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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

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.

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

[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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.