Fake Names On Social Networks, a Fake Problem

disco_tracy writes "The leading social networks demand that members use their real names, and they're not afraid to evict violators. Many Facebook users have quietly complied, despite the problems that rule creates for political dissidents, stalking survivors and others. Much of this discussion has centered around people in physical or financial danger of having their identities revealed. But there are broader reasons for social networks to stop pushing real-name policies."

Comments

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

several hundred people around the world have had their name legally changed to Anonymous Coward

Re:In other news...

[gnick]

No, really, I swear! I AM Spartacus!

Re:In other news...

[cayenne8]

No...I'm Brian!!!

.......and so's my wife.....

Re:In other news...

[DrVxD]

No, I am Spartacus

(from your sig, it would appear you are, in fact, Rimmer ;)

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Several people who use their real name are hideously murdered for spouting their particular political drool. Tracked down by Serial Jack.

This means YOU AC!.

*Strangles self*

You Are The Product

[Frosty Piss]

The single main reason that âoesocial networksâ push the real names issue is quality of their database for the use of marketers that buy services from the social networks. That, and the Three Letter Agencies make extensive use of social network data mining. But itâ(TM)s mostly the marketers, the more they know about *you* the more they can sell *you*. "Social networks" do this to improve the quality of their product (you).

Re:You Are The Product

[gurps_npc]

Very true.

The requirement is there to help the corporations, not their users.

The really silly part is that they make such half-hearted attempts to enforce it. A simple 1 cent charge on a Credit Card (or a $10 charge that buys you a $10 credit at your choice of Amazon/Fandango/Barnes & Nobles/other corporate sponsors) would do 99% of the work of verifying identity. But they don't want to actually do this, because they are afraid it might turn off 1% of users.

What they don't understand is that at least 5% of users are more turned off by the requirement to use the real name - even if they don't really check it.

Re:You Are The Product

[0100010001010011]

It's how USPS does it for online change of address forms. It's a $1 charge but google could easily afford a $.1 charge (they already have the google checkout processor). I'd validate and verify everyone on their service. Heck they could even just issue a temporary hold and reverse the charge as long as it went through.

Re:You Are The Product

[surefooted]

"Social networks" do this to improve the quality of their product (you)." To me or my fake FB accounts? lol

Re:You Are The Product

[MacGyver2210]

Thanks to AdBlock and Google's spam filter, I haven't seen a single email from Facebook or one of their 'marketers' since I joined.

I was also unaware that they had any sort of 'use your real name' policy, as many of my friends use "Shotglass Susie" and stuff like that, which is clearly not real.

Re:You Are The Product

[h4rr4r]

You're right this would also solve that problem.

Re:You Are The Product

[Frosty Piss]

... as many of my friends use "Shotglass Susie" and stuff like that...

Screen Name is different than Real Name at FB. And, from the FB ToS:

Facebook requires users to provide their real first and last names [....] Fake names are not permitted.

So, FB may get around to "Shotglass Susie" eventually, and send her and her shotglass packing.

Re:You Are The Product

[Bengie]

From my end, I'm more concerned of being able to find old friends from long long ago. If they're using pseudonyms, how can I find them?

Actually, Google says you can use pseudonyms, as long as other people that you know also know that name.

Just my opinion.

Re:You Are The Product

[Daetrin]

We've been over this before. If a company is selling your data (Facebook, to the best of my knowledge) then yes, linking it to your real name is useful. That's a pretty crappy reason though and we shouldn't encourage it (in fact it would be nice if it was outlawed, though that's just wishful thinking,) but it is a reason.

If the company is just selling advertising directed at you (Google, to the best of my knowledge) then what difference does it make if i use a pseudonym or not? They can collect information about me just as easily and sell advertising directed at me either way. Even if i "fool" them by logging in two or three times under different names that just means they can collect information on each of those profiles and sell two or three times as much advertising.

And if i'm afraid to indulge my interest in invisible pink unicorn pornography while logged in under my real name and a social network enforces a real name policy, then either i'm not going to log into that network at all (total loss of revenue) or i'm just going to avoid some of my favorite activities on that network (partial loss of revenue since their advertising won't be as well tailored to my actual interests.)

Re:You Are The Product

[SkyDude]

Maybe a real name like this will work: Chnsz Medvypa

I generated a password using Lastpass and just changed the capitalization. After all, maybe it's my family tradition to give their kids first names composed of all consonants.

Re:You Are The Product

[cayenne8]

It's how USPS does it for online change of address forms.

Yes, but you as a customer do not have to do your change of address online and pay for it.

I was kinda shocked when I saw this...so I looked a bit harder at the USPS site...and it did provide the option (not as easy to find) to print out the form, and submit it to the postoffice or mail it in like the old ways for free.

Re:You Are The Product

[MyDixieWrecked]

A very large problem with this forcing of real names is when the sites in question have blacklists for certain names. I have a friend who's real, birth certificate name is "Aragorn" (his parents are HUGE LOTR geeks) and facebook does not allow that name, so he goes by Aragor. It's incredibly annoying to me, but he doesn't really care that much. facebook wants him to send a copy of his driver's license as proof so they'll allow him to use the name.

I'm just glad that they let me use Spike. I mean, it may not be on my birth certificate, but it's the only name I use. It's on my bank accounts (BofA doesn't seem to care), credit cards, cell phone, work ID, everything. My parents have called me that since before I was born and it's all anyone calls me.

Re:You Are The Product

[KnownIssues]

Facebook was pushing real names long before it sold out to advertisers. The reason social networking sites were pushing real names (and by association, real people) even before the advertising is so you can find people. Social networks aren't just about socializing with people you're already socializing with. Just this week, I had a friend from high school that I've long regretted being out of contact with find me on FB and now we can catch up. That would never have happened if he could only find me by searching for D4rkL0rd.

Re:You Are The Product

[binkzz]

Maybe a real name like this will work: Chnsz Medvypa I generated a password using Lastpass and just changed the capitalization. After all, maybe it's my family tradition to give their kids first names composed of all consonants.

It's nice to know Welsh people finally made it online as well :-)

Re:You Are The Product

[Aknaton]

If there are using a pseudonym then obviously they don't want to be found by their real name. I would argue that their right to privacy is greater than your right to find them.

Re:You Are The Product

[DerekLyons]

The single main reason that Ãoesocial networksà push the real names issue is quality of their database for the use of marketers that buy services from the social networks.

That's the tinfoil hat version - and it ignores that the service has to be paid for somehow...
 
But in reality, the main way the vast majority people find each other is by their real names, has been since the introduction of phone books.

Re:You Are The Product

[cayenne8]

Just this week, I had a friend from high school that I've long regretted being out of contact with find me on FB and now we can catch up.

Interesting...pretty much every real friend I knew from High School, or along lifes path since then...I've kept up with and in constant or almost constant contact with...some for multiple decades. That's one reason I've not seen any reason to join FB. Anyone that I want to be in contact with...I'm in contact with. It isn't like I lose touch with people I care about in life...I guess some people do, but that thought alludes me as to how that happens.

There's plenty of people out there I do NOT want to find or have find me...so, basically I see no plus side to joining a social network, only downsides, especially if I had to give real, identifying information.

Re:You Are The Product

[Bengie]

People don't use pseudonym just because they want to be anonymous.

Pet names, short names, handle, stage name, pen name. They aren't trying to be anonymous, but they like to have different names for different reasons. These are just a few examples of perfectly fine reasons for a pseudonym.

If you're a political activist under a bad government, you may want to use something more secure than FB or G+.

If you're using FB/G+ for what 99% of people use it for (communicating with friends/family), you have no reason to be anonymous, short of stalking. Use your privacy settings and be careful what you post to people. I don't need to be anonymous, I just need to limit access to my personal data. Even if someone can look me up on G+, if I set my privacy stuff up, you're not gonna get crap outside of my name, which you already had in the first place. I didn't lose anything.

I'm sure there's a few corner cases, but they can use something else. If there's enough demand for anonymous style FB, then someone will make one.

Re:You Are The Product

[Frosty Piss]

That would never have happened if he could only find me by searching for D4rkL0rd.

Don't you mean "D0rkL0rd"?

Re:You Are The Product

[kodefive]

That's the tinfoil hat version - and it highlights that the service has to be paid for somehow...

FTFY ;-)

Re:You Are The Product

[countertrolling]

I'm sure there's a few corner cases, but they can use something else.

Or they can use FB and G+ as they see fit, regardless of their terms. And you certainly are in no position to dictate whether a person needs a 'reason' to remain anonymous.

Re:You Are The Product

[DerekLyons]

Well, there's that too... ;)

Re:You Are The Product

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is forcing you to join Facebook or Goggle+. They have rights too you know.

Re:You Are The Product

[Bengie]

If you don't like their services, don't use them. It's not like the have a monopoly on internet communications. If you want to be anonymous, I'm sure there are A LOT of alternatives.

Re:You Are The Product

[znrt]

A simple 1 cent charge on a Credit Card (or a $10 charge that buys you a $10 credit at your choice of Amazon/Fandango/Barnes & Nobles/other corporate sponsors) would do 99% of the work of verifying identity.

Hey, 1 cent is still money! I'm not rich! But I could readily spare a sample of fingernail so facebook could dna-certify my account. And, if we are to go really that much nuts ... you have to admit that dna is far more reliable than credit card data.

Re:You Are The Product

[vux984]

From my end, I'm more concerned of being able to find old friends from long long ago. If they're using pseudonyms, how can I find them?

What makes you think they want you to? Perhaps they don't? Perhaps that's precisely why they use a pseudoname online... so that people like you don't bug them.

I just want to socialize with my friends and want all you "long long ago" people looking for me, along with random people at work, a prospective employer, and the nosy neighbors to get bent. So guess what... I tell the people I want to find me my pseudoname, and they find me. Its not that hard.

I don't want YOU to find me.

I don't even want to have to reject your annoying requests to be my friend or join my circles or whatever.

Oh, and I don't want Google or Facebook to have my real name, because they aren't my friends either.

Actually, Google says you can use pseudonyms, as long as other people that you know also know that name.

Clearly false. Many of those recently banned pseudonames on google had added friends etc. That would imply that other people knew who they were.

Re:You Are The Product

[Virtual_Raider]

No, he meant "D0rkL4rd" ;)

Re:You Are The Product

[tehcyder]

A few points:
1. Social network membership is voluntary, as is the amount of information you publish. Your name on its own doesn't tell marketers/advertisers anything they don't already know.
2. People try to sell you stuff all the time anyway, even if some advertiser finds out from my (non-existent) facebook activity that I like Ferraris, 1960s vintage clarets and dating supermodels, what's the worst that can happen?
3. If you put any information that would interest TLAs on, it serves you right, if you start posting that you're making bombs and intend to blow up your local tax office, do you really expect them not to do something about it?
4. Most normal people communicate with their friends and use their real names, and so would prefer to talk to John Smith on Facebook, rather than jbsKilla1997.
5. If you really are that paranoid, why use the internet at all?

Re:You Are The Product

[tehcyder]

I'm sure there's a few corner cases, but they can use something else.

Or they can use FB and G+ as they see fit, regardless of their terms. And you certainly are in no position to dictate whether a person needs a 'reason' to remain anonymous.

If you want to remain anonymous, just don't use the fucking social networking sites, how hard is that?

Re:You Are The Product

[tehcyder]

I don't want YOU to find me.

But most people either do, or don't care. Arseholes with paranoid delusions about the real world bein out to get them, and an inflated sense of self importance, are in the minority.

Re:You Are The Product

[tehcyder]

I'm just glad that they let me use Spike. I mean, it may not be on my birth certificate, but it's the only name I use. It's on my bank accounts (BofA doesn't seem to care), credit cards, cell phone, work ID, everything. My parents have called me that since before I was born and it's all anyone calls me.

So why couldn't your parents just name you Spike in the first place?

Re:You Are The Product

[tehcyder]

Just this week, I had a friend from high school that I've long regretted being out of contact with find me on FB and now we can catch up

And you couldn't have got in contact or found each other in any other way if there wasn't facebook?

FB just makes things easy for people, simply because it has so many members. But if there was someone you really wanted to contact, then you would.

Re:You Are The Product

[AP31R0N]

But little did you know that by posting in a thread about slashdot paranoia you have activated the beacon in your jaw. We installed it when you had your wisdom teeth removed.

Re:You Are The Product

[Yamioni]

I don't want YOU to find me.

But most people either do, or don't care. Arseholes with paranoid delusions about the real world bein out to get them, and an inflated sense of self importance, are in the minority.

Your argument is invalid. People that do want people to be able to find them are the people that will willingly use their real names for such services. Allowing those that don't want 'Arseholes' from highschool looking them up to use pseudonyms does not force everyone to use pseudonyms. That would be silly in the case of social networks. Hell, even places like slashdot, which allow pseudonyms, have plenty of people who have screennames that look an aweful lot like real names (whether they are or not is anyone's guess.)

Our fourth amendment is supposed to guarantee our right to be secure in our persons from unreasonable searches and seizures. Now, normally this is applied against the government and their agents. But I would argue that this should also be applicable against other persons and entities/corporations. What right does another person or corporation have to invade my privacy and demand that I suppy a real name? Under certain pretenses this makes sense, such as with banking, and the sale of merchandise. They want to make sure that if you defraud them, they have a real person to come after. That is reasonable. Where does a social network get off on telling me I need to supply a real name, unless they are afraid of me defrauding them? And there-in we come to the crux of the problem. If the social network's database is filled with fake people, then they don't have shit to sell to marketers, and feel' defrauded'.

But the social networks clearly have their heads in the sand if they think they need that marketing database in order to make money. Users under pseudonyms can be served ads just like everyone else. And with a little bit of heuristics, looking at what ads they click, and parsing wall posts etc for keywords, you can still tailor those ads to the user, all without ever knowing who the person is. But social networks view this loss of identity as value lost on their product, and that is, you. And anything that hurts their bottom line must go. User rights, privacy, and good ol' common decency be damned.

And to pre-empt any who may say you have the choice to not use the social network if you don't agree with their practices... Well, I agree, and I don't use social networking sites for that exact reason. I don't agree with all their bullshit. It's just sad that I should even have to make that decision, because they are too fucking greedy to respect their users.

Re:You Are The Product

[swalve]

Facebook used to be where you could contact nearly-strangers online in a socially acceptable way. It was (as the story goes) designed so college students could meet someone at a party, and then look up "Melissa from BYU" and find that person. It's a book of faces. Which are real people with real identities. You want anonymity? Set up a tumblr. Meanwhile, don't shit in the social networking pool by trying to private it all up. That's the opposite of what it is supposed to be.

Oh Look..

[EasyTarget]

Ah; a story on how hiding behind pseudonyms is no bad thing..
..followed by a comment thread in which lots of people hiding behind pseudonyms insult each other in ways they would not do if their names were actually attached and the comments could follow them home.

Re:Oh Look..

[DoktorMel]

Says someone similarly using a pseudonym. That's not evidence, that's just /..

Pseudonymous usage does not == uncivil assholeishness.

If you need evidence of that, have a look at some of the anti-pseudonym sentiments that have cropped up under people's "real" names on Google+ thus far. On the whole the pseudonymous crowd have been considerably more civil, more reasonable, and more able to present research supportive of their arguments.

Re:Oh Look..

[Vernes]

...in which lots of people hiding behind pseudonyms insult each other...
Still not a bad thing.
...if their names were actually attached and the comments could follow them home.
That is a bad thing.
You don't want some random internet user coming to your home to make his point without using words.

Re:Oh Look..

[wisnoskij]

Oh, f**k you. You fascist.

And by the way.
Real Name: Jonathon Wisnoski
And I live in: Parkhill, Ontario, Canada.

Re:Oh Look..

[EasyTarget]

Pseudonymous usage does not == uncivil assholeishness.

I disagree; and I cite the Internet's finest authority to back me up in it's most famous cartoon:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/

Re:Oh Look..

[SamSim]

Every right can be abused. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be a right.

Re:Oh Look..

[EasyTarget]

You don't want some random internet user coming to your home to make his point without using words.

Well; I rarely say things that might make them want to do that.. Do you find you have such a problem? Maybe it's the way you express yourself?

Re:Oh Look..

[Quiet_Desperation]

Pfft! Still fake. There is no such place as Canada!

Re:Oh Look..

[JustOK]

so, from your limited experience, you extrapolate to the entire world. Brilliant.

Re:Oh Look..

[rebelwarlock]

My name is Dylan Goss, and I think you're a dumbass. Did I just disprove your point?

Re:Oh Look..

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Just because some mistake freedom for license doesn't mean freedom should be removed, online or offline. We have laws because some people just can't deal with freedom, but this is different since it's about a business model which depends entirely on selling user details for marketing purposes. As such, unlike the law, it is quite easy to escape, simply by not participating, or taken to the next level, by creating a competing operation which doesn't need such unsavoury practises to thrive. What that might be is anyone's guess, probably selling services like game participation or taking a cut from people who do.

Re:Oh Look..

[cobrausn]

No, because the name Dylan Goss isn't a unique identifier. Post your name and address and then you might make a stronger point.

Re:Oh Look..

[MrEricSir]

You've never been to a city hall meeting, have you?

Re:Oh Look..

[pixelpusher220]

I dunno, pretty sure Ontario is real... I mean they have a lake or something.... But Alberta? phwwww totally not real

Re:Oh Look..

[suy]

(...) if their names were actually attached and the comments could follow them home.

You mean your case? Because in mine, I sign my comments with my nickname, which in 1 minute can lead you to my real name and some of my websites, where I clearly state my name, and whose domains are owned by me. Heck, I even link to my site here. You don't need the Googling.

Re:Oh Look..

[residieu]

It doesn't always lead there. I've been in a few groups that are remarkably civil without requiring real identities (or excessive moderator action). And back in usenet days when I engaged in some of my most uncivil Internet conversation I actually used my real name. But it's a definite contributing factor. Even with my semi-anonymous usernames like this, I often restrain myself from my instincts to be a complete ass.

Re:Oh Look..

[residieu]

Just ask Magnolia-Fan

Re:Oh Look..

[Qzukk]

Well; I rarely say things that might make them want to do that.

Says the guy with the username "EasyTarget".

Re:Oh Look..

[gatkinso]

Asshole.

You made yourself an "EasyTarget" for that one. Harharhar.

Re:Oh Look..

[hedwards]

Obviously, you're not gay and hold no controversial views. Good for you, for the rest of us, there's always the possibility of saying something that would lead somebody living relatively near to us to come over and take things up in person. Sure it's a remote risk, but for some issues it definitely could happen.

Not to mention employers that do background checks.

Re:Oh Look..

[hedwards]

Do any sites require that?

What's more the real name policy definitely discriminates against folks with unusual names. I remember working with a gentleman whose last name was uncommon enough that he could categorically say that if I ran into anybody with it that they were a relative. My last name isn't really that rare, but there's still only a few dozen folks that I know of that share it.

Re:Oh Look..

[RJFerret]

Naïve.

First, the story wasn't not about how pseudonyms are not bad, it doesn't even talk about that but goes into other issues. (See the bullet points kindly provided in "Lord Grey's" post below.)

But to truly attack someone, you have to know something about them and be able to access an area they are vulnerable.

Anonymously "attacking" is insignificant.

If some stranger with no identity you can relate to says something about you, whether on the Internet, WWW, email, or written in your local newspaper, it has no impact on you.

But someone you know and value the opinion of? Now emotional and perhaps mental distress may be caused.

Worse, someone who knows where you live or work? Now potential financial and physical distress may be caused.

People establish positions of power and then use knowledge and identities to inflict more harm. Step one of taking someone down is learning about them. Step two is getting them to trust you.

You'll note people have been murdered based on real identities/contact, there is a "Craigslist killer" and "Facebook killer", but no "Twitter killer" (as of yet).

The first rule of being safe online is not to reveal personal information, starting with your full name, that hasn't changed--oh wait, and it seems your behavior agrees with that Mr./Ms. "EasyTarget".

Re:Oh Look..

[cobrausn]

None that I know of. The only point I was trying to really make was that when you are arguing with your reputation at stake (as it would be if it was attached to a unique identifier), the arguments tend to remain fairly civil. I'm not denying the value of anonymity.

Re:Oh Look..

[DrXym]

What's more the real name policy definitely discriminates against folks with unusual names.

And people with common names, e.g. John Smith, Bob Jones etc. are almost defacto anonymous anyway. There are probably millions of people with the same name.

Real names is completely unnecessary and unfair. Even if a site requires a real name (and even that should be hard to justify), people should entitled to roll their own aliases.

Re:Oh Look..

[EasyTarget]

You forgot your age and SSID..

If you find that someone pointing out (with examples) the problems of pseudoanomity a bit 'Fascistic'.. how do you feel about the sentiment that a private website, run by a private company, can make whatever rules it fancies? And if it's users don't like them they can leave. Or do you want to impose rules on them; cos that sounds just a teency-weency bit fascistic to me..

Re:Oh Look..

[Deorus]

It is, however, strange that people who do not wish to expose themselves are present on social networks. Even if they don't disclose their own identity it is generally easy to trace them back through their friends who do as well sa their own traits.

Re:Oh Look..

[EasyTarget]

Indeed; boy I'm so dumb.. never saw that coming huh?

What's funny is how many people seem to take my belief that it is a good thing to have some non-anonymous places on the net as meaning I want to ban anonymity everywhere..

Then I realised; in fact everybody here, except one fat kid in NJ, agrees with me; and all the accounts ranting here are in fact sockpuppets of that one dork.

Re:Oh Look..

[Lost Race]

Ah; a story on how hiding behind pseudonyms is no bad thing.. ..followed by a comment thread in which lots of people hiding behind pseudonyms insult each other in ways they would not do if their names were actually attached and the comments could follow them home.

That is no bad thing. I'd rather not have everybody censor themselves down to meaningless banalities for fear of possibly insulting some extremist whacko. Sure, some people will "abuse" their privacy, but such "abuse" is harmless and easily handled by moderation and reputation systems. E.g. I read Slashdot at a high mod threshold and haven't seen any pointless insults or other misbehavior in this discussion.

Re:Oh Look..

[Lehk228]

facebook is not a private company, they are a corporation operating under a charter issued by the state of Massachusetts (and maybe now by the state of California). by accepting, from the state, protection of their shareholders from liability they have voluntarily subjected themselves to unlimited regulation. just like a person waives their right to not be asked to prove sobriety by accepting a driver's license and driving on public roadways.

Re:Oh Look..

[kheldan]

OK, where do you want to meet publicly, so I can call you an asshole to your face?

Re:Oh Look..

[wisnoskij]

Companies are not people and therefore regulating them is not fascist (at least in my definition of the word).

And in the real world, in any non fascist state people are legally entitled to use pseudonyms in real life, so there are even potential legality reasons why companies should not be able to enforce this.

And for example how would you feel if next time you walked Walmart you were required to give them your birth certificate to verify your identity, which of course they turn around and sell the information from.

Re:Oh Look..

[cayenne8]

just like a person waives their right to not be asked to prove sobriety by accepting a driver's license and driving on public roadways.

Depends on the state you live in. There are still some where you can refuse a drunk test.

They may suspend your license for awhile if you do...but you can get a temporary one for work..and you will eventually get it back. A PITA I grant you...but can be done to avoid the DWI.

Re:Oh Look..

[Doppleganger]

And I present the following countering evidence to the idea that real names do anything to increase civility: http://imgur.com/ub51D

Re:Oh Look..

[LateArthurDent]

You don't want some random internet user coming to your home to make his point without using words.

Well; I rarely say things that might make them want to do that.. Do you find you have such a problem? Maybe it's the way you express yourself?

Actually, I want to kick your ass right now. Your anti-freedom views are incredibly offensive.

Well, not really. However, can you really be guaranteed that no imbalanced individual will ever read some innocuous thing you've posted online and want some retribution for a perceived offense?

Re:Oh Look..

[LateArthurDent]

You forgot your age and SSID..

If you find that someone pointing out (with examples) the problems of pseudoanomity a bit 'Fascistic'.. how do you feel about the sentiment that a private website, run by a private company, can make whatever rules it fancies? And if it's users don't like them they can leave. Or do you want to impose rules on them; cos that sounds just a teency-weency bit fascistic to me..

Nobody is advocating for a law forcing facebook and google to accept pseudonyms. They have the right to make whatever rules they fancy (within the limits of the current laws). We have the right to leave yes, but we also have the right to bitch and protest in the hopes of being heard and cause them to change their minds. They have the right to ignore us.

There's nothing fascist about that. It's called free fucking speech.

Re:Oh Look..

[EasyTarget]

can you really be guaranteed that no imbalanced individual will ever read some innocuous thing you've posted online and want some retribution for a perceived offense?

Well no; but I once got attacked in the street (meatspace/reality) by an unbalanced person who didn't like my t-shirt, apparently it insulted their god. It didnt make me start wearing humourless t-shirts though, or put on a false beard / Guy Fawkes mask.

Re:Oh Look..

[EasyTarget]

if next time you walked Walmart you were required to give them your birth certificate to verify your identity

Oh? has it stopped being a requirement to show ID when using plastic, or buying alcohol/firearms? It's many years since I went in such a place (ie. the USA) so I don't know how things are still being done your side of the pond. But if American shops and bars no longer routinely ask for ID then things have certainly come on a lot since I was there last. Because when I was there last my east German colleagues used to joke about how they were asked for their ID more often in the US than they ever were in the GDR.

Re:Oh Look..

[wisnoskij]

I don't know about the US or Firearms, but they don't card people for alcohol unless they look underage in Canada and I have never had to prove my identity to buy anything.

Re:Oh Look..

[m50d]

If using your real name stops you saying fuck, I think it's working.

Re:Oh Look..

[DrVxD]

Where's "+1 Genius Citation" when you need it...

Re:Oh Look..

[LateArthurDent]

can you really be guaranteed that no imbalanced individual will ever read some innocuous thing you've posted online and want some retribution for a perceived offense?

Well no; but I once got attacked in the street (meatspace/reality) by an unbalanced person who didn't like my t-shirt, apparently it insulted their god. It didnt make me start wearing humourless t-shirts though, or put on a false beard / Guy Fawkes mask.

Understandably so. However, whatever was said on your shirt is the equivalent of people throwing insults around on the internet (for varying values of insults...people's insult thresholds are different). You wish us to put a face to our words, when the default state is not to do so, because you think that associating a face to the words will cause all of us on the net to start wearing humorless shirts, that is, we'll start behaving and being more careful about what we say for fear of repercussion.

Re:Oh Look..

[caitsith01]

Ah; a story on how hiding behind pseudonyms is no bad thing.. ..followed by a comment thread in which lots of people hiding behind pseudonyms insult each other in ways they would not do if their names were actually attached and the comments could follow them home.

And what harm, exactly, is the comment thread causing?

Is it harmful if you can't personally identify people you disagree with, somehow? Or do you think you have the right to force people to be 'nice' according to your standards?

Re:Oh Look..

[BitZtream]

Funny, he makes a calm collected statement and you respond like a pompous ass who needs a good beating just to prove a point ... Of course, his limited experience matches pretty much what anyone over the age of 25 has already learned, I guess you're just a little slow.

Note: I don't hide behind a psuedonym, it takes a basic Google search to find my real identity, but I used to when I was a little git on BBSes, and this is actually how people online recognize me now. Now I just realize that the people who argue on the Internet are so socially inept and afraid of meeting other people that all they have is computer courage so I have no problem acting like a prick to little douches such as yourself without any worry of you actually doing anything to me. You're entire life revolves around trying to contradict people on the Internet and you're too ignorant to realize you completely missed the point.

You're also a really shitty troll.

Re:Oh Look..

[BitZtream]

Obviously, you're not gay and hold no controversial views. Good for you, for the rest of us, there's always the possibility of saying something that would lead somebody living relatively near to us to come over and take things up in person. Sure it's a remote risk, but for some issues it definitely could happen.

According to FBI records, stastics show that there has been no noticible change in crime rates since the FBI was formed.

I.E. Your ranting like a moron on the Internet isn't going to change the the odds of a crime being committed against you.

It's likely due to the fact that those 'scary people' you're afraid of are just as socially inept as you and don't want to leave their homes because some scary internet person might get them.

The solution to background checks such as that is to simply not work for companies that do them and go work somewhere else. I assume you're an american (if not, I realize your country may be different) then you have no excuse for not being able to find a job. ANYONE in America can get a job, you just don't want to. So make your choice, do you want to be a douche and hide who you are online just incase someone in the real world sees it, or do you want to take a different, possible less enjoyable position somewhere else?

Figure out your priorities and deal with it.

Personally, I won't work somewhere like that and I suggest the same to you. If we all boycott we'll win, but it takes everyone.

Re:Oh Look..

[knorthern knight]

> The solution to background checks such as that is to simply not work
> for companies that do them and go work somewhere else. I assume
> you're an american (if not, I realize your country may be different)
> then you have no excuse for not being able to find a job. ANYONE in
> America can get a job, you just don't want to.

Can I have some of what you're smoking/drinking/ingesting? Must be strong stuff. Unemployment rates are at record highs. Many people who want a reasonable job *THAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF DOING* are unable to find one.

> So make your choice, do you want to be a douche and hide who you are
> online just incase someone in the real world sees it, or do you want
> to take a different, possible less enjoyable position somewhere else?

And if you had a comfortable, well-paying, office job, would you trade it for a minimum-wage job flipping burgers? And if you have a wife/kids/mortgage, a minimum-wage job is not an option.

Re:Oh Look..

[tehcyder]

More like "-1 over-used cartoon reference". You shitcocking.fuckwadder.

Re:Oh Look..

[tehcyder]

I often restrain myself from my instincts to be a complete ass.

That certainly puts you in a tiny minority on slashdot. Which probably means you are an M$ shill or a communist or something.

Re:Oh Look..

[tehcyder]

You don't want some random internet user coming to your home to make his point without using words.

But how about if that random internet user is a hot blonde 18 year old nymphomaniac like many of my internet friends? Bet you wouldn't be complaining so much then, would you?

Re:Oh Look..

[tehcyder]

Well; I rarely say things that might make them want to do that.

Says the guy with the username "EasyTarget".

*whoosh*

Re:Oh Look..

[tehcyder]

ANYONE in America can get a job, you just don't want to

Yes, all those so-called unemployment statistics are just part of the worldwide communist-illuminati conspiracy to destroy freedom.

Re:Oh Look..

[tehcyder]

facebook is not a private company, they are a corporation operating under a charter issued by the state of Massachusetts (and maybe now by the state of California). by accepting, from the state, protection of their shareholders from liability they have voluntarily subjected themselves to unlimited regulation. just like a person waives their right to not be asked to prove sobriety by accepting a driver's license and driving on public roadways.

You might want to check up the definition of a private company sometime: iIt just means a company whose shares aren't publicly traded. All companies have to operate under the law of wherever they're incorporated.

Re:Oh Look..

[tehcyder]

He is 21, lives like a dirty hippie on an organic farm in Canada, and is a gamer nerd. He also likes sci-fi and anime. He considers himself an "anarchist", but I seriously doubt it. He listens to indie music, thinks "ironic" facial hair is cool, and is generally a hipster doofus. And all of this information was found online becasue idiots use their real names on social networking sites.

And in what way is that profile different from thousands of other people the same age who would be quite happy to share that information? It's not like you found out he is a serial killer or something.

Re:Oh Look..

[tehcyder]

No, because the name Dylan Goss isn't a unique identifier. Post your name and address and then you might make a stronger point.

I don't think facebook require you to publish your address on your profile, somehow, so his point is valid.

Re:Oh Look..

[tehcyder]

Now that's genuinely witty.

Re:Oh Look..

[tehcyder]

Asshole.

You made yourself an "EasyTarget" for that one. Harharhar.

* golf clap *

I suppose someone had to make the obvious joke, well done sir for relieving us of that burden.

Re:Oh Look..

[tehcyder]

I am going to completely fuck up your life, starting with your workplace, family, and friends, "EasyTarget", living here

doesn't quite have the same ring to it as your real name and hometown, does it?

If you were psychotic enough to decide to completely fuck up someone's work, family, friend and life because of something they said on the internet, there's not realistically a lot they could do about it (in advance).

It's like saying that because there are serial rapist-murderers out there, women should never go anywhere without a couple of armed bodyguards. Yes, that would work, but it's unrealistic to live your life like that.

Re:Oh Look..

[tehcyder]

Slashdot is full of interesting stories that would never have been told if they could be traced back to the people that told them and the companies they happened at.

Well, as long as you are not saying anything libellous, and it's not about your current employer, you wouldn't normally have to worry about what you said.

And of jokes that wouldn't have been told if the poster's spouse could come across them.

Maybe, although it's a bit sad if your spouse can't differentiate between a joke and a confession of depravity.

Three points

[Lord Grey]

For those of you who don't RTFA -- you do exist, right? -- here are the "broader reasons:"

1. * These rules risk incorrect removals of people who had used their own monikers.
2. * These sites don't seem serious about these rules anyway.
3. * The Internet doesn't need real names to work.

Mind boggling, I know. Even more so when you consider than an entire article was written around those three points.

Re:Three points

[OpenYourEyes]

Mind boggling... but what is even more so are how many people are out there insisting that we have to get rid of psuedonyms.

It is a good thing that articles are being published debunking some of the myths... and not just by people who come across as ranting or rambling...

Re:Three points

[w_dragon]

Facebook is not The Internet. Thankfully. Facebook and G+ both require real names for the majority in order for people's social networks to be able to mirror real life, which is the point of FB. Other social networks have different goals, and real names don't matter. A few people on FB using pseudonyms don't cause issues since you can find them by looking through contacts of mutual friends. If the majority of FB users used pseudonyms it would be very hard for someone just joining to find the people they know in real life, which kind of defeats the purpose of FB.

Re:Three points

[Daetrin]

"which kind of defeats the purpose of FB."

Does it? Who decides what the purpose of Facebook is? Certainly the people who own Facebook can try to direct things, but isn't the purpose of Facebook just as much what the users of Facebook actually use it for?

Personally, i use Facebook for the exact same reasons i use other social networks for, to keep track of what's going on with my friends. Those friends will tell me what their profile is on the their favorite network site, whether they're using a pseudonym or not. I don't care if some idiot that i didn't like in high school and didn't care enough about to keep in touch with can find me now. If there actually was someone who i've lost track with but want to reconnect with i'm easily findable through my webpage or main email address, and they can just ask for my social network profiles that way. Real names are not necessary for the purposes for which i use Facebook and other social networking sites.

Re:Three points

[Carnildo]

Facebook is not The Internet. Thankfully. Facebook and G+ both require real names for the majority in order for people's social networks to be able to mirror real life, which is the point of FB.

If I were to sign up for Facebook using my real name, the resulting social network would bear no resemblance to my actual social network. The only people who refer to me by the name on my birth certificate are relatives and co-workers -- everyone else uses one pseudonym or another.

Re:Three points

[cavebison]

Even more so when you consider than an entire article was written around those three points.

You're missing the broader reasons. :) It's good that an article like this is on a big site like Discovery and will be read by a lot of people. This article is probably for the vast majority that doesn't think twice about it and hopefully will now.

Re:Three points

[tehcyder]

Real names are not necessary for the purposes for which i use Facebook and other social networking sites.

It is barely possible that other people do not use Facebook in the same way you do.

Re:Three points

[tehcyder]

The only people who refer to me by the name on my birth certificate are relatives and co-workers -- everyone else uses one pseudonym or another.

Is it some sort of US thing to use psedudonyms/nicknames all the time in real life? Or is it an age thing?

Everyone I know calls each other by their one given name, but I'm neither American nor a teenager.

Re:Three points

[Daetrin]

...

Yes, that was kind of the point, i was arguing that not everyone wanted to use Facebook in the same way as the previous poster claimed. I was certainly not trying to argue that everyone wants to use it in the same way i do, which was the reason for the prominent use of "the purposes for which i use Facebook" in the bit you quoted.

I know several that do obfuscate...

[Lumpy]

Why? because of Stupid HR people.

I have a friend that has 3 PHD's in Archaeology and is a Viking Historian that heads up the local SCA Viking group. he had to change his name to a viking name to keep schools from googling him and labelling him as a "wierdo that dresses up" and losing teaching positions.

I have another friend that worked in the medical field and was getting questioned daily by his HR department demanding he "friend them" on Facebook. so he changed his name to a made up one, made a new "real profile" that is empty and friended them through that.

Give us laws that protect us from Assholes in the HR department, I.E. let me sue my boss for $34,986,231,15 for not giving me a raise because I posted a LOLCAT animated gif on my facebook wall.

They cant fire me for living in a blue house with yellow flowers growing outside, but yet the idiots in Washington think it's ok to let them do it because I am friends with people named Dave.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow - really?

My boss pestered me to be added as a friend on facebook. I politely avoided the issue. Several other staff did add the boss and trouble ensued. The boss was quickly unfriended followed by requests to see what collegue x was up to via my account - again politely refused.

My personal life has nothing to do with work. My friends on facebook are just that, friends.

That said, my facebook account is largely dormant now as a result of this. Well that and the pointlessness of so many status updates these days.

Anon cause I can't be arsed to log in...

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[definate]

I and a lot of my friends do this. Specifically, all of my friends who work as teachers, are all on there with pseudonyms, and other friends who don't want their careers tarnished by their profiles.

I know it's a serious problem for me, and many others. Fuck Facebook's rules, I'll do what I want.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[w_dragon]

The teachers I know just set everything to private so only people they choose can see them. It's the lawyers who seem to be using pseudonyms...

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[spire3661]

If HR is demanding to be let into your personal life, its time to find a new job. And contrary to your statement, an employer CAN fire you for having a blue house with yellow flowers, if they so desire. Peolpe with blue houses are not a protected class in any way shape of form. Stop looking at your employer as your slave master. If they do crazy things you dont like, LEAVE.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[GameboyRMH]

This even happened before social networking was a big thing.

I remember a story about a high school art teacher who was secretly a critically acclaimed pseudonymous artist. Who painted mosaics using his naked buttcheeks as stamps.

When he was found out, he was shamed and forced to resign, even against the wishes of his students. So when you bring up the story about the teacher forced to resign for drinking *something* in a picture on Myspace, remember that story.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[c0lo]

Peolpe with blue houses are not a protected class in any way shape of form.

My religion requires me to paint my house in blue. Do you discriminate against me because of this?

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[badboy_tw2002]

In the long run it would probably be better for him to take a position where they did know about the odd viking related behaviors. Its not to say that a "normal guy" and a "weirdo" couldn't both do an adequate job, but in a corporate environment you're better off finding one that is "viking weirdo" friendly as even if you are hired by keeping it a secret your advancement and career might be severely hindered.

Then again, we're talking about academia, so I can't see why it would matter to let your freak flag fly.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[GlennC]

When I get asked by bosses/coworkers to be Facebook friends, I politely suggest we connect through LinkedIn.

The right tool for the job, etc.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[Cigarra]

...another friend that worked in the medical field and was getting questioned daily by his HR department demanding he "friend them" on Facebook. so he changed his name to a made up one, made a new "real profile" that is empty and friended them through that.

Wouldn't it be easier to just accept the "friendship" request and put the HR people in a can't-see-anything-that-I-post group? That way, he would't even be lying, as he is now.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[Hatta]

They cant fire me for living in a blue house with yellow flowers growing outside

If you live in an ironically named "at will employment" state, then yes, they absolutely can fire you because they don't like your landscaping.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[spire3661]

Prove that it is an established religious tenet and you may have a case. Good Luck with that. Contrary to popular belief (heh) you cant jsut make up and found your own religion jsut because that what the established religions did. You need money, people, INFLUENCE, to establish a legally recognized religion.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[Jiro]

They can fire you for having a blue house, but while this may happen once or twice, they're not going to be able to go through all the people in the company and pick everyone with blue houses to fire them. It's just not practical to drive around to everyone's address just to see if their house looks weird enough.

As long as the information is not available in a couple of seconds on the Internet, they can't in *practice* fire people for having blue houses.

But it takes a very short time to examine someone's Facebook page and see that they're a fan of Pokemon, and since that's a kid's show they're obviously a pedophile and need to be fired immediately.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[monique]

Er. They *can* fire you for living in a blue house with yellow flowers.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[DerekLyons]

I have a friend that has 3 PHD's in Archaeology and is a Viking Historian that heads up the local SCA Viking group. he had to change his name to a viking name to keep schools from googling him and labelling him as a "wierdo that dresses up" and losing teaching positions.

Given the number of people I know who are professors, or other high level professionals, or military members with TS clearances and arcane accesses (including both intel and nuclear weapons) who openly play in the SCA... Either he's embellishing, you're embellishing, or there's something else you or him aren't telling us.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[Lumpy]

Why not? It worked for Scientology quite well.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[assertation]

Geeze, viking costumes? Imagine what they would do to him if they found a picture of him having a beer or wearing a skirt at a Halloween party.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[Lehk228]

facebook security is not trustworthy and anytime new settings become available for new features they default to allowing everyone to see

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[cayenne8]

I have another friend that worked in the medical field and was getting questioned daily by his HR department demanding he "friend them" on Facebook. so he changed his name to a made up one, made a new "real profile" that is empty and friended them through that.

Not saying I doubt you on this one, but I do have a few questions.

1. How do they know he has a FB account in the first place? I mean, I've never seen an employment form that asked for such information.

2. What if he didn't have a FB account? Would they hound him to join and create one just for work? Could he just tell them he doesn't have one?

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[cayenne8]

When I get asked by bosses/coworkers to be Facebook friends, I politely suggest we connect through LinkedIn.

I don't think I've ever been asked by anyone at work to 'friend' or whatever on FB. I mean, work is work...you generally don't try to make close friends or share too much at work, that can cause problems (with some exceptions of course). To me, work is work...professional relations only...outside of work, is where I have my friends, lots of them.

But if they were to ask me at work the question you posed, I'd simply say "I'm not on Facebook", and let that be the end of the conversation.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[antdude]

Then, they search for you and find you with your full name. :P

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[cayenne8]

Then, they search for you and find you with your full name. :P

Err...no they wouldn't. I don't have a FB account.

Did you think I'd be lying about that?

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[Rich0]

Read his last sentence more carefully. :)

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[Rich0]

I think firing is not likely to be a big problem, so much as hiring in the first place.

You send out a resume to 100 companies, and you don't get any requests for interviews. Is it because they just don't need you or have much better resumes, or is because you have photos from Comic-Con on your facebook page? You'll never be told.

Or, suppose your boss is told they need to lay off one person. You're the guy who gets let go. Did facebook have anything to do with it? All you'd be told is that your services are no longer required and best of luck.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[DrVxD]

Three Ph.D.s? Wow. It's going to take me six years just to get one.

They're like money - everyone says the first million is the hardest.

(Which is why I'm going to do the second one first...)

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[Geoffrey.landis]

I do have a few questions.

1. How do they know he has a FB account in the first place? I mean, I've never seen an employment form that asked for such information.

http://www.rtonmainstreet.com/2011/02/articles/employment-law/condition-of-employment-facebook-login-and-password/

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[Lucractius]

You shouldn't be surprised how stupid a collective can be. The administration of a teaching institution concerned about reputation will very simply be going "we dont want any weirdos/crackpots/crazies working here" and ignore credentials because they dont want to be the one that let something slip in, and they will always be overlooked for a "safer" candidate.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[yuhong]

Personally I would not go so far to mandate it by law (in fact, I am no fan of anti-discrimination laws due to their fundamental flaws), but we should still advocate this and other problems be fixed if possible.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[tehcyder]

I have a friend that has 3 PHD's in Archaeology

Why? So they can ask to be addressed as Doctor Doctor Doctor Smith?

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[tehcyder]

When I get asked by bosses/coworkers to be Facebook friends, I politely suggest we connect through LinkedIn.

The right tool for the job, etc.

I politely suggest they call/text me on my mobile if there is anything of actual interest to communicate.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[tehcyder]

I and a lot of my friends do this. Specifically, all of my friends who work as teachers, are all on there with pseudonyms, and other friends who don't want their careers tarnished by their profiles.

I know it's a serious problem for me, and many others. Fuck Facebook's rules, I'll do what I want.

Yes, it's pretty surprising that on facebook you can't choose to keep your information publicly unavailable. Oh wait...

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[tehcyder]

They cant fire me for living in a blue house with yellow flowers growing outside...

Maybe not fire you, but they could refuse to hire you. There's no law against discriminating against people based on the color of their flowers. It may be wrong, but not illegal.

I don't think I'd want to work somewhere whose main recruitment criterion was the colour of the flowers around my house anyway.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[tehcyder]

an employer CAN fire you for having a blue house with yellow flowers, if they so desire

Maybe in the US. On this side of the pond you could sue them for unfair dismissal, and for such an arbitrary/stupid reason they'd get the fucking book thrown at them, hopefully.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[tehcyder]

The thing is, if you're the sort of person who has stupid, inappropriate crap available for the world to see on your facebook profile, you're most likely a twat in real life too.

I mean, I don't care if people get paralytically drunk, take a cocktail of illegal drugs and have unprotected sex with multiple partners at BDSM orgies: I just don't think that my kids' primary school teacher should be sharing that information with anyone except her friends.

Re:I know several that do obfuscate...

[tehcyder]

They cant fire me for living in a blue house with yellow flowers growing outside

If you live in an ironically named "at will employment" state, then yes, they absolutely can fire you because they don't like your landscaping.

Does that mean that, conversely, as an employee you can leave without giving any notice?

HBGary email that ought 2 concern U ALL

[Anonymous Coward]

This really bothered me, don't know about the rest of you:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/16/945768/-UPDATED:-The-HB-Gary-Email-That-Should-Concern-Us-All

PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS:

"According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HBGary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated "persona management" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online... And all of this is for the purposes of infiltration, data mining, and (here's the one that really worries me) ganging up on bloggers, commenters and otherwise "real" people to smear enemies and distort the truth... "

and

"They are talking about creating the illusion of consensus. And consensus is a powerful persuader... And another thing, this is just one little company of assholes. I can't believe there aren't others doing this already. From oil companies, political campaigns, PR firms, you name it. Public opinion means big bucks. And let's face it, what these guys are talking about is easy."

and

"To the extent that the propaganda technique known as "Bandwagon" is an effective form of persuasion, which it definitely is, the ability for a few people to infiltrate a blog or social media site and appear to be many people, all taking one position in a debate, all agreeing, for example, that so and so is not credible, or a crook, is an incredibly powerful weapon."

---

* I'd suggest reading the whole article in the link I put up above & not only because of the quotes I pulled from it to get your attention here, but also because it largely BACKS THE FACT THAT EVEN PSEUDONYMS DON'T MATTER, because they're easy to create via alternate email accounts, TOR endpoint proxies usage, OR anonymous proxy server usage on the part of those seeking to be "many from 1"!

(Yes, I'd read that folks - because it MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT YOU ONE DAY ALSO & be "levelled against you" (I hope not)... & I KNOW I've had it happen to me, here, & others spots online (I busted clone52431/clone53421 & others doing it in fact, the "trolltalk.com" pack of admitted trolls around here in fact & years ago from arstechnica people @ Windows IT Pro -> http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/internals-and-architecture/the-memory-optimization-hoax#feedbackAnchor (Jeremy Reimer mainly))).

APK

P.S.=> That's for anyone that tries to say I am "full of it", etc./et al - though I know that most of you KNOW this type of crap really does go on online, & how/when/where/why IF NOT BY WHOM as well as why...

... apk

Re:HBGary email that ought 2 concern U ALL

[dyingtolive]

I love you APK.

Re:HBGary email that ought 2 concern U ALL

[Anonymous Coward]

Sockpuppet armies are already in use. BoA used some to mark torrents of their leaked info on TPB as fake. This was around the same time those emails were leaked.

Re:HBGary email that ought 2 concern U ALL

[anyGould]

Where I think the counter to sockpuppets is in sites like Stack Exchange, where everything is based around your "reputation" (really just a score of how much you've done, and what other experienced users think of your contributions).

From a purely "let's keep the jackasses out" perspective, it works well - it beats the sock puppets by requiring them to invest enough in the system before they have access to do anything too annoying. Creating a second account when you're banned? Sure - but you have to rebuild your reputation from scratch.

The problem I see is that we're far too willing to believe 100 people we've never heard of over 10 who you can see have been around for a while.

A fake problem indeed

[digitalderbs]

Especially considering that as long as you don't pick an overtly false name, you won't be banned. I know people that use fake names on facebook and google+, and they haven't had problems. If this comes down to human rights and privacy, pick a name that isn't obviously false. It doesn't get at the root of the problem, and the managers of these networks never will, but it's a simple solution to use until these social networks realize how futile these bans really are.

Re:A fake problem indeed

[spire3661]

Voluntarily using a service has nothing to do with human rights. There is no basic human right to blogging. Social networks are PRIVATELY run companies, they can run their network as they see fit. If you choose to participate, i dont see why you cant follow the rules. If you dont like the rules, DONT USE THE FUCKING SERVICE. THre are plenty of places on the interwebs to be private, use them. Its like all these feebs who are now discovering how to talk to each other online but never had the experiences of forums, IRC, ICQ etc etc. so they have no idea how to conduct their business privately. THey want privacy brought to them while they disclose everything.

So what follows?

[franciscohs]

I wonder what follows to real names.

Real profile picture photo?
Real town, school, work place?

Why?, does it make any difference to advertisers to have a name attached to a profile?, would they target that specific product differently if my name is A or B?, I would guess they will try to sell to who I am, and that doesn't change with my name...

Re:So what follows?

[kheldan]

It's encouraging to me to see that I'm not the only person left on the planet that questions these things, and refuses to "conform" just because the rank-and-file of the world just blindly fall in line like so many demented sheep. Our private, personal lives are precisely that: private and personal. It's not the business of government, corporations, or employers to be demanding access to our non-public lives, and we must continue to make it clear that it is NOT acceptable.

What constitutes a "real" name?

[robbyjo]

What constitutes a "real" name? Take a look at Sun Yat-Sen, for example. Which one do you think is THE real name? The original name? Baby name? Genealogy name? Courtesy name? School name? Eventually, Sun Yat-Sen was famed in China because of the pseudoname he used in Japan. And Yat-Sen itself is a school name.

I have a false name

[gubers33]

I think it is needed because even though I have locked down my security settings as much as possible I know that HR people snoop around too much. I use my nickname from when I played football and rugby. I am only friends with my friends and family who know this nickname, so I don't think I am hiding behind. Am I hiding from HR and background companies that snoop out on social networks, absolutely. I don't have to the social network so my employer or potential employer can look for photos of me drinking or what not. Maybe if HR did not look for things not related to work or background companies didn't exist or security settings were actually real fake names wouldn't be needed. However, they do and fake names are needed

Re:I have a false name

[DrVxD]

I use my nickname from when I played football and rugby

Waterboy?

Can't have fake names on facebook? Yeah you can...

[JustAnotherIdiot]

My friend in college couldn't make a facebook account because his last name was "Queen", and facebook deemed it fake.
That, however, was a few years ago, he's since made a profile (and myself 2 fake ones), so I assumed that the restriction on fake names was lifted.

stalking survivors?

[Markizs]

Stalking survivors? Er? Is it possible _not_ to survive stalking?

Re:stalking survivors?

[GameboyRMH]

You bet your ass. At some point the stalker may decide that if they can't have you, nobody can...

Re:stalking survivors?

[DrVxD]

Is it possible _not_ to survive stalking?

Ask John Lennon.

Re:stalking survivors?

[Markizs]

well, then he becomes murderer or assaulter not stalker, and that is completely different thing

Re:stalking survivors?

[Markizs]

he was shot, wasn't he? so he didn't survive people shooting at him. that is understandable. but what it has to do with stalking? If someone just stalks and doesn't do anything else, then it is 100% survivable.

Re:stalking survivors?

[DrVxD]

Shot by a stalker.

I guess you're one of those people that enjoys pointing out that a thousand foot fall won't hurt - but the landing may be a little traumatic?

Re:stalking survivors?

[Markizs]

If you put it that way, then i might need to agree with you, that stalking kills people. However, i still cant put my head round the idea, mainly becouse 1000 foot fall would kill with 100% certainty (if you jump with parachute, then it is not called a fall), while stalking does kill people with quite low probability. Thats why I do not agree with using word 'survivor' in context of stalking, but completely agree in context of 'assault' or '1000 foot fall'

Why would somebody have three PhDs?

[Geoffrey.landis]

I have a friend that has 3 PHD's in Archaeology...

!!!

Three PhDs? In the same subject?

Why?

best argument against real names:

[circletimessquare]

it's bad for business. the same policy killed friendster:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071101/194615.shtml

friendster started deleting fake names. this was the height of friendster's popularity, 2003. so people left in droves for this new funky site called "myspace"

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030813/2010251.shtml

1. if you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it, GOOGLE PLUS I'M TALKING TO YOU

2. the BOTTOM LINE you idiots. this policy hurts your BOTTOM LINE. just ask friendster, circa 2003

Re:best argument against real names:

[Uhhhh oh ya!]

and myspace allowed you to change your name to whatever you wanted whenever you wanted and people left in droves to facebook which has managed to keep growing at a rapid pace despite all the complaining and all the other startup sites popping up that don't require your real name. Either people secretly like using their real name or it is uncorrelated to whether a site fails or succeeds.

Re:best argument against real names:

[circletimessquare]

there were a lot more factors in myspace's demise

but take two sites, of equal featureset and user experience, but one allows fake names, and one doesn't: the one that allow fake names wins

Re:best argument against real names:

[circletimessquare]

facebook has features and usability myspace did not have. fkae names/ not is but one factor that was outbalanced by other factors as myspace was drained to facebook

but if you compare two facebooks: two sites with the same featureset, but one with fake names, and one without, and the one that allows fake names will dominate

Re:best argument against real names:

[Uhhhh oh ya!]

but where is the proof behind that?

  Facebook requiring a real name was a rare case on the internet seeing as most similar sites that had gotten big up to that point did not require real names (yes I know there are exceptions). Now during Facebook's reign there have been tons of sites that work almost exactly the same as Facebook that do not require real names and yet have failed to gain ground. Now the biggest threat that we have seen yet is google+ and it has the same name policy.

I understand that there are way to many factors to consider here for us to use these examples to answer the question posed. However, I think what can be seen is that whether a site requires real names or not may not be very important to the majority of users. While most people here on /. are very careful about what they post on the internet I think we have seen most people on social networking sites have much lower bars on what they consider private.

They have a bigger problem in fake people

[sandytaru]

I have a series of 30 fake Facebook accounts that I created back in the day for Farmville (before I came to my senses and quit that particular timesink.) They all have legit looking names at first glance, such as Betty Farmer or Charlie Gardener, using the eLouai Candybar Dollmaker to generate unique looking profile pics. They all have working email addresses generated from my personal domain. The login information was shared with about 20 other people for Farmville purposes, and the accounts are still in use by those silly people still playing. (The accounts also now play Mafia Wars and a bunch of other games.) Other than an initial "this email address doesn't appear to be valid" notice and verification check, Facebook has been mum about these highly suspicious looking accounts.

Re:They have a bigger problem in fake people

[sandytaru]

It wasn't that much time. A few hours of work for 30 accounts that have been in constant use by dozens of people for almost six months? Worth it. Code smarter, not harder. I'm actually a bit tickled to see them still being used and posting silly status updates about their sheep. (The only reason I quit Farmville was frustration over the lagginess of the app. After your farm hits a certain critical mass, it ceases to load quickly even on fast PC in a fast browser. If Zynga has no motivation to fix their apps, I have no motivation to play them, let alone pay them money.)

Why do they have to be everything to everyone?

[jbarr]

What I don't understand is why there is the constant expectation that every service offered MUST provide for everyone.

If a social network doesn't permit fake names, and you want to use a fake name, then go elsewhere. If there is no elsewhere, then isn't this a great opportunity for some entrepreneur to create an anonymous social network?

Re:Why do they have to be everything to everyone?

[hedwards]

If it's a niche site that's not intended for everybody then it's not an issue. But if it's the number one site, like Facebook is, then it really needs to comply with typical norms. Which includes privacy policies and settings that don't drastically change at a moment's notice and the ability to post in a pseudonymous way.

Re:Why do they have to be everything to everyone?

[Daetrin]

What i don't understand is why there is the constant expectation that people who want to use a service shouldn't tell the owners of that service exactly what they want out of it.

I've failed to see anyone express the opinion that Google MUST allow pseudonyms, but i've seen a lot of people express the opinion that Google SHOULD allow pseudonyms. Yes, we can all go elsewhere if Google refuses to go along with the idea and we really think it's that important, but i'm failing to see why it's a bad idea for us to argue our point.

And if we all just shut up and accept what the corporations hand down to us, how would aspiring entrepreneur's know that there was an unmet demand for a pseudonymous social network in the first place?

Re:Why do they have to be everything to everyone?

[monoqlith]

Oh, wow. You did not just compare having to use your real name on Facebook to Jim Crow segregation. Oh, wait. You did.

Re:Why do they have to be everything to everyone?

[monoqlith]

There is no meaningful comparison to be made here to either mothers nursing or Jim Crow, and to do so is, at least in the latter case, offensive. Jim Crow was a unconstitutional system of laws that discriminated against people based on race. Race, the last I checked, is not a choice, nor is it relevant to whether or not you are able to use the bathroom or patronize a restaurant. Using a fake or real name on a social network is a choice. It is also relevant to the quality of a social network in which every identity is only as trustworthy as the number of people that can vouch for it.

Here's how you tell Facebook to making you use your real name : stop using it. Nobody is forcing you to do so. Within the bounds of who uses their service, Facebook is perfectly within their rights to ask that you use your real name. It's their system, their software, their servers that it is running on, their network. If that's not something you can accept, just go to "Deactivate" in the preferences.

Seinfeld

[Coolhand2120]

Is anyone else reminded of the Seinfeld episode where the whole apartment building had pictures up and Jerry didn't want his picture up? Or when Jerry didn't want to use a name tag? Real life is anonymity, you don't instantly know someone's name just because you walked up and talked to them. Did Voltare or The Artist (formerly known as Prince) have any problem hiding under their pseudonyms? I mean I can list great people who used pseudonyms all day long!

If I walk up and introduce myself as Ted, and strike up a conversation with you, you've now established a reputation with Ted. Not knowing that my name is actually Coolhand2120 is not going to change my reputation with you. Not knowing that I've said other things to other people as someone else is really none of your business anyway.

Needing to know what I've said to everyone is the product of a over inquisitive busy bodies. The fact the government wants to track what you're saying on the internet should give anyone paranoia. Do I have to register with my real name and government ID card before I talk in a town square now? The action (if it were to be purposed by government) in and of itself should be a violation of my right to free speech.


Frederick Bastiat (1801-1850) The Law

Re:Seinfeld

[DemonGenius]

Did Voltare or The Artist (formerly known as Prince) have any problem hiding under their pseudonyms?

Prince Rogers Nelson is his real name and he had to use a pseudonym, the unpronounceable Love Symbol, because Warner Bros. trademarked his real name which is pretty much his identity. It's no better than stealing someone's soul if you ask me. If we are not allowed to use pseudonyms on social networking sites, how will we be assured that we won't someday be hoodwinked out of the right to use our given names like Prince was? I'd much rather lose a pseudonym that I created than the name that my parents gave me at birth.

the way it's going call it nbc sports network 2

[Joe_Dragon]

Move ninja warrior from g4 to it + pick up all hunting and other lesser sports from versus and kill the poor PQ universal sports sub channel and move all the stuff on it to nbc sports network 2.

Then Don't use the service.

[digitalPhant0m]

I don't know why people get their f'ing panties in a bunch over crap like this.

If you don't like a company's policies, then don't use the service. It's that simple.

If you don't want HR to find you doing god-knows-what with god-knows-who online, then don't post it online for everyone to see. It's that simple.

Credit cards and name verification = not so easy

[robp]

Hi, I'm the author of the Discovery piece (and yes, I'm posting under my real name). One detail I couldn't get into that post was the credit-card issue--at first, I thought that a Facebook or a Google+ could just query Visa or AmEx or whoever and get a name match. It turns out that it's not so easy. Neither of the two usual card-verification schemes actually confirm a cardholder's name:

* asking for CVV2 numbers just proves that the person has the card in their hand (or has memorized those digits);

* AVS, or address verification system, only checks the numbers in the billing address.

There are other services that claim to verify names nearly instantly--but as gurps_npc notes, the real reason neither Facebook nor G+ bothers is because they don't want to discourage people from signing up.

- RP

I may see Facebooks point

[Uhhhh oh ya!]

For a long time I was in agreement that requiring real names was pointless, against privacy, blah blah blah.... More recently however I have begun to think otherwise, these social networking sites are based around YOUR identity, that way people find you, recognize you, and identify with you. I got sick of myspace because many people where changing their names weekly, trying to incorporate as many random characters as possible. Actually finding people I knew became next to impossible, on facebook I have found people I haven't talked to in years by recognizing their name.

As stated, there isn't really anything stopping you from using a fake name, in truth the only thing it really requires is that the name you choose looks real and that you don't change it often. I'm fine with that, there are people I know who have a made up name that they use on every site, that has become the identity I know them by online, and they feel safe in the knowledge that it is separate from their offline life.

All Im really saying is that I don't see many legitimate arguments against real names, as many people have pointed out its not really enforced, especially if your name looks legitimate. More people are accidentally banned by a bunch of people getting mad at the person and flagging the profile than facebook stumbling on to your name and locking the account. On the other hand the supposed rule of you having an identity that you are in some effect standing behind is what sets these social sites apart from all the forums filled with trolls.

Re:misguided author

[Daetrin]

The author seems to think that the social networks aren't admitting that's why they want use to use real names, which is correct. It's perfectly reasonable to attack the pretense that they put forth, that it improves the quality of the network and/or it's for our own good, until they can no longer pretend that that pretense is justifiable. If they eventually admit to the real reason it will be much easier to attack that justification as well.

Real Name?

[bad-and-silly]

Unfortunately, I'll never get back the time I just wasted RTFA. Rob Pegoraro's "analysis" is a little shallow for a 5th grader, but inexcusable for Georgetown-educated married man, or a "journalist" with over 10 years at the Washington Post. A decent programmer would see the criterion problem right off the bat, but someone with a degree in International Relations ought to recognize there's no international consensus on how parents name their children. Characterizing the task of finding "obviously fake" names among 100's of millions as "trivial" illustrates both ignorance and a lack of reflection. So what exactly is someone's "real" name? The law in the U.S. punts on that question, recognizing any name by which an individual is known in his community (*unless* your the artist "formerly known as Prince"). Its really a beautiful rule if you think about it, leaving a man to be the master of his own identity. Ahh...apathy is outweighing my interest in finishing this post.

Re:Real Name?

[robp]

I spent about 17 years at the Post, not 10. But thanks for spelling my last name right. As for the rest... I've read your comment twice, and I still don't know what point you're trying to make. Maybe those IR classes fogged up my brain too badly.

- RP

Re:Real Name?

[bad-and-silly]

Glad you read the comment. I have a minute, so I'll clarify my point.

Your article criticizes the Facebook/Google+ policy requiring "real names." So far I'm on board with you, as I think the policy is absurd.

You cite three "broad" reasons the policy is misguided, which I read to be 1) inconvenience caused by incorrect removal of accounts, 2) a lack of seriousness regarding the policy, and 3) real names are functionally unnecessary for the internet to work.

Your first two reasons seem to defeat each other. If Facebook enforced its policy more seriously, more people would likely have their accounts incorrectly removed. On the other hand, more conservative enforcement seems to undermine the seriousness of the policy. Regarding reason #3- while telnet certainly doesn't need your real name to function properly, your ISP likely does for either legal or collections purposes.

When you're talking about the broad reasons why the policy is flawed, honing in on Shabaab Kamal or the sincerity of Facebook's is the wrong approach to take. The real problems with the policy are that 1) its unworkable, and 2) its an usurpation of control.

Its unworkable because there is no such thing as a standard name. Single-letter names are legitimate, as are painfully long ancestral names, and those with punction embedded (e.g. Alabama's linebacker Dont'a Hightower). There's no requirement for uniqueness. Or character set. Names change. Legal aliases are considered "real." The upshot is that the lack of good criteria renders the idea of a "real" name impractically vague.

Philosophically, control is the larger and more interesting issue. Facebook's policy presumes you've got a "real name," which is something outside of your control. If all your Facebook posts simply expose that name, good behavior and accountability are sure to follow, making social friction a thing of the past.

Pardon the straw man argument, but common experience shows why this is just silly. Ignorance and immaturity prove that identification alone does not yield accountability. But that's not my real point.

Your name and your identity is largely under your control, not the government's, not your family's, and certainly not Facebook's. Want to have multiple personas? Go for it. Think that's just the crazy talk of a 14y/o flamebaiter? Ask a doctor or a lawyer if they use a different persona when dealing with a client versus their family.

The way you present yourself is a choice you have substantial control over; The name you go by is one of those choices (American law actually supports this position). An unworkable corporate policy that undermines that control is doomed to failure. When you're talking broader reasons, talk about broader reasons.

A Workaround

[a whoabot]

I only recently discovered a workaround. I had previously stayed away from places that demand my real name like Facebook. I used the form of my name in a different language, not a translation but a standard transliteration. Their requirements never say which writing system I have to include my real name, only that I have to include my real name. My real name written in the Arabic or Japanese writing system is still my real name, but it's not much use to those who would otherwise find me.

But the point of a pseudonym

[curio_city]

is to not give your real name to other users or to corporations we don't trust.

The requirement is there to help the corporations, not their users. (snip...)

would do 99% of the work of verifying identity.

A legitimate attempt at verifying users' identities is exactly what I don't want; it makes their data more valuable, and for the benefit of using a nickname in front of people I already know? I'm more concerned about Facebook et al. getting my personal information than my friends. Also, with a credit card charge, it's not just your name that they get; they get a billing address too.

Re:But the point of a pseudonym

[RockDoctor]

But the point of a pseudonym ... is to not give your real name to other users or to corporations we don't trust.

There are corporations that you trust?

B. i. z. a. r. r. e.

Facebook wants to be the Internet's ID layer

[robp]

If you read what the top executives at Facebook say--and if you then spend some time talking on background with some of them--it's clear that this company wants to become the layer of identity or authentication that it apparently feels should have been put into the Internet's original architecture. (I linked to that Vint Cerf interview because it has him explaining, at about 6:40 in, that the Internet needs identifiers but not fixed identities... oh, and because the video features me bantering onstage with Vint Cerf.) Facebook Connect logins and Facebook social plug-ins exist because they extend your Facebook identity across the rest of the Web--and at some sites, your Facebook identity is now the only way to leave a comment.

- RP

Re:Facebook wants to be the Internet's ID layer

[Espresso2xshot]

Rob,
Wouldn't you agree that REAL purpose of FB and G+ is that they want to market and sell to their users ? The ID layer is just the way to ensure that they are selling the most accurate data (users)? It seems like everywhere I go I see the like button. Everything I "like" allows FB to gather and sell my preferences as self indicating preferences to a product or service. Isn't that their real purpose? The connection to my friends also indicates what my preferences based on their likes, Networking is just a by-product.

BTW my name is Brian Smith .. . lived down the hall from a Brian Smith in a College dorm named Smith Hall. LOL!
I love the anonymity associated with my name!

Re:Facebook wants to be the Internet's ID layer

[cayenne8]

and at some sites, your Facebook identity is now the only way to leave a comment.

Really? I've not come across site like this yet...can you provide some links? I"d be genuinely interested to see what kind of sites would want to limit participation in a manner of this fashion...

Re:Facebook wants to be the Internet's ID layer

[robp]

The original purpose of Facebook, AIUI, was to help Harvard students hook up. Its business model does, indeed, providing a large and defined audience to potential advertisers--but people's names are the least of it. To a marketer, somebody's name is less useful than their address, their household income, the car in the driveway, the phone in the pocket, etc.

As for G+, I think its real purpose at the moment is to peel people away from Facebook.

Re:Facebook wants to be the Internet's ID layer

[robp]

Some smaller newspapers have switched to Facebook-only commenting (here's one example, the Fort Meyers News-Press) because their old systems allowed anonymity without accountability, and they felt it easier to hand the job over to Facebook than develop something better in-house. I think that's a mistake--if you want to outsource your comments system, you could use Disqus or other services that police spam but permit persistent pseudonyms--but it's a real trend, or at least a trendlet.

Re:Facebook wants to be the Internet's ID layer

[tehcyder]

BTW my name is Brian

The Messiah!

Does it work? - Genuine query

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm asking these questions with a genuine level of curiosity....

What impact do people think having real names genuinely has on advertising?

Is the advertising industry really that effective?

How much notice do people actually take?

Are people really conditioned to buy stuff or even switch brands just because there's an advert?

If I'm making a purchase beyond the weekly shop, I tend to look at suppliers websites, reviews etc - I wouldn't go out and spend my hard earned cash on something just because there's an advert telling me to do so.

Personally speaking, heavy advertising and a hard sell are a positive disincentive for me to do business with the organisations concerned. I've walked out of a shop, partway through a purchase [without paying] because the sales droid would not accept that I didn't want the up-sells and I'll never buy some products because of their persistent and incredibly annoying TV adverts.

These days I'm less tempted by impulse buys and know / research into what I want -- so adverts have little effect on me.

I guess I'm just not in the target audience for many of the advertisers -- or perhaps it's a cultural thing and life's different in the US

Eric S. Raymond

[bmo]

Over on G+, ESR has been arguing for the removal of anonymity, pseudonymity, and noms de plume. He claims, repeatedly, that if people are "accountable for what they say" they will behave better online. He calls it the solution to the "Sexygirl69 problem." a "problem" only in his own mind.

Everyone who points out how badly people behave on Facebook under their real names is dismissed with a wave of the hands, as if reality doesn't trump hypotheses. And to add to the insanity, he said that "important people" should be more equal than others and have the right to their celebrity names.

I have the /right/ to call myself anything I want, and as long as I'm not trying to defraud anyone, it's nobody's business. This is the same rule as in meatspace, and in meatspace, courts have sided with anonymity time and again as a fundamental right.

As the discussion progressed and ESR's intransigence became more evident, in a final fit of pique I left the discussion (didn't post a you all suck post, just stopped posting) and deleted the circle. Trying to talk to house plants would be more productive.

The result of this has led me to believe that ESR is no longer a "champion of freedom" but rather the opposite. His way or the highway. And since his opinion has weight in certain circles, I find this rather frightening.

--
BMO

Re:Eric S. Raymond

[Daetrin]

Ironically, i just tried to search for "Erik Raymond" on G+ so i could see for myself what he's been saying, and apparently there are more than ten people with that name currently on G+, and it's not readily apparent at first glance which is the relevant one in this case. It's too bad he doesn't have some kind of unique nickname, something we might call a "pseudonym", which would make it readily apparent which one is the person i'm interested in.

Re:Eric S. Raymond

[dbc]

His way or the highway.

You're just now figuring that out about ESR?

Re:Eric S. Raymond

[discord5]

ESR has been arguing

And that's the most (arguably) productive thing he's done in a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time.

He claims, repeatedly, that if people are "accountable for what they say" they will behave better online.

I'll gladly call him an asshat with my real name and live with the oh-so-dire consequences of that action.

As the discussion progressed and ESR's intransigence became more evident, in a final fit of pique I left the discussion (didn't post a you all suck post, just stopped posting) and deleted the circle. Trying to talk to house plants would be more productive.

Oh well, at least he's accountable for his opinions. Now if he'd only kindly keep them to himself and quietly become completely irrelevant. Oh wait, I forgot, we're on the Internet, where everyone has a soapbox. Hurray! New and improved soapboxes with real names! And I just had my own soapbox finally painted in golden letters for my 20th year of trolling too.

Re:Eric S. Raymond

[bmo]

Well, yeah, it was my first ever direct dealing with him.

I almost always give people the benefit of the doubt when there are rumors. If the rumors are confirmed, well, then I decide from there what to do.

--
BMO

Re:Eric S. Raymond

[bmo]

It would help if you spelled his name right and used Eric S. Raymond.

He's there, right with his picture...

--
BMO

Re:Eric S. Raymond

[Daetrin]

Actually i did spell it right when i did the search, i just screwed up when writing the post. However when i tried "Eric S Raymond" it only returned one result, someone named "Cathy Raymond." When i reduced it to just "Eric Raymond" is when i got the 10+ results.

So which one of those ten pictures is him? I have no clue what he looks like, so...

Re:I demand that SyFy starts using its real name!

[Jiro]

SyFy was lying just as much as Facebook and Google are lying. The name "Sci-Fi" is a descriptive term and as such is hard to trademark (though they could still trademark it in a particular font as a logo). They wanted to change it to something easier to trademark.

Quality Control

[brainzach]

Facebook would not be where it is today if people chose names like sexykitteh69 or RedskinsFan420.

Besides making it easier to find people you know, using a real name makes the site look more professional. If you want to hide your identity, use a fake name that sounds real so it gives the appearance that everyone uses their real name. Obviously fake names cheapen the site.

"Fake"?

[sgunhouse]

To me, a fake name is when you use someone else's name, and that is a problem. But using an alias (as in "sgunhouse" for me) is not a problem. Not that I use FB or the other "big" sites, but I use this name everywhere else.

I've visited a couple of my friends' facebook or myspace pages and had no idea why anyone would want to be there. And I'm not into texting, why would I want Twitter?

I'm sure the search engines or whatever have lots of information on me, but my real name and home address are not something I spread around.

Re:I demand that SyFy starts using its real name!

[Daetrin]

...yes, that would be the legal/technical term for becoming "more recognizable and unique" that the original poster cited.

My real name is neither especially unique and recognizable, nor is it trademarkable. However if i was the first person to come up with "Nostalgia Critic" or "Angry Video Game Nerd" or "Lady Gaga" then i'd clearly have just as much reason and justification to rebrand myself as one of those names as Sci-Fi did for switching to SyFy. (Noting of course that the _right_ to rebrand yourself is entirely independent of the talent and success necessary to make the rebranded name actually relevant =)

Use a proxy..

[Paracelcus]

Appear to come from a different country and name yourself "Raoul Sexout", and say that you are a male escort specializing in cougars.

http://www.xroxy.com/

That's the point

[LateArthurDent]

Ah; a story on how hiding behind pseudonyms is no bad thing.. ..followed by a comment thread in which lots of people hiding behind pseudonyms insult each other in ways they would not do if their names were actually attached and the comments could follow them home.

The ability to be more honest than you're willing to while using your real name is precisely the reason why pseudonyms are important. What you're complaining of is the desired effect.

Curbing other people's freedom is too high a cost to keep you from being offended by some random troll.

OK, how about this...

[jbarr]

Google states that they don't allow pseudonyms. I'd argue that in doing so, they are giving me an expectation of an assurance that the person with whom I want to communicate is who he says he is. When I get a request from "John Jones in Norfolk, Virginia", I expect that it really is John Jones from Norfolk, Virginia. Likewise, if I get a request from "FancyPants8 in some town", I have no such expectation.

So here's how to fix it to please both camps: Google allows pseudonyms, but they add a prominently visible field to show if the user is "validated" or not. If the field shows "validated" (presumably after some Google-provided, yet-to-be-determined validation process) then it means that I can be reasonably sure that the person is who he claims to be. If the field isn't "validated" or is "anonymous", then I know that the person has either not yet validated, or he has no intention to. In either case, it would give me the ability to better filter who and who I do not associate with.

Re:OK, how about this...

[Daetrin]

Well first, i think having a discussion about how to let Google and people in group A have what they want while also allowing people in group B to have what they want is a great idea. I don't really care if they create a system that allows you to block me and everyone else who wants to use a pseudonym, if you don't want to talk to me then as far as i'm concerned that's your loss. And i don't think wanting to have that discussion is the same as insisting that Google MUST do a particular something.

Second, i think your belief that John Jones in Norfolk Virgina is really that person is pretty naive, unless you personally know John Jones from Norfolk Virgina in real life. Even if (actually, especially if,) pseudonyms aren't allowed, trolls and spammers are going to want to create fake accounts, to troll and spam with. And they're going to create whatever kind of name will get past Google's filters. There will be plenty of John Jones and Sarah Smiths and etc who are nothing more than fly-by-night accounts that are going to spam and/or troll as much as they can before they get deleted.

credit card verification?

[peter303]

I recall some early dating sites used credit cards to verify identity. This doesnt help you to go after the high school crowd which usually dont have CCs in their own name.

Which name is fake?

[Skapare]

So, which name is fake? The one on my birth certificate? Or the one everyone knows me by?

Then what about Facebook?

[Jay L]

If requiring real names killed Friendster, why would it not have also killed Facebook?

Real picture WON'T be next? Are you kidding?

[tlambert]

Real picture WON''T be next? Are you kidding?

It doesn't [make a difference to advertisers]. It maters to the real people looking for your profile because they know your real name:

That's incorrect.

If a photo shows you with a particular eye color, hair color, skin pigmentation, or disability, this is all information that can be used to target you for special attention for certain products.

If it shows artifacts, you might be targeted for other products; for example, if you wear eye glasses, have a visible hearing aid, have a TTY device in the background, bachelor shelves (Ikea might like to know that one), a poster for a movie or a band, etc.. If it's a boy band and you're a guy, well, perhaps you'd get a different kind of marketing.

Information leakage in what you'd expect to be "non-useful" data you present on social sites can be phenominal.

-- Terry

the 80s called

[Aighearach]

I remember the first BBS systems I used required mailing a photo of an identification card (and permission slip if under 18) to the SYSOP to prove identity. I was too busy feeling thankful that they put the time and money into buying a phone line and running a free service to be offended that they wanted to make sure cool people like me were the ones using it.

For the vast majority of web services I wouldn't tolerate it. For facebook, I'm okay with it... because the only thing I use it for is as a place for old friends to reconnect. Hopefully people will switch to Google+ for that, time will tell.

Online != real life.

[sgt scrub]

Facebook, G+, etc.. want to be the repositories of who is who so they can sell it. Forcing people to use their real identities legitimizes them. If they want my real name and valuable information they 1) will pay me lots of money. 2) meet me in public. Because. 1) information about me is not free. 2) i can look them in the eye and know they are not batshit.

Re:Credit cards and name verification = not so eas

[slashqwerty]

There is also the fact that anyone can buy a Visa gift card with cash, register it under any name and address they want, and use it anywhere.

Re:Does it work? - Genuine query

[BitZtream]

What impact do people think having real names genuinely has on advertising?

If you want to spam them with standard mail (you know, the thing the postman carries ...) or you want to run a credit check on them ... you need their real name and not much more really.

Dear /. You Don't Get It

[AP31R0N]

Many of you are paranoiacs, aspies and socially inept. Therefore social networking sites are something many of you just can't comprehend.

To people who have friends and like interacting with humans (some of us even interact with females), social networking sites are very useful. FB and G+ get their value from really connecting real me with the real girl who was in my geometry class back in the day. She and i could be posting in the same slashdot threads and never know it, But because she uses her real name on FB i can reconnect with her and maybe even... meet her in person.

For every site that expects you to use your real name there are at least 100 that you can use to be an anonymous fucktard. Let people with social lives have their fun and manage their risks. Stop condescending to people who WANT to connect with people as their real selves.

Re:Dear /. You Don't Get It

[DQKennard]

AP31RON says: "Many of you are paranoiacs, aspies and socially inept. Therefore social networking sites are something many of you just can't comprehend."

then he says: "Stop condescending to people"

Right. Insulting people (largely falsely) in the subject and first line of your post is a *great* way to show your social skills.

So, not to condescend of course, but nobody's stopping you from using Facebook as you'd like. Well, maybe if that real girl from geometry used a pseudonym so you couldn't reconnect that would stop you. Maybe that's what you want stopped?