Facebook Wants You To Snitch On Friends Not Using Their Real Name

Qedward writes "Freedom to go under a pseudonym is, miraculously, one freedom to survive the security lock-down of the previous decade. Now Facebook wants to change this. James Firth shows Facebook is clamping down on pseudonyms, with an interesting screenshot of being asked whether a friend is using their real name."

Comments

Everyone should post as Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have comments you should post them as Anonymous... because we can.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[macbeth66]

I do that now, with all of my email. Of course, it comes across as garbled garbage to my friends. Not that they would notice the difference as the garbage I write in emails is only slightly less crappier than what I post on Slashdot.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous is good, no doubt, but I'd say that pseudonyms are often better because a pseudonym, even if they are personally unknown, helps set context. Comments on issues which are complex often can't realistically be partitioned to be exhaustive in themselves. For some people here, at least, I'm familiar with their basic worldview from their other posts, and their comment or argument can placed in that wider context for deeper consideration, at least implicitly.

I want to keep both, and at least in terms of productive discussion of topics upon which all parties don't already agree, the 'net will be dead to me the day these are lost.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[icebike]

The story was written by Qedward and posted by Soulkill.

How much more Anonymous do you need to be?

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[icebike]

Anonymous is good, no doubt, but I'd say that pseudonyms are often better because a pseudonym, even if they are personally unknown, helps set context. Comments on issues which are complex often can't realistically be partitioned to be exhaustive in themselves. For some people here, at least, I'm familiar with their basic worldview from their other posts, and their comment or argument can placed in that wider context for deeper consideration, at least implicitly.

I'm way to memory challenged to keep track of my own world view, let alone that of the people who's posts I read or reply to.

I suggest it's sort of intellectually dishonest if you evaluate a posting in a certain way based on who posted it rather than what was posted.
Ideas should be evaluated based on their content rather than their source.

After all, isn't checking who posted something sort of running afoul of the Fallacy of Ad hominem?

That said, I tend to discount AC postings unless the subject matter is one where they might have a legitimate need to hide, so, in a sense I'm guilty of the same thing.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[firewrought]

I suggest it's sort of intellectually dishonest if you evaluate a posting in a certain way based on who posted it rather than what was posted. Ideas should be evaluated based on their content rather than their source.

Learning to evaluate ideas directly, without being influenced by one's preconceptions about their source, is a skill that we should all learn and value.

However, it is also valuable to evaluate sources and their presentation of ideas over time, because some sources are more accurate/insightful/relevant to particular knowledge domains than others. And that's important because we evaluate (or should be evaluating) many, many ideas continuously. Authority is not the ultimate source of truth, but it can be a shortcut to it.

A source also has a reputation to defend, and this encourages (some of them) to be more careful about what they say. I suggest that this why you discount AC postings... no reputation is at stake.

Unfortunately, some people are shockingly poor at source evaluation. They'll forward anonymously written emails that are thinly disguised political agit-prop, then turn sour when you send them a link to snopes ("that's not a reliable source").

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid if I'm ever asked about internet identities during a job interview and I answer Anonymous Coward I'll have a lot to answer for.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[Sir_Sri]

I suggest it's sort of intellectually dishonest if you evaluate a posting in a certain way based on who posted it rather than what was posted.
Ideas should be evaluated based on their content rather than their source.

Depends. If someone on fox news claim that that they aren't in bed with the Romney campaign, or that Obama is in fact a kenyan muslim I know they're likely to be full of their usual shit. There's far more information in the world than I can reasonable parse through, so you have to pick your sources you trust and sources you don't, or you'll spend your life doing research and never actually getting things done. That doesn't mean I completely discount everything fox news said, but I'll leave it to someone else to actual check their facts - after all, it was the national enquirer that broke the Monika Lewinsky scandal correctly in detail (despite the vast majority of their material at the time being completely made up nonsense).

Also, posting everything purely anonymously makes it hard to verify you're continuing a conversation with the right person, which does happen in the comments here occasionally.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[planetzuda]

People should use social networks that let you use nicknames and don't ask for your real name. Our open source social network doesn't ask for your real name. People can help make it better without exposing their real name. https://planetzuda.com/

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[Zemran]

I do not bother with ACs either but icebike hardly gives away your identity as Facebook is asking for. I would not give my real name on Facebook and I think that anyone that does is an idiot. I would not want some fanatic to be able to track me down after I comment about some crazy's over reaction to that anti-Mohammed film. I do not tend to write flame bait but I often speak my mind and there are people out there that will kill you for speaking your mind if it is not the same as their warped perception of the world. Do you really think that they cannot find you if you put all your real data on Facebook as Facebook wants?

This is not about AC vs. pseudonym, they want you to put genuine data on your account that will allow people to find the real you in person.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[houghi]

Posting as John Smith, Adrian Cronauer, Samual T. Jameson or any non-fake looking name.
Interesting part is that my alias is more distinct then if I were be using my own name.
And look right here what happens when you use your own name and that name is Justin Bieber.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[Freultwah]

If posting about crazies' overreactions about films is what you do on Facebook, then fine, that's your choice, but then, that's not necessarily the case for other people who might just use the medium to get in touch with and keep track of long (and not necessarily so long) lost friends. As a social platform, so to speak. I am one of those idiots who use their real names on Facebook and I kind of hope that when I look up a friend who moved to some other continent 20+ years ago, or just another city last year, that they don't hide their identity behind some StinkyP007, either. There are approximately three friends in my contact list who use pseudonyms, and damn was it hard to find them. Usually it involved phonecalls to various people to find out who's hiding behind the ever changing alias this week. Phonecalls to find out somebody's Facebook handle. Nice.

For you, a pseudonym may be a convenient flame retardant suit, but for me, it's another level of unnecessary inconvenience laid on top of blocked telephone numbers that change every week. Sure, nobody can find out it's you, but then, you can also use a different account for those inflammatory comments and not make it overly complicated for those who give a shit about you on a personal level. Besides, if you're so worried about somebody coming after you over a freaking comment, then why not turn it up a notch and worry about whether they would come after your friends, because you're not available because of the anonymising pseudonym. You know, to make things more interesting.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[bickerdyke]

Social networks and other online services that claim they have a real name policy should enforce it!

It makes sense for commercial or professional services to have and enforce such a policy (ebay, linkedin). It makes sense for others, NOT to have one (slashdot, dating sites)

But noone needs networks that allow only plausible sounding pseudonyms!

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[nospam007]

"medium to get in touch with and keep track of long (and not necessarily so long) lost friends."

People who had their locker beside yours in high-school are not 'long lost friends', they don't need to see photos of your cars and kids nor need they to know where you live.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[BrokenHalo]

Why not simply make a point of saying in your CV that you don't have a facebook account?

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[green1]

If an employer wants to know about my internet identities in a job interview, then I don't want to work for that employer. (I guess there are exceptions, If I were doing a job interview for Slashdot knowing that I am Green1 might be appropriate) I know it's all too common these days for corporations to try to over reach in every way possible, but certain things are just none of their business, and that includes everything and anything I do on my own time (unless directly related to their business)

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[TheGratefulNet]

the 'long lost friends' are forgotton and meant to STAY THAT WAY.

for a reason.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[Creepy]

I have a friend that has a personal account and a pseudonym for her pen name as a published author. She absolutely does not want her real name and pen name combined, and only a few people know both (I've known it since I dated her best friend in high school).

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[mpe]

Social networks and other online services that claim they have a real name policy should enforce it!

They'd first need to define exactly what they mean by "real name".
Is it what is on someone's birth certificate? What happens when someone dosn't have one or the country where their birth was registered no longer exists? It is also possible for someone born with more than one citizenship to have more than one birth certificate with different names on each. Especially if different languages are involved.
Is it their "legal name" which can vary with both time and geography? How are people going to know what their legal name would be wherever the corporate entity running the website claims to be at the moment.
Then there would be "name person is known by". Which is actually the question the Facebook example is asking. Even though these may well be psudonyms, nicknames, stage names, etc. A "real name" would have to be a set of characters (possibly involving multiple character sets) of arbitratry length. They also mention "first and last names". Not all names can be meaningfully split in such a way. (Classical Roman names being the best know example where this is impossible. Quite a few well known native born US citizens don't fit this idea very well either. e.g. "William Henry Gates III") Even where this is possible common variations include person's name, (paternal) family name; person's name, parent's name; family name, person's name; etc With it being possible for the same name to be both a personal and a family name.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[bickerdyke]

Touche. I should read this more often:

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[mfh]

Anonymous is good, no doubt, but I'd say that pseudonyms are often better because a pseudonym, even if they are personally unknown, helps set context.

He said, posting as AC. :)

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[Cali Thalen]

Evaluating the source is most useful when you don't have a good basis to determine the validity of the information yourself. This isn't as crucial as it was pre-internet, since it's not hard for most (?) people to do a little googling to find out more, but there are time where I don't care enough or don't have the bandwidth to find the background. In those cases, if I know the background of the source, I can sometimes easily decide if it's worth remembering or discounting out of hand.

I totally agree with AC posting, but as has been stated, most inflammatory AC comments will usually just get dismissed on the spot, which is perfectly OK since most are deserving of being ignored. The ones that are worthy of being read will stand on their own, and it's not hard for most (sane) people to know the difference.

More importantly, if people tend to look at completely baseless AC posts (or other drivel) and jump on them like they were fact...well, now I can generally dismiss THOSE people as well. Helps me figure out which people have no sense of logic and can't be trusted to come to rational decisions or opinions.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[BasilBrush]

People who had their locker beside yours in high-school are not 'long lost friends'

You're right, they're probably not. But most people do have real friends that they've lost touch with over the years. Back in the days before widespread internet, where phone and the postal service were the only ways to keep in touch with friends that no longer lived locally, it was hard to keep in touch with more than a handful of friends. I'm back in touch with, and now regularly see several friends that I'd lost touch with for years before Friends Reunited and then Facebook came along.

Possibly for those people who's entire adult lives have been lived in the internet age won't understand this.

Now get off my lawn.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[Anubis IV]

I mostly agree with you, but there's a slight distinction I'd make on your point about intellectual dishonesty.

If we're discussing a topic, our discussion will naturally acquire a vocabulary to it. For instance, rather than fully explaining a point I made previously, I may refer to it by a shortened name that represents it. It's the natural way that conversations flow. If someone else interjects without fully understanding the context and vocabulary, they may argue a point that is entirely unrelated to anything else that is actually being said, simply because they incorrectly assumed the words carried different meanings than they do. In fact, I've seen that happen a number of times here on /., simply because people see a word that they typically object to, when, in fact, it's being used differently in the context of the conversation.

So, if I were to see someone come into a conversation you and I were having and they were to use some of the words or phrases in our vocabulary to make a point that seemed ridiculous, I'd assume that they had misunderstood our vocabulary and would simply clue them in. In contrast, if you were to make that point, I'd likely assume that it was I who was misunderstanding, since you were fully aware of the context and vocabulary, and I'd instead ask for clarification on what you meant.

Essentially, I do not believe it's intellectually dishonest to treat the same words spoken by two different people in a different manner, since different things may be intended by them, and they need to be viewed through a lens that is specific to that person. I do, however, believe that it is intellectually dishonest to treat the same idea from two different people in a different manner, regardless of how it is being expressed. The problem then is how you can determine whether it's the same idea being expressed, and for that I do not have a handy solution.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[Raenex]

There are approximately three friends in my contact list who use pseudonyms, and damn was it hard to find them. Usually it involved phonecalls to various people to find out who's hiding behind the ever changing alias this week. Phonecalls to find out somebody's Facebook handle. Nice.

I don't have a problem with people that use Facebook or their real name on Facebook, but it seems that you have the reverse problem -- that you don't respect people who want to use pseudonyms. You also might want to consider that if somebody hasn't contacted you with their "alternate" account, maybe you aren't that important to them.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[mgoff]

People who had their locker beside yours in high-school are not 'long lost friends'

Yes, they pretty much are, almost by definition, since they are/were friends who you lost touch with a long time ago.

they don't need to see photos of your cars and kids nor need they to know where you live.

Need? No, but maybe they want to. I know that I have really enjoyed seeing photos of friends from high school, their kids, whatever, and have had some fun exchanges catching up with people I hadn't spoken to in years. In my case, I grew up on military bases, so it was particularly easy to lose track of people, especially since this was pre-Internet. Just because circumstances caused me to lose touch with someone doesn't mean they should be permanently erased from my life. Just because I don't call someone on the phone every Sunday doesn't mean that I don't enjoy a quick browse of their photos, updates, whatever they post.

Listen, if you don't want to read or post to Facebook, fine. But you're being an arrogant ass to tell others they shouldn't. Not every interaction with people has to rise to the level of a discussion over the validity of Keynesian vs. Hayekian economics. Maybe I just want to see a cute pic of an old friend playing with his daughter from time to time.

TL;DR: FOAD.

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[KingBenny]

it should be a choice, no ? so ... who wants to join the lobby to start putting pressure on the kettle for the right to use a pseudonym online ?

Re:Everyone should post as Anonymous

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This is my real name, complete with misspelling.

Someone please tell Facebook that

[Presto Vivace]

nobody ever won a war with their customers

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Frac O Mac]

Everyone seems to forget that we aren't the customers, we're the product. This is all about increasing the quality of their data for their real customers.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[bhcompy]

15? Nah. 10? Yes. Ribbons were a declaration of war.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[joelwhitehouse]

Everyone seems to forget that we aren't the customers, we're the product. This is all about increasing the quality of their data for their real customers.

Exactly. Facebook has admitted that 80 million accounts are fake; now it needs to take steps to reassure customers that the eyeballs they've been selling are real.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[dgatwood]

If, as they have said, their "entire platform is based on people using their real identities", then their entire platform is fundamentally flawed. No one should be forced to use their real identity for any purposes online, and the harder companies like Facebook try to force people to do so (and the more sites that use Facebook for authentication), the more backlash there will be against Facebook, and the more traction alternative services will get.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Anonymous Coward]

I have two accounts using the same name, birthday and background. I have 3 other accounts that are completely fake. I've had them for a couple of years and it doesn't seem Facebook is doing much. The 3 fake ones are just game puppets and no one knows who they really are anyway. I guess if it comes up they can all vouch for each other.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[dgatwood]

Incidentally, none of Facebook's accounts are fake. They all represent an online identity. Whether those identities maps 1:1 to physical users or not is irrelevant. There are still actual humans using the accounts, viewing ads, contributing to the usefulness of the platform, etc. There is no legitimate reason for Facebook to be concerned about these accounts that do not center around fundamental invasions of personal privacy, such as correlating user behavior outside of Facebook with what they do and say inside of Facebook.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Anonymous Coward]

The beauty of facebook is that it has absolutely no value. I use it because it is there. If they boot me off, then it's no great loss.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[shentino]

Well the citizens of Monticello already told that to TDS, and they were wrong.

You can easily win a war with your customers if you're a monopoly.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[shentino]

Unfortunately Facebook is a private company and they own the servers, so they get to dictate what data is and is not allowed.

They don't NEED a reason, legitimate or otherwise, to concern themselves with whatever they see fit.

Our facetime, however, is ours, and we may in turn see fit not to patronize them if we don't like what they're doing.

Since they sprung the trap after luring us in, and refuse to delete our data even if we tell them to, we're really not in much of a position to negotiate since they already have us by the balls.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[fast turtle]

you're both wrong. MS has been waging war since WFW 3.11

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Attila Dimedici]

Technically, Facebook recently became a public company.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone seems to forget that we aren't the customers, we're the product. This is all about increasing the quality of their data for their real customers.

Er, "Everyone"?

From the average 12-year old to the 85-year old Great-Grandmother, I have yet to run across someone using Facebook as a "customer" or a "product". They use it because it's free. They use it because it's cool. 90% of people on there don't even know their data is being sold, and therefore are absofuckinglutely clueless as to quality of data, or real customers.

People who sell shit for a living don't have a clue.

There is forgetting, and there is blind ignorance. Don't confuse the two.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Tough Love]

Everyone seems to forget that we aren't the customers, we're the product.

Nobody ever won a war with their product.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[dgatwood]

Unfortunately Facebook is a private company and they own the servers, so they get to dictate what data is and is not allowed.

Nobody said otherwise. What I said was any justification is almost guaranteed to be something that most people would find unacceptable. Sure, users' only real recourse is to switch services, but that can happen; just ask Myspace.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Anonymous Coward]

triangulation complete.

user identified.

sending adds for world of warcraft and pizza...complete!

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[hazah]

Might land you on a watch list though.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Stiletto]

In every transaction, there's a seller, a buyer, and a product.

If you're not getting any money and you're not losing any money, guess what you are...

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Miamicanes]

No, "Hide extensions of known file types (Recommended)" was the first shot in Microsoft's war against its customers.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Viceice]

I do believe they have a legitimate reason to enforce a 'real names' policy.

Imagine if you picked up the local phone directory, and instead of what it has now, it listed names such as FantasyFairy337, OMGCATS88 and cutiecupcakes264. They are still real accounts, and calling the number will connect you with a living breathing person but what would your opinion of the utility of the phone directory be?

One of the strongest motivating factors for people to get on facebook is to connect with/stalk others. For example, to find out if that person you just met and want to date is single or god forbid married with children. Having fake names diminishes this utility.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Paradise Pete]

Someone please tell Facebook that nobody ever won a war with their customers

War? What war? I'd think the advertisers would be quite happy about this.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Paradise Pete]

Nobody ever won a war with their product.

<artihmetic joke> It's always better to get them before they multiply. </artihmetic joke>

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[NotQuiteReal]

Hey - I bet a lot of "real names" are not all the useful either... I have a facebook account. I have zero friends. Not my wife, my kids. Nobody (see definition of zero.)

I just staked out the claim on may name, and pretty much just said "Yes, this me. I don't use facebook."

Lately I have been barraged with incessant emails from Facebook "welcoming me back" or reminding me how many "friend requests I have" (more than zero). All of which I ignore. (Although I do log in every few months, just to keep my account alive.) Seems like desperation to me. Or maybe just IPO money being thrown at "marketing", whatever.

Any other non-user users out there?

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[deesine]

A hippie?

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[erp_consultant]

I think that Facebook is caught between a rock and a hard place here. If the fake accounts continue to exist (and if Facebook is admitting to 80 mil you can be sure the real number is much higher than that) then advertisers will continue to abandon the platform. But if Facebook continues to come out with policies like this then USERS will abandon the platform.

This is why I don't use Facebook. You start out posting a few innocent quotes and photos. Then maybe you add a questionable comment or two. Maybe a drunk college photo. Next thing you know it goes mainstream and HR drones start trolling profiles of prospective hires. Now you're got some explaining to do to someone you don't even know that probably has no business trolling your profile in the first place. But you've sold your soul to Facebook and now you can't get the toothpaste back in the tube. Those photos and comments live in infamy. All in the name of advertising dollars. Who reads those stupid ads anyway?

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[dgatwood]

Imagine if you picked up the local phone directory, and instead of what it has now, it listed names such as FantasyFairy337, OMGCATS88 and cutiecupcakes264. They are still real accounts, and calling the number will connect you with a living breathing person but what would your opinion of the utility of the phone directory be?

About the same as it is now. My employer's phone directory has my number, so if anybody from work needs to reach me, they can. If anybody else needs my number, they can bloody well ask me for it. Likewise, if I need to know somebody's number, I'll ask for it. Otherwise, my number is unlisted, and a lot of folks I know have unlisted numbers as well. Heck, half the folks I know don't even have a home phone, which makes phone books pretty close to completely useless.

I haven't looked up anybody's number in a phone book since I was... oh, single-digit years of age... back in the days when a cellular phone had a car battery attached and, generally speaking, a car attached as well. The notion of being able to trust everyone in town with your phone number is an anachronism from times gone by decades ago, in much the same way that being able to trust any random person to see your real name when they see you posting with your Facebook user on some random message board is an anachronism left over from the early days of the Internet, back before all the stalkers, crazies, and AOLers got on. :-D

BTW, get off my lawn. :-D

But in all seriousness, it's not that I don't trust Facebook to have my real name. It's that I don't trust the world to have my real name, and a lot of sites try to force you to use Facebook to authenticate yourself. The more sites I encounter that use Facebook for their authentication scheme, the less inclined I am to use my real name on Facebook. The more people make that call, the less practical it becomes to find people on Facebook, but then again, if you really want to know my Facebook handle, you could always ask me. In other words, no different than my phone number.

What Facebook really needs to do is to acknowledge that there's a privacy concern, and to allow people to set a fake screen name that will be seen by anyone who isn't on their friends list, or friends of friends, or whatever their privacy setting says. Oh, and to make it possible to provide that bogus information to app developers instead of your real info as well, for precisely the same reason.

I don't even mind people being able to look me up by my real name if they know it. I just want to be able to have a clear delineation between my online persona and my Facebook life or, to put it another way, plausible deniability. :-)

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[sumdumass]

No one should be forced to use their real identity for any purposes online

except when participating in commerce and using credit cards and the such.

That and other obvious exceptions (like filing taxes) aside, Facebook is simply a joke.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[sumdumass]

in this context, it doesn't mean much. Public and private in the context of the parent is differentiating between government and private sector as apposed to privately owned or publicly traded.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[sumdumass]

You mean I can't find fictitious name like bob's carpet barn? The government actually made it a law for the phone companies to provide every name, address, and phone numbers of everyone with a land line in the local calling area. But the phone company also allows you to publish numbers under names other then real names.

You can get a phone number published for FantasyFairy337, OMGCATS88 and cutiecupcakes264 if you are a customer.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[sumdumass]

I'm in the same boat. I have an account only because I sometimes need to check people's pages for work. No friends, posts or anything on it. I don't get the incest emails, but they try to get me to acknowledge if random people in my area (I guess from the IP allocation) are people i know and offer to send them an automatic friend request.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[AliasMarlowe]

Hey - I bet a lot of "real names" are not all the useful either... I have a facebook account. I have zero friends. Not my wife, my kids. Nobody (see definition of zero.)
I just staked out the claim on may name, and pretty much just said "Yes, this me. I don't use facebook."

Same for me: real name & other details, but zero posts, zero "friends", zero photos, zero content. All information is empty except my identifying details. I also made a load of bogus accounts with the same name (my name is quite distinctive and memorable), and a variety of email addresses, then abandoned them. That was years ago. My social life involving real friends exists in real life; it is not conducted on narcissistic worldwide forums. BTW, I regard /. as closer to a form of entertainment (often involving confrontations between sociopaths) than to a social interaction.

Lately I have been barraged with incessant emails from Facebook "welcoming me back" or reminding me how many "friend requests I have" (more than zero). All of which I ignore. (Although I do log in every few months, just to keep my account alive.) Seems like desperation to me. Or maybe just IPO money being thrown at "marketing", whatever.
Any other non-user users out there?

There was one email from Facebook a couple of months ago, desperately imploring me to connect to people. I ignored it, of course. Well, I've only logged in to Facebook about twice since making the account several years ago, so maybe that's why there were fewer emails.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Serious Callers Only]

How do you know there are actual humans controlling the accounts?

I'd be willing to bet real money that there are thousands of small shell scripts out there like me toiling away on automatically updating profiles and taking bidding from our masters on irc in preparation for the robot apocaly?)&@)&? END CARRIER

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[viperidaenz]

and "Use simple file sharing (Recommended)"

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[CodeBuster]

What I said was any justification is almost guaranteed to be something that most people would find unacceptable.

And you're free to NOT use Facebook, as I and many others have chosen to do. If you still want to use Facebook, it's Zuckerberg's way or the highway. That much at least he's made abundantly clear.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[SuricouRaven]

The very reason that lookup ability is valuable to some users is why it is a problem to others. Yes, it allows you to look up your date and run a quick check - but at the same time, it also lets your company you hope to work for run a check on you, and turn you down if they judge your personal life less than perfectly wholesome.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Havenwar]

It would be incredibly useful, since if I wanted to call someone I'd look for them under the name I actually knew them by, not whatever was on their birth certificate.

Personally I've got five names, three first names, two last names. I use one first and one last on facebook and on my mailbox and in most catalogues and so on. Lately though some companies have taken to making it more convenient for the customer by automatically getting my data from my personal number that I have to enter to pay per credit or get billed or whatever, and so they send the bill/product/messages to my address as it's listed in the government data bases. This confuses the fuck out of the postman, especially since most label printing software doesn't seem to handle it too well which leads to the names being given in arbitrary order (lastname, firstname firstname firstname otherlastname was a particular favourite of mine) and sometimes truncated to show only a few of the names, sometimes just the first names, sometimes just one of the last names...

All in all I've had to argue my case three times now over bills that never reached me because of this. On the other hand I've actually twice received physical mail that was addressed to one of my internet handles, because apparently my more "public" internet handle is not quite so hard to track down as random permutations of my "official" name.

To summarize, if it's usability you want then it's greatly preferred to give people control over what they want to be known as, rather than leave it to the official registered version. In the real world names are not unique identifiers, and all systems need to account for the fact that we do indeed use nicknames and variations. When they stop doing this, the systems collide with reality, and failure happens.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Viceice]

You raise an interesting point about having a 'fake' name to show the world, and what is your real name.

I'm Chinese, so on my bank accounts and official documents, I have the romanised version of my name in mandarin.

In day to day life however, everyone calls me Nicholas. My co workers, clients, friends, etc. and that is also the name I use on facebook. About the only people who know my name in mandarin are my immediate family, and entities I need to enter into contracts with.

To be sure, Nicholas is by no means fake or a pseudonym. My parents named me as such, and I have answered to that name all my life. Google me and you will turn up a lot of stuff i have put online over the years, pictures of parties, videos, random nonsense on forums etc. But searching official records for that name is going to turn up a lot of people who arn't me.

So back to the topic at hand, maybe what facebook is concerned with are name that are pure fiction/fantasy, after all, my name would pass the 'fake' test in the article as i have built an identity around it, but it's not my official name.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Havenwar]

A slashdot user?

Just saying, your argument holds true just as well for slashdot as it does for facebook. There is (allegedly) ads here as well, and I'm certainly not being paid or paying for the time I spend here.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Havenwar]

I don't mind being on a watch list in the US, because I have absolutely no intention of ever going near the place. The majority of facebook users are NOT american, so it's not really a big deal.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[aamcf]

Who reads those stupid ads anyway?

After I got engaged and before I got married, Facebook kept showing me ads for wedding dresses. I'm a guy. As is my now-husband

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[DaveGod]

This is why I don't use Facebook. You start out posting a few innocent quotes and photos. Then maybe you add a questionable comment or two. Maybe a drunk college photo. Next thing you know [...]

FB privacy has moved on a bit. You can add "friends" then categorise your real friends as "close friends", then default all postings as being visible only to close friends. It does take a bit of care but you can leave your FB page sterile and devoid of anything remotely interesting. You can even add people as "restricted" so even if you mess up at some point they still never see anything.

Much to my surprise, this is actually my biggest problem with FB.

See historically it was quite comfortable to be acquainted with someone, but not include them in things and not be included in their things. It just doesn't come up that either of you would include the other. You weren't hanging out on Saturday so of course you weren't included in the conversation or invited to the cinema or whatever. Friendship was an organic thing, you could lie anywhere between best friend and vague acquaintance and that relationship could vary depending on the circumstances - if you did happen to meet that day maybe you would be in the conversation and invited to join them to the cinema or whatever. It's pretty easy just to go around thinking maybe you two would be good friends if only the situation arose.

FB however feels more like positive exclusion. Like you're in the room but people are whispering and moving away to keep out of earshot. At lunchtime you can see your colleague, who "friended" you on FB and is generally very friendly, tapping away into their phone app yet you never see anything. It's much more in your face that you're not in their trusted circles and not really considered their friend. They have categorised you and that's that; there's nothing organic about it.

The worst bit is the feedback loop. Due to FB it's clear you're not in their trusted circles so you're more careful with them "in real life" - you either trust them or you don't - and life begins to reflect FB.

This is really quite a sad state of affairs for someone who is quite shy, a bit socially awkward but naturally likes people and tends towards being quite open.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[aevan]

They do. To this date Congress has not passed a law stating your Facebook account name must be real.

Good gods, the constitution works at times!

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[gl4ss]

I got a real account.

and a fake account.

how else am I supposed to test facebook api's? by pestering my friends? fuck no.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[nospam007]

"except when participating in commerce and using credit cards and the such."

I mostly use Paypal, so they just get one of my myriad of email addresses, and the name they put on the label is my cats'.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[arth1]

I'm Chinese, so on my bank accounts and official documents, I have the romanised version of my name in mandarin.

I'm not Chinese, but I have a similar situation. I was given a "traditional" name, uncommon even in the language of my mother, and completely unusable in my language - English.
The way my mother wrote it differs from the name on my driver's license and social security card. Both versions lie - they're not my real name, and both are worthless for friends to find me by. The way my mother wrote it, my friends can't even enter on their keyboards, so what good would that do them for finding me on Facebook? The version on my driver's license they wouldn't be able to guess at[*].

English is incredibly rich in its amount of words, but I think it must be one of the poorest languages in the world in number of pronounced vowels, consonants, stress and inflections.

My friends do, however, know how to spell and pronounce my nickname. So if they look for my Facebook account, that's what they'd enter. (And then they'd hopefully feel stupid for trying to look me up on Facebook of all places.)

[*]: It ends with "re" almost as sung by Ãdit Piaf in "No, je ne regrette rien"[**]. That's not even remotely related to what an English speaker would guess.
[**]: For the cunning ones here, that would be an uvolo-pharyngeal trill followed by a stressed short diphtong-free near-close near-front unrounded vowel.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[jvj24601]

Just one fake account? At last count, my development team of four had 17 fake accounts.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[flaming error]

1) Rights apply everywhere. Consequences of exercising them may vary.

2) Rights are not granted by amendments - they are "inalienable". The purpose of the Bill of Rights was not to say what citizens can do, but to clarify what the government can't do.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[sumdumass]

And paypal does not ask for payment information?

How do I get one of these accounts.

This info is being provided whether it is obvious or not. Maybe not directly to the merchant, but paypal is online too.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[stephanruby]

So let's clarify this a bit: No internet-based company has ever won a war against its living and breathing human products.

If Facebook really wanted to know our real names without antagonizing us too much, it should just allow us to create profiles with pseudonyms and separate friend's lists, and also have something akin to Amazon's "Verified Real Name" profile for the times when having a verified real name gives us more credibility and trustworthiness, so it will be taken more seriously if we sign a petition, post a review, or post a comment on a company's facebook page.

If they actually did try to do that, they would know even more about us and could productize us even more easily, and they could even advertise to all our profiles at the same time knowing that it was just one person sitting behind all those profiles.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[hazah]

Hmm... I wonder for how long that's going to matter.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[Havenwar]

Is the way the US act on a global scale a valid concern for personal freedom as a concept? Definitely. Is it an actual problem for MY personal freedom? Not really - at the pace things move it's fairly sure I'll be long dead and buried by the time it could theoretically come to that.

And that's assuming that a country that can't even keep themselves stable right now would somehow manage to get every other major power on the planet to agree with them and do as they want.

To summarize:
Are they trying to influence the world? Sure. In many ways.
Are they succeeding? In a few ways.
Problem? Not really.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[ultranova]

One of the strongest motivating factors for people to get on facebook is to connect with/stalk others. For example, to find out if that person you just met and want to date is single or god forbid married with children. Having fake names diminishes this utility.

If I'm connecting to a person I already know, I can ask them their Facebook ID off-band. If I'm not, what do I care what the real name behind the ID happens to be? Either they're interesting enough to bother interacting with or they're not.

But thank you for giving yet another reason to use different pseudonyms everywhere: it makes you harder to stalk.

Re:Someone please tell Facebook that

[hazah]

I'd actually agree.

What if God were Anonymous?

[fm6]

Yes, anonymity is valuable! Especially for spammers.

Re:What if God were Anonymous?

[fm6]

Sorry, I was too lazy to dream up a proper title, so I riffed on the theme from Joan of Arcadia.

Facebook snitches

[Anonymous Coward]

Get stitches.

Snitches end up in ditches

[alen]

In my case some of these people are expert army sharpshooters and/or former paratroopers

So no, I'm not snitching

Re:Snitches end up in ditches

[interval1066]

I'm not snitching

Are you kidding? I understand you get 10,000 "likes" for every friend you snitch on. Now that's real value...

Re:Snitches end up in ditches

[Anonymous Coward]

But WAIT! There's more! Snitch on three friends today and we'll throw in 2 hours of yard time (A 100 cigarette value) for FREE!

Re:Snitches end up in ditches

[WhitePanther5000]

Are you really implying that your friends would kill you for being a bit of a dick? That's maybe grounds for un-friending, not a military operation.

Re:Snitches end up in ditches

[sumdumass]

I can see some people who would only be on the site if they were anonymous. The problem with these people is that outing them could mean they or their families end up dead or the potential is there. I would think anyone willing to do that to me would be on my short list to kill if i was in that position.

Imagine an army sniper who posts he took out 5 enemies planting a roadside IEDs from 1 kilometer out today. Someone recognizes the date and realizes it was when their brother died. Two years later, he looks up everyone with this name until he finds him. Suppose he looks at the exif data on a pic posted to the account and narrows it down to a geographical location then assaults the family and ex soldier killing them all.

Re:Snitches end up in ditches

[WhitePanther5000]

You're taking this to the extreme. But the easy solution is: don't post classified information or location data on facebook. I would expect it to at the very least violate several policies.

Re:Snitches end up in ditches

[sumdumass]

I agree with you, but I find videos on youtube, something awful and other sites all the time. It's not like people are as smart as we are.

Re:Snitches end up in ditches

[Captain.Abrecan]

Like karma on reddit!

id wonder if ....

[metalmaster]

John imsoclevercauseichangedmymiddlename Smith is targeted under this new scrutiny. There are probably 20-30 people on my facebook who do that.

Confession time

[Anonymous Coward]

My last name isn't Coward; it's actually Smith.

Anonymous is my real given name though. Life has not been kind to me ever since 4chan took off.

Re:Confession time

[jd2112]

I'm going to name my nondescript cattle ranch after you. From now on it will be known as the Anonymous Cow Yard.

Re:Confession time

[alext]

Bingo. Coward the surname (as in Noel) is actually cow herd, fascinatingly enough.

Please help us

[mtrachtenberg]

Please help us understand how people are using Facebook:

Is this your friend's real name?

Do you really like this friend?

Has this friend ever sent you any revealing pictures?

How much do you think this friend spends on entertainment? clothes? shoes? online services?

Please estimate the odds that this so-called friend might be a terrorist?

If you had to describe this friend to Facebook and the DHS, which of the following descriptions would you use: creative? avant-garde? obedient? disruptive?

Facebook appreciates your answers and respects your privacy. Thank you.

Re:Please help us

[Art Challenor]

The only reason Facebook would ask if someone were a terrorist is so that they can better direct advertising at them!

Re:Please help us

[Mashiki]

What kind of idiots are on Facebook anyway?

Well just remember those of us that are 'sane' and don't have an account, are apparently psychopaths now. So fuck'em. I'd rather be a psychopath, then I can get free room and board, along with happy-trip meds.

Re:Please help us

[Doctor_Jest]

Exactly! How can you advertise the right kind of bomb making material coupons without knowing who is and who is not a terrorist? I suppose trolling the "jobs" section Facebook profiles would help, but this is more targeted (no pun intended).... so the money saving coupons from "Jihads are Us" and "72 Virgin Megastore" go to the proper terrorists.

It's a win win!

Re:Please help us

[dgatwood]

Is this your friend's real name?

No

Do you really like this friend?

No

Has this friend ever sent you any revealing pictures?

Eww. No.

How much do you think this friend spends on entertainment? clothes? shoes? online services?

Don't know. Ask him/her yourself.

Please estimate the odds that this so-called friend might be a terrorist?

About the same as the general population, give or take.

If you had to describe this friend to Facebook and the DHS, which of the following descriptions would you use: creative? avant-garde? obedient? disruptive?

Leftist and litigious.

I think that's where the conversation would end abruptly.

Re:Please help us

[TaoPhoenix]

(Bitter Satire)
Hi user mtrachtenberg.

Are you the actress Michelle Trachtenberg? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005502/
With an ID that low and the "wrong" gender I am guessing not.

Re:Please help us

[sumdumass]

Leftist and litigious.

I think that's where the conversation would end abruptly.

I doubt that. Facebook seems to be of the leftist leaning. They recently refused to advertise a book by a conservative radio talk show host named "50 things liberals love to hate".

It seems they would be fine with the leftist and might ask you for help on the litigating part.

Re:Please help us

[viperidaenz]

If you had to describe this friend to Facebook and the DHS, which of the following descriptions would you use: creative? avant-garde? obedient? disruptive? jihadist?

Re:Please help us

[viperidaenz]

Fertiliser ads go to farmers and terrorists...

Re:Please help us

[Havenwar]

I'd compare it to learning English if you're (like me) not a native English speaker. It simply opens up opportunities, gives you a chance to interact with a global community without having to learn a hundred different local languages (or use a thousand different smaller sites, in the facebook case), and generally is a tool that can be incredibly useful if you decide to leverage it.

While I am less than thrilled with the way they run their business the fact that one in seven people globally are on there makes it indispensable to have a facebook account, even though I personally barely use it. There have been people I've met that have given me their facebook url for me to contact them with simply because they don't use e-mail or IM systems much, and these days even phones aren't all that popular around here. Getting cut off from that would mean being cut off from a significant subset of human interaction in the modern age.

Having said that, I do hope some better service comes along and overtakes them with a more secure and better functioning system, but given that the average user couldn't care less as long as farmville works it's not very likely. Diaspora for instance sounds great, but it won't go viral any time soon. There's no incentive to make the change for people who don't care about the security aspect.

Why stop at fake names?

[Bongoots]

Fake date of birth, fake profile picture, fake location details, ...

This could be a good little snitching exercise, but then Fakebook would lose so many under-13s* that their userbase would practically halve. And that's just tackling DOBs, let alone the other details.

(*I'm not condoning under-13s being on the website, only stating the fact that there are a lot of children who signed up with fake DOBs.)

Re:Why stop at fake names?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule #1 for my kids: never ever use real information. There's a time and place for it, but not on Facebook or other 'social' and gaming website.

Re:Why stop at fake names?

[green1]

This is what surprised me so much when facebook started. Before facebook the general rule of thumb was to never ever use your real information online. It's what all parents were supposed to tell their kids, it's what the police told people, it's what any sane person did. Suddenly facebook came along and nobody batted an eyelash to the complete reversal of one of the most basic safety rules of the internet. If you want to know why I don't have a facebook account this is it. I still remember the internet where we were warned specifically never to do this, and I know the internet hasn't changed.

Facebook encourages snitch culture in general

[elucido]

Just look at how it's designed. It's designed to encourage snitch culture.
Let me make it clear, telling the truth isn't the same as snitching. Witnessing isn't the same as snitching. And helping the police isn't the same as snitching. Snitching is telling on your own side.

The problem with Facebook itself is it doesn't care about ethics or the risks associated with making everyone stalkable. Facebook is a stalker friendly application while at the same time snitch friendly. That combination isn't a good mix. For example if you have a friend who has a stalker maybe you shouldn't reveal their last name on Facebook even if you know it, and maybe you shouldn't tell Facebook whether or not they are using a pseudonym.

On the other hand maybe they shouldn't be on Facebook.

Re:Facebook encourages snitch culture in general

[drinkypoo]

And helping the police isn't the same as snitching. Snitching is telling on your own side.

The problem is, there are so many sides.

Re:Facebook encourages snitch culture in general

[drinkypoo]

I only count two:

I was addressing the quoted text in my comment, which is how these things work. HTH, HAND.

Re:Facebook encourages snitch culture in general

[elucido]

And helping the police isn't the same as snitching. Snitching is telling on your own side.

The problem is, there are so many sides.

But if you're a traitor to your side then the next side you join will automatically expect you'll be a traitor to theirs as well and your usefulness will be limited.

Re:Facebook encourages snitch culture in general

[TheSwift]

On the other hand maybe they shouldn't be on Facebook.

I think this is the key point here... if you don't like it, leave it. No reason to be hating those that choose to enjoy the social media. If you don't mind your identity being exposed to the public, then you won't care if people know your real name. Those that post photos of themselves drunk online should know better and you can always tag pictures as inappropriate if you're worried a potential employer is stalking you and your buddy's posting pics of you losing horribly at beer pong.

And anyways, we can always go and and post any comments or pictures that might us in trouble on sites that DO allow anonymity... like Slashdot.

Re:Facebook encourages snitch culture in general

[sumdumass]

Depends on how he became a traitor to his side. If it's a fight and you are essentially taking your ball and going home, then yes. But if it is a moral stand, (suppose robbing people is fine but someone got killed and that isn't) then maybe not. Also, if your side is out of ignorance (relevant to the topic), it can be a moral stand and not so much suspect or limited for changing sides (suppose one of the enemy cultivates you and convinces you their position is more moral or righteous or justified or something).

supply chain

[Presto Vivace]

Just as you say. Yet I am not sure that making war on your supply chain is much of an improvement.

Re:supply chain

[sconeu]

Ask Apple.

Re:supply chain

[flaming error]

And Wal-Mart.

Facebooks product, customers, and suppliers

[DragonWriter]

Everyone seems to forget that we aren't the customers, we're the product.

While its true that Facebook's customers are those purchasing ads, the rest is not quite right.

Facebook users are suppliers, not products. Their attention is the raw material for the product, which demographically targetted advertising.

The utility (in the economic system) provided by Facebook's system to the users is the payment from the product vendor to its suppliers.

Re:Facebooks product, customers, and suppliers

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Nope, sorry, that doesn't make a conveniently dehumanizing enough sound bite to repeat ad nauseum whenever the poster needs a quick jolt of smug self-importance for not using Facebook/Google/etc. You'll have to do better than that.

This. "You are not the customer, you are the product" may have been a really insightful observation once upon a time. Now it's become just another sound bite.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

From Facebook's help center:

When everyone uses their real first and last names, people can know who they're connecting with. This helps keep our community safe.

God damn it, Facebook, what does that even mean? How does a name have any relationship to safety? How do you know who you're connecting with just from a name? That gives you no information about the person unless you already have information to associate to it. Even if you had information, how does a name convey who you are? I can say my name is John Smith and good luck finding me among all the other John Smiths.

This help center entry is stupid hand-waving tripe at best and propaganda at worst.

Re:Bullshit

[__aaltlg1547]

But if nobody used their real name, address or relattionships they'd be safer. At least from stalkers.

99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[tetrahedrassface]

Facebook users don't care, and get angry when you try to eduucate them. They think I'm crazy,, but mostly I post inane rubbish just to keep the data miners off kilter.. Spam away!

Re:99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[BlueStrat]

Facebook users don't care, and get angry when you try to eduucate them. They think I'm crazy,, but mostly I post inane rubbish just to keep the data miners off kilter.. Spam away!

Just don't post anti-big-government opinions and Canadian rap song lyrics if you're a military veteran, or you could get the "Soviet dissident" treatment, and get thrown into a mental ward without warrant or due process.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/22/can-government-detain-you-over-facebook-posts/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/29/former-marine-facebook-sue-fbi

Thankfully for Raub, someone caught his detainment on video and it went viral. What if nobody had taken video? Would he still be doing the "Thorazine shuffle" and drooling on himself in a tranq'ed-out stupor in some mental ward doing a real-world remake of Jack Nicholson's role in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"?

Scary times we live in.

Strat

Re:99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[GameboyRMH]

Let's just be clear, have you read this guy's posts? I've read them. He posted many violent threats (and absolute batshit insanity) on his Facebook page, even if some were quoted lyrics. All the conservatives I know on other forums stopped portraying this guy as a persecuted victim after they actually read his posts.

Re:99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[BlueStrat]

He posted many violent threats

Please enlighten me. What "violent threats" did he post?

Posting violent threats IS against the law, and not only was he never charged, a judge disagrees with your characterization as he had Raub immediately released and chastised the government. It's not like the Rutherford Institute lawyers had to mount some lengthy defense, their main function was simply to force the government to present a reason for Raub's detention to a judge, which should have happened before he was abducted by the FBI, Secret Service, and police and held illegally.

Yeah, he's a 9/11 "truther", but last I knew, that wasn't illegal, otherwise Van Jones should have been arrested, as he was a member of a "truther" group as well.

I don't agree with much of what Raub seems to believe, but that doesn't mean the guy is guilty of any crimes. He doesn't even own any weapons. His posts contained no direct or specific threats, no suicidal talk, he suffered no loss of function, no inability to perform his daily routine, none of that pesky criteria that traditionally indicates mental illness. It would seem that the government is less concerned about real evidence of mental illness and more concerned with anti-government sentiment (which they consider to be one in the same).

Strat

Re:99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[Raenex]

So you've got some guy who is an ex-Marine parroting fringe conspiracy theories, and saying stuff like "Just know that a new beginning is coming." and "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads." If this guy had gone postal, you'd have the media questioning why the authorities ignored the obvious warning signs.

If he was only detained for conspiracy theories, that would be one thing, but that just isn't the case.

Re:99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[BlueStrat]

So you've got some guy who is an ex-Marine parroting fringe conspiracy theories, and saying stuff like "Just know that a new beginning is coming." and "Sharpen up my axe; I'm here to sever heads." If this guy had gone postal, you'd have the media questioning why the authorities ignored the obvious warning signs.

If he was only detained for conspiracy theories, that would be one thing, but that just isn't the case.

Hey, there are things they could have done besides bum-rushing the guy and throwing him in a mental ward.

You know, like talk to the guy. Ask him; "Gee, we're a little worried here, help us out, what did you mean by this? We're just concerned for your own and other people's safety."

That's just it. Any reasonable people whose only goal was his and the public's safety would have had a talk with him, his family, etc before tossing him straight into the looney bin, do not pass "Go", do not consult a psychiatrist/psychologist, or make any other attempt to ascertain his state of mind.

That wasn't the primary goal. Suppression of publicly voiced anti-government opinion was the priority here based on the government's actions.

I had a neighbor once that worried some people with bizarre behavior. They sent a pair of social workers with a mental health background to talk to the guy, with a black-and-white parked down the street observing. They talked to the guy for about a half-hour, turned around, and left. He was not a danger to himself or others. The situation wasn't escalated, he wasn't provoked or alarmed. I watched him try to give the social workers tomatoes from his garden.

*That's* how it's done when the primary goal is not to put a boot on someone's neck for expressing their opinions.

Strat

Re:99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[Raenex]

Hey, there are things they could have done besides bum-rushing the guy and throwing him in a mental ward. You know, like talk to the guy.

That's what they did. Apparently they didn't like his answers:
http://wtvr.com/2012/08/28/brandon-raub-youtubeinterview/

"Raub said he talked with two FBI agents from inside his door for about 10 to 15 minutes."

As for "bum-rushing", that was after he started resisted arrest:

"At this point, Raub, still in nothing but a pair of shorts, said he begged the agents to let him go back inside and get some flip-flops and a shirt.

When they refused, and at one point, he said he decided to make things more difficult for the officers since they wouldn't let him get clothes from the house.

"I realized that they weren't going to read me my rights and they weren't arresting me, so I basically just decided just to make it more difficult for them take me. I dropped my body weight -- and I don't think one of the Chesterfield policeman liked it very much, so he tackled me into the fence." "

OK, so judging purely on that story that was an overreaction, but it was hardly the knock-on-the-door bum-rush that you make it out to be.

do not consult a psychiatrist/psychologist

Now this is getting stupid. Don't you think a psychiatric evaluation would include talking to a psychiatrist?

That wasn't the primary goal. Suppression of publicly voiced anti-government opinion was the priority here based on the government's actions.

Except for all the countless looney-tunes sites parroting the same garbage, minus the ex-Marine talking about severed heads and revolutions. Be honest and stop with the one-sided nonsense.

Re:99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[BlueStrat]

"Raub said he talked with two FBI agents from inside his door for about 10 to 15 minutes."

Yeah, they wanted him to to allow them to search his home without a warrant.

As for "bum-rushing", that was after he started resisted arrest:

No, the "bum-rush" was the cops/FBI surrounding him, actually body-to-body close as soon as he complied with them asking him to step off his porch to "talk".

"I realized that they weren't going to read me my rights and they weren't arresting me, so I basically just decided just to make it more difficult for them take me. I dropped my body weight -- and I don't think one of the Chesterfield policeman liked it very much, so he tackled me into the fence." "

At that point, he knew what was coming. Anyone would. I don't blame him. How is going limp "resisting"? That's the opposite of resisting. He just wasn't "assisting" them to violate his rights. Or is not assisting in the violation of one's rights now considered "resisting"?

do not consult a psychiatrist/psychologist

Now this is getting stupid. Don't you think a psychiatric evaluation would include talking to a psychiatrist?

I agree it's stupid. On your part. You don't just haul someone off without some sort of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of an immediate threat. And no, the FB postings were not sufficient, as the judge pointed out. The "evaluation" was to be conducted during 30 days in a mental ward, *after* they illegally abducted him, no evaluations by a doctor or other legitimate mental health authority were conducted before and used as a reason to detain him. That all came after the fact.

That wasn't the primary goal. Suppression of publicly voiced anti-government opinion was the priority here based on the government's actions.

Except for all the countless looney-tunes sites parroting the same garbage, minus the ex-Marine talking about severed heads and revolutions. Be honest and stop with the one-sided nonsense.

The only "nonsense" here is from you and the government. He made no specific or direct threats, again according to a judge, and the judge even strongly chastised the actions against Raub by the government.

I don't agree with much of what Raub posted, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have every right to express them without being snatched up and thrown in a mental ward.

"First they came for..."

I won't let them get down to me before I speak out.

Don't you have some boots to lick somewhere instead of wasting intelligent people's time that actually understand freedom, the rights that they have not from government, but from God, and when they are being violated?

If you don't understand your rights, where they come from, and the principles and Rule of Law upon which this country was built and became the freest nation to ever exist, please refrain from voting or expressing other unqualified and ignorant opinions until you've done your civics homework.

Strat

Re:99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[Raenex]

Yeah, they wanted him to to allow them to search his home without a warrant.

"Raub said he talked with two FBI agents from inside his door for about 10 to 15 minutes. He said the agents mentioned his Facebook posts, but were not very specific and seemed to be prodding for him to elaborate on the messages.

However, the discussion them moved outside and Raub said he started going into specifics about government conspiracy theories. He said one of the FBI agents was scribbling down what he said. He also said that at no point was he read his Miranda rights, but that he was handcuffed. "

At that point, he knew what was coming. Anyone would. I don't blame him. How is going limp "resisting"?

He was already in handcuffs and being led away, walking along with the officers towards the car. My understanding is that if you don't comply with an officer, by for example not putting your hands behind your back, not stepping away from a vehicle when ordered, or in this case dropping your weight, then you are resisting.

And no, the FB postings were not sufficient, as the judge pointed out. The "evaluation" was to be conducted during 30 days in a mental ward, *after* they illegally abducted him, no evaluations by a doctor or other legitimate mental health authority were conducted before and used as a reason to detain him. That all came after the fact.

OK, I concede your point, they didn't have enough to arrest him and place him under psychiatric evaluation in the first place, but the picture you were painting was hardly unbiased or fair. He wasn't just some guy posting "anti-big-government opinions and Canadian rap song lyrics". He was an ex-Marine posting anti-government fringe conspiracy theories, talking about a coming revolution, and the lyrics were "Sharpen up my axe: I'm here to sever heads".

I don't agree with much of what Raub posted, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have every right to express them without being snatched up and thrown in a mental ward.

Maybe not, but I can understand the difficult position the government is in. These are obvious warning signs, and when somebody like this goes off you'll always have the media and victims complaining why the government ignored them.

Don't you have some boots to lick somewhere instead of wasting intelligent people's time that actually understand freedom, the rights that they have not from government, but from God, and when they are being violated?

Funny that you're talking about boot-licking while appealing to the ultimate authority figure, "God". Rights come from the collective and individuals. Anybody with a knowledge of history and societies around the world could figure that out.

Re:99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[BlueStrat]

My understanding is that if you don't comply with an officer, by for example not putting your hands behind your back, not stepping away from a vehicle when ordered, or in this case dropping your weight, then you are resisting.

Your understanding is incorrect. Not taking a proactive part in cooperating with your arrest is not resisting. At least, not according to my nephew, a senior police detective (who is also a first Iraq war vet).

He was an ex-Marine posting anti-government fringe conspiracy theories, talking about a coming revolution, and the lyrics were "Sharpen up my axe: I'm here to sever heads".

First, there is no such thing as an "ex-Marine". Once a Marine, always a Marine. You become either a dead Marine, or a retired or no longer active-duty Marine. Being a Marine is forever. Again, a judge confirmed that Raub's posts did not justify arrest or detention, and in fact the judge strongly chastised the government for violating his basic rights. If neo-Nazis, skinheads, and the NBPP have the right to spew their hatred and vitriol, Raub certainly has a right to his speech.

Second, again, what he posted did not, according to a judge, rise to the level of being an arrestable act. Otherwise, they could have had a warrant. They didn't have a warrant precisely because they knew a judge would not sign off on one on the basis of the evidence they had. Whether or not he was a Marine does not enter into it, does not lower the standards required for arrest/detention. As the judge pointed out if you read his findings.

I don't agree with much of what Raub posted, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have every right to express them without being snatched up and thrown in a mental ward.

Maybe not, but I can understand the difficult position the government is in. These are obvious warning signs, and when somebody like this goes off you'll always have the media and victims complaining why the government ignored them.

At the most, all they warrant is having a friendly non-confrontational talk. Nobody else, not his family nor his friends, who were all aware of his FB posts, had any worries or concerns about his mental health or that he might be a danger to himself or others. That was not what worried DHS, which is where the impetus for the actions taken against Ruab originated. His political beliefs, and the fact he was stating them publicly, was what worried DHS. There is another definition of the three letters of "DHS" used behind closed doors: "Domestic-Hostile Suppression".

Typically, LE will make contact with friends, neighbors, and/or family to help in ascertaining these things before taking any actions like arrest/detention. This never happened in Raub's case. Playing CYA with the media is not a valid reason to violate a man's basic rights which is what a judge determined happened in this case (the rights violations).

Don't you have some boots to lick somewhere instead of wasting intelligent people's time that actually understand freedom, the rights that they have not from government, but from God, and when they are being violated?

Funny that you're talking about boot-licking while appealing to the ultimate authority figure, "God". Rights come from the collective and individuals. Anybody with a knowledge of history and societies around the world could figure that out.

This is incorrect and the basis for my saying you need a course in civics, and if I may add, a course on the Constitution as well.

"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." - Samuel Adams

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." - Benjamin Franklin

"The righ

Re:99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[Raenex]

Not taking a proactive part in cooperating with your arrest is not resisting.

I checked the law, and that's apparently true in Virginia, where he was arrested. Then again, the officers have a right to use reasonable force to take you in. I don't know exactly what happened, but when a big, strong guy stops cooperating with his arrest, multiple cops are going to surround him. What is clear is that they didn't knock on the door and "bum rush" him like some kind of raid.

First, there is no such thing as an "ex-Marine". Once a Marine, always a Marine.

I don't give a crap about the Marine service's propaganda.

Again, a judge confirmed that Raub's posts did not justify arrest or detention, and in fact the judge strongly chastised the government for violating his basic rights. [..] Second, again, what he posted did not, according to a judge, rise to the level of being an arrestable act.

I don't know why you're repeating the same point twice here, when I already acknowledged this in my last post.

Whether or not he was a Marine does not enter into it, does not lower the standards required for arrest/detention. As the judge pointed out if you read his findings.

I couldn't find the findings to read, even though I looked. And while I'm sure it is legally true with regards to military service, practically speaking somebody with military training and service talking about revolutions and severed heads is going to raise more eyebrows.

Legal issues aside, as I've already conceded the legal issues, my original point, which you haven't acknowledged, is that your summary was biased and did not tell the whole story.

[quotes from Founders]

I'm well aware of these positions, especially as stated in the Declaration of Independence, but that doesn't make them true. Some of these same founders also held slaves. That these same men for the most part also believed in "God" holds just about as much respect for me as did their belief in slavery.

The "collective" has nothing to do with from where rights spring from.

If the collective doesn't recognize your rights then you de facto don't have them (such as the right to use illegal drugs), or you may de facto be granted them (such as the right to clean water from your landlord). But I also mentioned the individual, as they will ultimately decide for themselves what rights they feel they have. To say that rights are granted by God is just a shortcut in logic.

The "collective" is mob-rule and subject to the vagaries and corruptions of politics and the public's temporary impulses, fears, and hysteria.

And individual rule is anarchy, which tends to evolve into some power structure based on warring groups. In truth there is always going to be a tension between society and individual.

Re:99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[BlueStrat]

I see that you view things from a more or less humanist viewpoint and tend to dismiss religion and spirituality. I'm not attacking you here, just noting an observation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In any case...

My view is that men need a general common sense and common spiritual structure of morality over and above any laws any government may pass in order for a free and open society to remain stable, as a need for some sense of spirituality is part of basic human nature and inescapable in a general sense, as people make up their own spiritual belief systems lacking any outside examples.

If there is no common spirituality and spiritual bonding between the individuals in a society and a general sense of being part of something larger than themselves, society-wide chaos, violence, and cruelty will eventually ensue, leading to collapse.

Both intellect and emotion, head and heart, must be invested in the society as a whole as well as in each of the other individuals in that society for there to be a generally benevolent and stable.society where cruelty, abuse, and unfairness are minimal. That is why ideologies that ignore or suppress spiritual/moral/religious systems and beliefs outside of those put forward by government usually fall into despotism/totalitarianism and eventually chaos and collapse.

We view things from different perspectives and worldviews. But that's fine. We can agree to disagree. Neither of us are bad people. We can each have our own views in a free and open society without animosity or hatred. Please accept my apologies for any actual or implied slights against you on my part. I am...enthusiastic...on the subject of individual freedom.

Strat

P.S. - The whole "Once a Marine, Always a Marine" isn't propaganda at all. A Marine tried to explain it to me and some other friends one evening as we were sitting around talking. He said the best he could explain it was as an acknowledgement of the fact that the process of becoming a Marine changes a person in fundamental ways and engenders a strong sense of spiritual brotherhood with and faith in the others who share these common experiences and resulting character traits and codes of morality and behavior that come forth especially under extraordinary stress and danger. These changes to the self are for life, so one is, in all the ways that matter, always a Marine.

Re:99%... okay 90% u$ers polled don't care.

[Raenex]

I see that you view things from a more or less humanist viewpoint and tend to dismiss religion and spirituality.

Correct, I'm a secular humanist.

My view is that men need a general common sense and common spiritual structure of morality over and above any laws any government may pass in order for a free and open society to remain stable, as a need for some sense of spirituality is part of basic human nature and inescapable in a general sense, as people make up their own spiritual belief systems lacking any outside examples.

I would agree with you, and that was basically what I was saying about how the collective and the individual define their rights. You can look at societies and history to see how this has happened with various results. The only difference in our positions is that I believe "God" is just another one of those "make up their own spiritual belief systems lacking any outside examples".

Please accept my apologies for any actual or implied slights against you on my part.

That's good of you, and no offense taken, but I'd rather see you acknowledge that your initial summary of the situation was biased and didn't give the whole story. I acknowledged the judge's position that the government overstepped their bounds.

The whole "Once a Marine, Always a Marine" isn't propaganda at all.

Propaganda: "2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person"

I know the word propaganda has a connotation of being false and harmful, but that's not my meaning here. I'm just recognizing that this terminology is part of the whole group bonding thing. As somebody who is not a Marine, I'm not going to respect what they call themselves when they leave the service and stick to plain words.

How many accounts do you have on Facebook?

[macbeth66]

And of those, how many bear no resemblance to you?

I have six accounts in all. Only two are even remotely real. One has all the usual crap, the second is scrubbed for use with potential employers. The other four were used for varying purposes where I did not want to contaminate the real thing. I am about to create a seventh, just to see how outrageous I can be.

God, I hate Facebook.

Re:How many accounts do you have on Facebook?

[Bongoots]

Dupe.

Re:How many accounts do you have on Facebook?

[__aaltlg1547]

Everyone should create a dozen fake Facebook accounts. When the number of accounts exceeds 15 billion maybe advertisers will catch on that they're paying for fuckall. But a Fakebook account isn't really much good without a bot to keep it uploading crap and clicking on random links.

a bot to exercise Google links would be a nice addition.

Re:How many accounts do you have on Facebook?

[swillden]

I have six accounts in all... I hate Facebook.

There seems to be a contradiction here.

Personally, I have no Facebook account. I used to have one, but got rid of it the third time they changed my privacy settings without even telling me about it.

Stop

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

"Freedom to go under a pseudonym is, miraculously, one freedom to survive the security lock-down of the previous decade.

Just stop.

When you're talking about the the restrictions that a company places on its non-essential services, you don't get to talk about how complying with their terms of service has an effect on your "freedom" - you're free to use a pseudonym in all kinds of places. Quit complaining and stop using it.

No, really!

[Kylon99]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardik

Hardik
Facebook: "Is this your friend's real name?" Yes.
Facebook: "Is this REALLY your friend's real name?" Yes.
Facebook: "C'mon... " Yes.
Facebook: "Did he have a tough time in school?" Yes.

I got a similar request.

[mosb1000]

I got a similar request asking if one of my female Facebook friends was really female. It's a strange question too, because she's not the kind of person you'd expect this question for. She's always posting pictures of cupcakes from Pinterest and pictures of her nephew and things like that. I wish I'd taken a screenshot of it, it was a lot like this question. I responded in the affirmative because I didn't see what kind of harm it could do. I've never heard of someone getting kicked out of Facebook for listing inaccurate personal information or anything like that.

I can understand why they'd want to get rid of "fake" users. I don't think their interest is in eliminating pseudonymity, but rather in eliminating spammers. I think they're thinking if they show you something like this for something they suspect is a fake account, it will you cause you to question whether or not you really know the person and to report them as a spammer if you don't know them. I'm thinking of those friend requests I get with pictures of attractive looking women I've never met. If you accidentally accepted one you may be unwittingly letting spammers abuse Facebook's system, so I can defiantly see why they'd want to get rid of those accounts.

Re:I got a similar request.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

It is so they have an accurate picture of their user base, they want all real names and the real connections between people. It is as big brother as it can possibly be. Just because you use facebook and have to justify this with some nonsense about spammers doesn't mean the rest of us are fooled. You are a product. You are being sold. Remember: if you aren't paying for something, you are not the customer. You are the product. Same as slashdot actually.

Why would they care about spammers? They care about names and connections between names. What you like, what your circle of friends like, what their friends like, on and on. It is purely, solely, about marketing and polling you for information. There is no content on facebook. Just a web of who knows who and what they like. It is insane. People who use facebook are fucking retards, through and through. What do you get out of it? What, you can't email each other? You can't text or call each other? No, you sit there and look at stupid fucking crap from people you might know, and run around the internet clicking like on shit because you are a sheep trained to peck at a button for pointless rewards. What a great website.
 

Re:I got a similar request.

[mosb1000]

Why would they care about spammers?

Because they devalue the Facebook brand. They call into question the authenticity of Facebook add clicks, and they pollute a users news feed with irrelevant information.

There is no content on facebook.

I don't know what you mean by that. There is plenty of content on Facebook. It has pictures of friends, notes, links to web articles, events, company information and lots of other content, much of it is original content as well.

What do you get out of it?

It lets my friends share things with me without actively working to share them with me specifically. All they do is post it to Facebook, and I can see what they posted. It's incredibly useful for staying in touch with friends who live in other parts of the country or world, but it's also useful for sending invitations to events and sharing photos with my friends who are nearby.

No, you sit there and look at stupid fucking crap from people you might know, and run around the internet clicking like on shit because you are a sheep trained to peck at a button for pointless rewards.

It's largely up to the individual user how they use the site. I would suggest that simply because you see no value in it doesn't mean that it is useless for everyone.

Re:I got a similar request.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If someone hasn't written a "generate a thought-free anti-Facebook screed from randomly strung-together cliches" page, they should. It would save so much time!

Re:I got a similar request.

[McGruber]

It is as big brother as it can possibly be

It's not Big Brother anymore, it's little snitch. - Robin Williams

Obligatory Facebook-CIA-Onion

[Penurious Penguin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0
I think the epiphany comes when one watches it and doesn't laugh.

Re:Obligatory Facebook-CIA-Onion

[macbeth66]

Oh! Eff me!

Thank you so much for that. Sorry, I tried not to laugh, but I couldn't stop.

"400 billion tweets and not one useful bit of data was ever transmitted."

Spot on.

And Zuckerberg was the CIA Director of the Facebook project. Enough to make you crap state secrets.

Although maybe...

Anybody else remember the SNL commercial spoof of the Trac II. They showed a razor with three blades. I can't stop snickering when I pass the five blade shaving systems in the store. I was truly frightened when I saw that one of them took batteries.

Re:Obligatory Facebook-CIA-Onion

[GameboyRMH]

The Onion published this not long after the first 4-bladed razor came out:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/

Misleading blurb

[barakn]

Facebook is not "clamping down on pseudonyms" and /. should be ashamed for posting a story that suggests it is. The questions Facebook sends to users are used for statistical purposes and are not used to punish those using pseudonyms. Pure FUD.

Re:Misleading blurb

[Doctor_Jest]

I'm sure, quite sure, that the behemoth that is Facebook, which depends on advertising dollars for its very life, won't use the info gathered for "statistical purposes" to punish.

/sarcasm

Re:Misleading blurb

[Kazoo the Clown]

PERFECT. i'm having all my friends indicate that my name is phony, even though it's not.

And lastly..

[tetrahedrassface]

I don't give a fuck who pinned what to pinterest or what game someone played. In fact Facebook is useless except for spreading rumors and self promotion. The nosey types love it. It still smells bad though. Real bad.

Re:what else did you expect

[hawguy]

I used to read many a stories in which a young girl will get free drug from a neighbor. After she is hooked, he will only give if she takes off the shirt and then if she takes off her all clothes and so on. By this time, the girl is so much hooked to it, she will do anything. Facebook is just like it. You get it for free. Next you are asked to remove your shirt, next all your clothes and next.... I am happy, I don't have facebook account.

Sorry, that doesn't work with Facebook. When I gave the cute girl across the hall my Wifi password so she could check her Facebook, she refused to take off her shirt (or any other item of clothing) for me.

Re:Anonymous is my real given name though.

[TaoPhoenix]

That would actually be an epic thing to see. It would make for a beautiful legal decision "you can't change your name to one that causes social confusion". The Artist Formerly Known As Prince could submit an amicus brief on it too.

My kids use fake names on Facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

To give some context, to this, my kids are all adults now. Even the youngest is turning 19 in just a couple of months.

But some of my kids use fake names on theirr Facebook accounts. As far as I can tell, they do it mostly because they like making up silly nicknames for themselves, not because they are trying to deceive people into thinking they are somebody they are not.

Also, I have one friend that also uses a fake name on Facebook because the system wouldn't let him use his actual name (in particular, he has no last name, so he put on his facebook profile his profession as his last name).

Will I "snitch" on these people? Nope.... that's why this is even posted AC. But seriously.... what possible incentive would I have to complain to facebook about the usernames that people I actually know and care about are using names that aren't really theirs?

Re:My kids use fake names on Facebook

[macbeth66]

Why post AC? Afraid the FB Boogeyman will come and get you?

Damn, this story has been more fun than all of the Apple stories combined.

Nein! You must show us your papers...

[mschaffer]

Nein! You must show us your papers...
Nobody said Facebook was a democracy.

Rare instance...

[Holammer]

... When you can go straight to Godwin's Law comparisons.
Also, the impish side of my wants to try to game the system by asking my friends to vouch for 'Große Gobblecoq' being *totally* legit.

I will no longer monitor my FB page

[Snotnose]

Don't bother contacting me via Herb Utsmelz, I won't be using it any more.

Always answer "yes". Or something.

[roc97007]

TFA shows a screenshot of the question screen. You're given several possible answers to "is this your friend's real name". I can see data mining possibilities with the answers, especially correlated with other people's friends list, and answers.

I think we should all agree now to provide the same answer. When I started writing this article, I thought the answer should be "yes". As I'm writing it, I've changed my mind. I think we should always answer "I don't know this person". I think this provides the least amount of information, and also gives you plausible deniability.

Followup question: "Why is this person in your friends list?" Answer: "I don't know." Shrug.

The problem I have with this whole thing... there's probably been many others with examples... I know four Facebook account holders who are using pseudonyms. One is avoiding a stalker. One is avoiding a cult. One is avoiding an abusive ex-husband. One is a cat.

Ok, that last one wasn't a great example, but I think we can stand having a few pets on Facebook in order to allow people a venue who wouldn't otherwise have a voice.

Parenthetically, I suspect that the first time Facebook outs someone who is subsequently attacked, injured, perhaps killed by the person or persons from whom they were hiding, it is going to, let us say, reflect badly on Facebook.

Always feels good to stay away from FB

[mattr]

Another good reason to stay away from Facebook.
I have an account that I idiotically once made to join a group to get notifications.
That group is gone but then an idiot from my school 30 years ago put connected me to people from then.
I almost never log in, and I tell people I don't like Facebook when they ask me if I'm on it.
For some reason even intelligent people seem mindless on FB.
I recently saw a publicly available discussion thread on the well, an interview with charles stross and cory doctorow iirc and others.
It was a really refreshing and considered dialogue over a week, it was great and after reading that it makes me almost physically ill to think of FB and the way it analyzes you and your friends and then hooks this spying apparatus into a targeted advertising engine. A typical asshole idea by another psychopath billionaire.
I have sometimes found it useful to get more insight into the activities of a person or company but I do not contribute to FB.

My False-Tag Fake ID Group Is Deleted

[retroworks]

After a similar discussion on Slashdot, a year or two ago, I was inspired to post a group photo from the 1800s and invite all my friends to "false tag" themeselves. It is part of my "digital camouflage" campaign. Nature doesn't really evolve invisibility very often, camouflage and false data is much more common. After reading this post I went to see if my "false tag group" was still on facebook.. and found it has disappeared. But I won't give up. "camouflage" is the answer, not anonymity. We need more bad data on Facebook. False tag a friend today. http://retroworks.blogspot.com/2010/09/simpler-ideas-cookie-camouflage-digital.html

Re:My False-Tag Fake ID Group Is Deleted

[Burz]

It is easy to defeat most counter-intelligence techniques, including yours.

For each piece of bad data you give Facebook, you also give them plenty of good pieces of data (your IP-address, the timing difference between the keys when you type something, which ciphers your browser support, etc etc). This means that your strategy gives them more information than it pollutes, and hence you are still helping Facebook. By inviting your friends into this operation of yours you are increasing their visibility as well by providing Facebook with the information that your friends would either like to be more anonymous or that they like to cause problems (which can be interpreted by some people to mean "potential criminal").

Either you learn how to do CI properly, or you block every IP-address used by Facebook (and those of all similar companies) in your firewall.

By the way, if your first impulse to learn more about CI is to google for it, you should stick to the firewall plan...

In addition to what AC said, analysts have statistical methods to weed out noise, outliers and just plain liars. You are only raising the bar for them ever so slightly so they have to include well-worn filtering techniques within their codebase.

The issue with this is

[kilodelta]

People lie. And their friends will cover for them. I know for example that one of my friends does not use their real name on Facebook. So what, not only that but that friend also has several IDs on Facebook - I now what each are. But I'll be damned if I'm going to do Facebook the favor and tell them about it.

Re:The issue with this is

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'll be damned if I'm going to do Facebook the favor and tell them about it.

That's OK, it only takes one of his friends/enemies. In future probably Facebook can figure this all out on their own anyway using machine learning and side channel information like what browsers and browser settings he is using, cookies on his computer, his rhythm while typing, his choice of words including misspellings, his IPs and so on. Hell, maybe they already do this and they are just asking people to confirm what they already know. Perhaps they are just using these questions to calibrate their algorithms. On that topic, I wonder if I have supplied enough text in this anonymous post to identify me uniquely among all people who post on Slashdpt just from how I write - if not now, maybe once these algorithms get better in future.

Heh

[Zamphatta]

And people act like I'm crazy when I say I don't ever want to try Facebook again.

Dear Facebook...

[Lumpy]

This friend of mine, Mark Zuckerberg.. That' snot his real name.... Can you ban him please?

Irony if your name matches a celebrity name

[rdean400]

My dad and my nephew are both named James Dean. Facebook won't let them use their real name, which contradicts their goal of having real names.

Re:Irony if your name matches a celebrity name

[GameboyRMH]

There's a musician with the same name as me, I hope he has a biiiiig Facebook presence :-)

Don't do it to me!

[halcyon1234]

Not to me! Do it to Julia Realname! Do it to Julia Realname! I don't care what you do! Poke her fake face off! Strip her farmville animals to the bone! Not Halcyon! DO IT TO JULIA REALNAME!

nah ah, lol

[slashmydots]

Nah ah! My friend, Phyuk Zyukerberg is totally legit. Everyone knows him; he won 2 emmies! Look it up...on wikipedia, lol.

Time to get Pinocchio off the bench

[hyades1]

From TFA: The choices offered are "Yes", "No", "I don't know this person" and "I don't want to answer". I don't understand how they forgot to include an option saying "Go fuck yourself, Zuckerberg, you fascist prick".

In fairness, the easiest thing to do is just lie. My Facebook profile is so full of lies it almost makes Romney look honest. My friends all know the truth, and everybody else who cares that much about whether I'm 25, 35 or 45 can join Zuckerberg in the line to Honk On Bobo.

Re:Time to get Pinocchio off the bench

[Zontar The Mindless]

My FB account name uses the given name that I use almost everywhere else (including book covers), which is actually a common short form of my legal given name. The surname's my real/legal one.

But it's *my* choice to do this, with *my* account. I won't presume to make that choice for others.

Off-topic: Using the common English short form of my given name has occasionally caused me problems here in Sweden. Especially when picking up packages addressed to "Will" using ID that says "William". Many people here apparently find it just incredible that one might use a short form of one's given name. Only country I've ever been where this seems to be the case.

Legal implications?

[Bert64]

In some countries it is legal to use any alias you wish, provided you are not doing so with the intention of committing fraud or impersonation (in which case the actual crime is the fraud/impersonation not the fact you used an alias). A name is after all, a totally arbitrary label and the government is only really concerned in tying an individual to a birth record.

FB users are raw material to manufacture *desire*

[Burz]

You don't peer at interpersonal relationships to sell more rice or dish detergent. That kind of advanced profiling is suited to creating new desires that hopefully grow into "needs".

I don't think the planet is ready to bear the next great leap in consumerism that social networks like Facebook are trying to bring about.

Its not repeated often enough

[Burz]

...given the number of automatic SPAM appeals to join Facebook that service generates.

PS: I'm glad this story made you uncomfortable enough about your insidious 'investment' in FB to lash back. FB must really be pouring on the charm these days for its critics to be labeled 'dehumanizing'. LOL!

Re:Its not repeated often enough

[gl4ss]

...given the number of automatic SPAM appeals to join Facebook that service generates.

PS: I'm glad this story made you uncomfortable enough about your insidious 'investment' in FB to lash back. FB must really be pouring on the charm these days for its critics to be labeled 'dehumanizing'. LOL!

actually it's the users which are being dehumanized by calling them a product.

somehow TV viewers are never called a product, instead they're an audience.

Pointless

[Roderic9]

They missed out an option in the 'real name' dialog - "I don't know - I'm actually a dog/cat/dead person.".
If they continue with this I'm sure they'll find that their real userbase is actually a fraction of the fiure they currently claim.

Snitching

[andrew2325]

Everyone who snitches feels conflicted and jeopardizes their lives and everyone else's by doing so in a way, but it would threaten more lives if you did not snitch. You know your buddy is getting stoned by crack rocks or you know they are stoning people with crack rocks, but you understand what drove them to do it. Explain to the judge that they have already been stoned, and you don't want the judge to crucify them further in rusted jail cells. Then explain that to them because they apparently don't understand that what you are doing is in their best interest. My name is Andrew Harris, and I was a cold hearted son of a bitch, who snitched to an extent that you may not even believe and told them.

Re:what else did you expect

[viperidaenz]

You need to keep changing the password, so she must keep asking. Then you gradually work your way up from "weird" to "creepy"

Simple:

[BrokenHalo]

This line, buried in TFA (!) says enough:

That, ultimately, is what lies behind this kind of thing: Facebook wants to make money. If it knows exactly who you are, it thinks it can make more money from you.

This should be obvious enough, but sometimes the obvious needs pointing out:

Facebook can't make any money out of you if you don't use it.

It isn't much of a policy

[crossmr]

They really don't enforce it.
We have a regional group, fairly popular, thousands of members, occasionally people set up a business, create an account for the business under its name (as a personal account not a page, which is against facebooks policy) and use it to post ads in the group. Despite repeatedly reporting these people to facebook for spam (like upwards of 20-30 reports per individual) and reporting the profiles to facebook as being against policy some of these accounts have been there for months and months and months. Even if they get banned from the group, they just pop up in other similar regional groups making the same ads about whatever it is they've got going on.

I can't really see the point of facebook making these kinds of policies if they just don't really care to enforce them. Why bother taking user reports if you're not actually going to get your act together and do something about them?

When the account name is something like "Botswana Travel Deals!" and their timeline cover photo is nothing but a giant ad (also against the facebook policies) and they just leave it there for 6-8+ months..

Hell, they should just ban about 90% of the women.

[nighthawk243]

I'd say only a handful of women I know on Facebook actually have their last name showing. The majority just do the typical first and middle only.

I think

[NewYork]

DHS is behind this.

I have 3 "anonymous" facebook accounts

[Cito]

They are in fake names that sound real John Williams, Vicky Mezner, William Morris...

I use them for anonymously giving opinion on facebook pages, or trolling, debates, arguments, whatever the fuck I want

This world famous quote says its best

"True freedom of speech, even offensive, is achieved in it's greatest form in anonymity."

People (mostly women) avoided stalkers/abusers

[McDrewbie]

Everyone I know of personally that uses a fake name is a woman either avoiding a stalker, an abuser or (since they are teenagers) potential sex offenders. Obviously, FB doesn't care.

Hostage generation

[gmyuriy]

I think what we are seeing now is an entire generation being taken hostage by mega-corps on the scale not imagined by any anti-monopoly legislators: all search goes through goolge, all email is on hotmail/gmail, all friends are in facebook - however you look at it it's fucked.

On the other hand, the answer is obvious - don't like facebook rules don't use it, thankfully there are alternatives now - go to diaspora and tell all your friends to do the same. Or better yet quit it all together - not being able to push another nonsense update or spend an evening peeking into the lives of your friends is not a life threatening condition. And what is it with having your dirty laundry hanging in front of the entire world as the so called "timeline" anyway? Do a weekly gettogethers and look at the photos there - as people did it before - a lot better...

A boost for G+ then

[Gonoff]

When Google Plus came out, its insistence that people use their "real names" was something that got a lot of criticism. It also had people saying that because of this, they would be staying with Facebook. Will they be leaving FB for Diaspora now?

Re:Real Name in Real Life? Not.

[Gonoff]

I am known by my middle name. This quite common in Scotland at least. Both my brothers do the same.

The only time I get asked for by my first name, I know it is the bank. I was once told that I risked being accused of money laundering not following what they considered "normal" practice.

Re:Authority =! Truth

[firewrought]

By, "evaluating a source," I believe you mean associating it with your judgment of past performance with regard to the reasonableness, reliability or like-mindedness. It's a crutch one uses in everyday life in order to shortcut the need to evaluate each idea on its own merits.

Yes, reputation and past impressions are part of source evaluation. And it's also valuable to assess background, qualifications, references, economic motivations, ideology/worldview, and probably other factors as well.

I'm not sure why you would believe this aids you in a search for truth. At face value it would seem to be a better method for reinforcing a belief system than searching for a better understanding of anything.

Yes, there's a big danger in trusting authority, and the self-reinforcing belief system trap is one of them. But remember that your own thinking is a sort of authority, and it's the one you probably have to be most suspicious of. The best counterbalance is to listen to a wide variety of viewpoints and sources.

Also realize that you rely on knowledge from others a whole lot more than you think. You rely on doctors, mechanics, builders, coworkers, signage, websites, clerks, etc., all the time. You may sometimes get second (or third or fourth) opinions, do your own research/fact-checking, independently calculate your bill, and bounce things against your own internal models of the world, but in the majority of situations you are still putting authority first and real-world experimentation last. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm saying that it's a necessary thing. We can't all wake up and crunch our own weather forecast; we pretty much just trust experts in the field. We can't all personally verify the structural stability of all the buildings we need to enter: we've put our trust in the builder and the code enforcement people. None of us try to measure our car's remaining gasoline: we trust the gauge until we have a reason not to.

Facebook is for real names

[kazekirifx]

Facebook is the online place for people's offline identities. If you want to use a pseudonym, go somewhere else.