social life. Hell, I'm up early so I can finish up a few things and head to Florida in the morning. I'm not much of a hermit. I even have one of those real life girlfriends. And children - they have Facebook accounts. They email me or call me or, sometimes, we visit.
Re: (Score:1)
I have opted out. That shadow profile is not me. That's something somebody made up about me. I had no part in it, I took no part in it, I don't even care if they do it. I opted out. It's not hard. Do not participate if you do not like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Try explaining that to someone who uses that shadow profile that you claim is "not you" to make decisions - auto insurance, life insurance, job interview, etc. about you. Which anyone can legally do.
But really, why should you be required to defend yourself against something you did not choose to participate in in the first place? And what about decisions based on that profile that are made about you that never make it to your ears? You could be discriminated against through a process that does not involv
Re: (Score:1)
Don't bother explaining it to them. If they can't figure out that it is not you then screw 'em. I know loads of people who have done just fine. I've read two anecdotes of people who claim they did not get a job due to not having an account (though, judging by their post history - that might not be the reason). There's fuck all you can do about it, don't give 'em more data. Do not participate. Turn off the tracking crap, don't go, don't add to the pile.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I lost a job interview because I didn't have a Twitter account, and the interview called me a "fossil" because of that.
You were probably lucky not to get that job. A company dysfunctional enough to blacklist candidates without Twitter accounts -- and insult said candidates to their faces while doing it -- is not likely a company that would be fun to work for.
I have a Facebook account, which is getting used gradually less often due to Facebook's retreat from XMPP, though purple-facebook might bring the usage back up some. I've never had a Twitter account and still don't really understand the appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely that the company has a dysfunctional HR department, and the actual technical areas may be well-run and pleasant to work in. Besides, sometimes you need a job, and can't afford to be picky.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that if people had their real identity online, the internet would be a less hostile place because people would choose their words and their position more carefully. After all, if you write something you believe in, should you not be able to stand behind it? If you screw up, just back track your statement. After all, back tracking just means you learned something from the argument that you didn't know before. I've often back tracked my arguments on SlashDot. I've even sent apologies to users I beli
Re: (Score:2)
They're in a dominant position in their field. It's network effects: if I stop using Facebook I lose asynchronous access to some of my friends (who don't use email), I don't keep up with others, and generally wind up being cut off from a useful stream of information from friends and family. I lose a lot by switching to another social network.
If a company becomes a monopoly, and network effects tend to do that, it needs to be regulated.
Re: (Score:1)
We could argue that latter statement for quite some time but, suffice to say, don't let Facebook monopolize you. Yeah, you may lose something and you may gain something. I function just fine without it and I know many others who do the same.
Sorry for the delayed reply. Was back on the road.
Re: A right? (Score:1)
I live in Canada and up here the name you choose to go by can change on a daily basis with the only exception being when signing legal documents.
I'm glad I don't have Facebook. Tried it for the first time 6 months ago and used it for about 3 months before I realized I don't want to be exposed to how stupid and ignorant some of the people I associate with can be. I'm much happier being in the dark about it.
Re: A right? (Score:1)
Facebook's raison d'Ãtre is to provide a non-anonymous online forum. While plenty of people like me or whoever happens is reading this post, are happy to talk to "Anonymous Coward" or "donscarletti", there are many people who would rather not do that. Facebook is there for such people.
Many people I know have no Facebook profile whatsoever. I have a Facebook profile, on which I just share pictures from when I travel and sometimes write short updates about where I live and where I work. I do not write an
Re: (Score:3)
Many people I know have no Facebook profile whatsoever.
Sure they do, they just haven't claimed it yet. Facebook compiles as much information as it can to build dossiers about people who haven't signed up, and that "shadow profile" can be linked to their account if they do make one. The Belgian government recently banned this practice [nytimes.com], but the rest of us are stuck with it for now.
Re: A right? (Score:1)
I think my problem with it is the number of products and services that sort of need a facebook account- for instance, a lot of mobile games. In practice, you can make a fake account with a real sounding name, and you'll never be called on it- but that's a lame workaround.
It is their website and they can do with it what they want- but it's still shitty that by being successful they have a ton of really annoying things hooked into them.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is being forced to use facebook, if they want to require users send them a blood sample, their left tooth, and 5 million dollars to keep their account, I don't see how they shouldn't be "allowed" to demand this.
One could argue that given that the government has a monopoly on issuing certain kinds of documentation, there should be some legal limits on how that documentation can be used.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if there can be a compromise given... As of now, FB has an icon for people who have proven that the account has been vetted. Why not have the current ID vetting give another icon (or perhaps none at all), and then have a tier under that where people can create IDs at will... but it will be obvious to all comers that the person's name and ID is fictitious.
This would be basically how SSL certs are handled now. EV certs for the top tier, regular signed certs for most things, and the big warning if a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that there has not been a lawsuit over racism yet. Facebook requires you to enter two names (first and last), and for cultural reasons some people only have one. That discriminates against people from countries where one name is the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
I've also heard they discriminate against Asians. A FOAF (friend of a friend) told me that they kicked out someone named Fook Yew.
Re: (Score:1)
Personally I strongly dislike this recent trend of pushing the use of your real identity, especially with recent actual occurrences of people being harassed in real life due to online activities. It's one of the many reasons I choose not to use facebook (the other being I find whatever voodoo they do to recommend friends disturbing, I signed up with fake info awhile back and it started recommending people I actually did know from both family and work.. which honestly creeped me the fuck out). I don't feel like my rights are being violated though.
I have seen that. Presumably it is from your visiting their pages with that identity? That's all I can think, because I didn't have them in my contacts or anything.
It makes a lot of sense (Score:5, Insightful)
If their product is the users, you are attacking the heart of their business model by providing an incorrect name.
Re:It makes a lot of sense (Score:5, Insightful)
If their product is the users, you are attacking the heart of their business model by providing an incorrect name.
This. They are causing massive harm to individuals and society in several ways: careerwise (since social media is now checked by employers), by reducing social mobility (the same way), and in terms of chilling free speech. All so that they can sell your identity to advertisers, intelligence agencies, and data mining firms.
Re: (Score:1)
This. They are causing massive harm to individuals and society in several ways: careerwise (since social media is now checked by employers), by reducing social mobility (the same way), and in terms of chilling free speech. All so that they can sell your identity to advertisers, intelligence agencies, and data mining firms.
Last time I checked, using Facebook is voluntary. I am under no obligation to click any ad, and if I don't like one, I can mark it as repetitive/offensive/etc. If any employee tries to view my profile, the only thing they'll see is that I have one, if they can even guess that it's mine, since I don't use my photo for my profile. Stop pretending that using a private site is a right instead of a privilege.
Re: It makes a lot of sense (Score:1)
Nobody said it's a right. What was said is that it's harmful. It encourages self censorship and groupthink. Not using it cats suspicion in certain social and business settings. Not using it has an opportunity cost in terms of communicating with friends and family who are too technology ignorant to use something else.
I can and do choose not to use it and nothing will ever persuade me otherwise. Using it or any other social network is more harmful than not doing so to me, but one cannot pretend there isn'
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side, Facebook is very helpful for creating spare burner personas. If someone has a Facebook profile with a few stock photos and randomly liked posts most people and web sites seem to assume they are real. You can create a few of them so they have friends and to use later.
When you are finished with a persona, don't forget it kill it off and set up a memorial page. It makes the others look even more real when they like posts about friends dying.
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side, Facebook is very helpful for creating spare burner personas. If someone has a Facebook profile with a few stock photos and randomly liked posts most people and web sites seem to assume they are real. You can create a few of them so they have friends and to use later.
When you are finished with a persona, don't forget it kill it off and set up a memorial page. It makes the others look even more real when they like posts about friends dying.
The stupid part is Facebook has a huge problem with fake accounts spamming comment areas of news and other types of web sites that they can't seem to stop. Yet they go after their bread and butter.
They could easily solve this by saying "WE want to know who you are, but we don't care what your profile says." A good half of the people on my friends lists use fake or incomplete or names with nicknames in them. It's never been a problem. I either don't care who they are or already know who they are because I
Re: (Score:1)
Facebook has been slowly on the way out of my life. Not much more to go!
Re:It makes a lot of sense (Score:5, Interesting)
If their product is the users, you are attacking the heart of their business model by providing an incorrect name.
Yet in the United States it is entirely legal to adopt any name at all, for any reason you want, under certain restrictions (most having to do with how you interact with the government and sometimes banks - frequently because of government). There is absolutely no requirement that I use my birth-name, although there are some inconveniences. As far as my friends know, my bullshit made-up Facebook name is actually how I wish to be referred to.
Asking me to provide proof of my name is really asking me to produce documentation that corroborates my story: documentation I can easily (and legally) fabricate, or else may itself have been a fabrication that does not support my facebook identity. It seems like in our brave new digital age, the we should have our children change their identity every year to establish some history.
It is a total waste of time to continue down this road, my name is whatever I say it is. Until it comes time to pay taxes, then it's whatever my parents said it was on the day I was born.
Re:It makes a lot of sense (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a total waste of time to continue down this road, my name is whatever I say it is. Until it comes time to pay taxes, then it's whatever my parents said it was on the day I was born.
I don't know that the IRS cares either, as long as the TIN (taxpayer identification number) is correct and the numbers add up.
Facebook has made, and will continue to make, money from selling my demographic information, and companies that want to sell me stuff don't care if my name is Fred Willard or Bjorn Florgen as long as I have money they can separate me from.
Re: (Score:1)
Not really. FB have shadow accounts based on people that might not even exist, and probably you, if you don't even have a Facebook, as long as someone you know has talked about, or uploaded pictures of, you.
Google does this as well.
You can still track and identify anonymous users indirectly through others. Pretty damn well at that, especially these days.
Combined with sentence analysis, you can even get a reasonably decent understanding of who that person is, and whether it is indeed the same person betwee
Re: (Score:3)
Simple, you would've stayed in touch in the first place.
Finally! (Score:2, Funny)
At long last, I can use my rightful name on my Facebook account.
Sincerely,
Seymore Butts
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
and there's fuck all anyone can do about it
Until they mandate everyone validate their identity. Things like requiring a mobile number for account creation is already becoming popular. It's depressing but not using your real name is going to become harder and harder, all so they can show you ads that are still probably going to be irrelevant.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not necessarily. You're forgetting the group of users who are unhappy yet continue to use the service because not having an account destroys their social lives.
With social media the only winning move is not to play.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. You're forgetting the group of users who are unhappy yet continue to use the service because not having an account destroys their social lives.
With social media the only winning move is not to play.
If you are forced to use FB, it is not FB's fault, but your social circle's. Don't blame FB.
It's like saying you hate a specific shop, but you go there because that's where all your friends hang-out. How is it the shop's fault?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Facebook is in the process of becoming single sign on for a lot of sites. For example, if slashdot went that way, those who don't want to deal with facebook would have to walk away. Eventually such people are cornered. yeah, sure, facebook can do what it wants, but that doesn't mean they aren't user-hostile.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never -- ever -- run into a site that requires I use Facebook rather than create a separate login. I expect the only sites that require Facebook sign in, rather than simply allow are mostly limited to stupid Facebook games, like Avian Dysfunctional Conflict Resolution Disorder, etc.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
because not having an account destroys their social lives.
Seriously? How does it do that, exactly? Does your email stop working, does your phone self-destruct? Are you teleported into outer space? It's possible to communicate with people without funnelling everything through a third party service that repays your loyalty by making large amounts of money from your information, and keeping it. Delete your Facebook account (I seriously encourage everyone to actually do this. The world would be enormously improved), and you'll find that your social life continues to function. We all gave Facebook this power, we can take it back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I loathe FB and their policies as much as the next person, but the problem is that, as another commenter pointed out, FB is very much requirement for arranging events and communicating because of the social inertia. Sure, you don't need a cell phone either! Throw it out, just communicate with people on your land line! Okay.. that's a little tricky.. the world moves on without me. You know, you don't need a phone at all. Just communicate with people by pen and paper!
Of course all of this is doable, but it is
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
No it's not, we're just going to get more comfortable with lying and fabricating documentation. Which is OK too.
Re: (Score:3)
Not when it finally hits single signon stage. Net access will be like a driver's license. It will be illegal to fabricate.
Re: (Score:1)
Sadly, I believe that is inevitable. There are many, many people who want to see that world.
Re: (Score:2)
yes. The people who are so insecure they must know as much as they can about everyone else. Paranoids.
Re: (Score:2)
Lying? Sure. Forgery? That is a rather nasty thing to have on your criminal record. Doesn't matter if it's for "trivial" reasons like getting into a club while underage, it's an official document and they do prosecute it. You can tell Facebook to go shove it because they have no right to see it, but if you present it as such you're on the hook. Don't expect them to unban your account though.
Re: (Score:2)
People use their real names online?
Sure they do!
Re:whut? (Score:5, Interesting)
passport? birth certificate?
IANAL, but it's not clear to me that it is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1543 to forge a passport for the purposes of fucking with Facebook, it's not clear based on 18 U.S.C. 1546 that it is a crime to provide a false passport for the purposes of fucking with Facebook, and it's not clear under 18 U.S.C. 1541 that Facebook is actually allowed to verify a passport (i.e. they are not a sanctioned body, as far as I know). You can do whatever you want with birth certificates, as far as I know, insofar as Facebook is concerned. All of this falls apart if you are actually trying to break a law and using false information to conceal your activities, but in that case you're already in cost-benefit analysis land and hopefully know what you're doing.
Maybe someone is going to have to do this and get taken to court over it to "see what happens", but I have no intention of telling the truth on the internet unless I have a good reason to do so.
I miss read... (Score:2, Funny)
Wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
They wouldn't have me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I couldn't sign up for Facebook, because I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
It's your fault for letting the man eat you. I bet you brought it on yourself, by prancing around looking all delicious, wearing nothing but strategically placed parsley.
The mind reels!
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you brought it on yourself, by prancing around looking all delicious, wearing nothing but strategically placed parsley.
I wonder if I can talk my wife into this.
Facebook only cares about the $$$ (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a troll IRL, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
couples with joint accounts? (Score:2)
everyone's getting excited about outing some LGBTQs, but i'm guessing there are many more couples sharing joint accounts with names like John Jane Doe. and then you have all the completely fake accounts that do nothing but spam. my guess is that if someone wants to use a fake name, the only way facebook is going to know about it and take some action is if some of their friends are jerks and turn them in.
Which "Real Name?" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comrade, have you voted for Dear Leader yet?
The solution is simple (Score:2)
Don't use Facebook.
Facebook is still acting like a cop (Score:2)