Slashdot Mirror


The Single Vigilante Behind Facebook's 'Real Name' Crackdown

Molly McHugh sends this story from Daily Dot: When Facebook issued an apology this week for suspending user accounts that had what it alleged to be fake names, it pinned the whole debacle on one person. This "individual," Facebook reasoned, sewed confusion into its flawed reporting system—intended to protect against bullying and online abuse. Facebook Chief Product Officer Chris Cox explains that Facebook was caught “off guard” by a lone actor who reported “several hundred” accounts as fake. According to our source, who claims to have spent "hours and hours" systematically reporting Facebook users from the drag community and beyond, thousands of accounts were suspended—and they've been at it for weeks. ... Given the timing and the accounts suspended, they believe that they are in fact the mystery "individual" who threw a wrench into Facebook's system, noted in Facebook's explanation of the events. "Considering the hours and hours I spent reporting accounts over the course of the past month, it is likely that I am."

22 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article:
    "Oh no I'm very serious. Spent most of my time at work past 3 days reporting Queens."

    Considering I spend my Friday midnight completing shellshock patches to keep this planet running ... Can we start firing people who are useless to the world in general?

    1. Re:TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can we start firing people who are useless to the world in general?

      That would be all of us - the world got by just fine before our species even existed, and likely will again when it's gone.

    2. Re:TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      LOL. OK Cowboy, you sure know what you're talking about, right? Patch 'em up! Move 'em out! I got places to see and people to do, or something. You seriously have no clue what you're talking about if you think a Fortune 500 company's just gonna blat out a patch untested across their environment and call it a day. You know how I can tell you've never had to deal with a regulator or the SEC? Jesus H. Effing Christ, man. No doubt you'd be the first body on the dogpile when a Wall Street firm did use apt and applied a bunch of patches and broke something. "They should have proper controls and testing! Duh! *Everyone* knows that."

  2. What an asshole by blankinthefill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't see what this person could have to gain from this other than just being a dickhead. Heaven forbid someone be different from what your approved normal is. What a pathetic jerk.

    1. Re:What an asshole by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Picking on the LGBT community with this is probably the most effective way of combatting the policy ...

    2. Re:What an asshole by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm more concerned that Facebook didn't have a process in place to monitor for OBVIOUS abuses.

      1. Hundreds of complaints filed.

      2. From a single account.

      3. In a defined time period.

      4. All the victims shared a common trait.

      #1 & #2 should have been red flags over and Over and OVER and OVER. How many complaints does the average user file? Why wasn't this flagged with that person hit 2x the average? 5x? 10x? 20x? 50x? 100x?

    3. Re:What an asshole by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thing is, he was not reporting random fake names he came across. He was reporting fake names from a specific group of people, and you might say he was going out of his way to find fake names from this specific group. Does this sound like a vigilante bent on making sure only real names are being used on FB, or like someone who stumbled across a way to cause grief for a group of people he dislikes, and milking it for all it's worth?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:What an asshole by CaptainDork · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are the reason we can't have nice things like anonymity and common fucking sense.

      Facebook is not a government entity. It is an entertainment site and its rules are about as authentic as your IQ.

      Facebook's goal is to validate its user base because advertisers are learning that while Facebook brags about having over 1 billion members, some of those are bogus.

      Facebook has no legal authority regarding whether name are real or not.

      The site is free and the only recourse Facebook has is to block shit.

      The sooner you learn that you are Facebook's bitch, the better.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:What an asshole by ihtoit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Facebook isn't a free website, you're voluntarily surrendering your privacy and anonymity in order to use it - which is the entire reason behind the real name policy. That data sink with the blue banner is there to collect identifiable information about YOU and how you interact online, and sell that information on to people and companies who want nothing else but to sell you shit through persistent and targetted advertising.

      You are in a dreamworld if you think for one second that Facebook gives a shit for your privacy, and the RNP absolutely proves the point.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    6. Re:What an asshole by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems that the individual who reported the aliases (non-real names) to Facebook was only reporting people who violated the TOS from Facebook users.

      That, without a lot more information, does not qualify this person as "an asshole", "a dickhead" or "a pathetic jerk". It does seem to qualify you as those three, though.

      No, it means that you're too lazy to bother reading what's out there about this person - who admits, even glorifies, in targeting a specific community - members of the LGBT community. In one tweet, they even call transvestites sodomites, even though the vast majority of cross-dressers are heterosexual males. Then when all hell broke loose, they went after people with accounts for their pets, probably to make it look less like they had been targeting a specific group based on their sexual or gender expression.

      There was a time when I was transitioning when I didn't have the necessary documentation to back up my new identity. Can you understand the chilling effect this would have on people who are following their doctor's orders, who have told friends and family that they're getting a sex change, but who, because of a mis-application of facebook's policy, would still have to use their old, gender-inappropriate name? Or would just drop out of sight entirely at the time when they are most in need of their network of friends?

      This person needs to either get a life or get help.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:What an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Usually the louder they protest them "faggots" (words used by the guy reporting people, not me) the deeper in they closet they are. It's pathetic, really. They keep lashing out at everyone brave enough to be out. And people wonder why those out (like drag queens) want to keep some privacy so that a stud doesn't show up with his 12 gauge and show us all how he ain't no homo by blowing one away.

    8. Re:What an asshole by Required+Snark · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Crap, you are a total dickhead.

      Let's assume for a moment that you have a child going to second grade. You piss someone off, and they decide to get back at you through your family. They take you child's photo, pictures of the school they attend and your house and phone number and post it on websites frequented by pedophiles. They imply that your child is available for sex. You start getting horrible phone calls at all hours of the day and night, creepy guys drive by your house, and even knock on your door. Someone tries to snatch the child off the street near the school.

      Then you try and get the information off the web, and all the sites say they don't have to do anything because "private enterprise". What then? What if the worst happens and the child is abducted and killed? Yeah, the perp can end up in jail, but what about the "free enterprise" businesses that make money off this. Do you really want to count on the civil law to protect you?

      I happened to pick a hypothetical case with a child, but the equivalent happen to women with psycho ex-boyfriends all the time: set up a fake account with real contact information and advertise for kinky sex. Not good.

      Remember Facebook is big.

      Total number of monthly active Facebook users 1,310,000,000

      Total number of mobile Facebook users 680,000,000

      Increase in Facebook users from 2012 to 2013 22 %

      Total number of minutes spent on Facebook each month 640,000,000

      Percent of all Facebook users who log on in any given day 48 %

      Average time spent on Facebook per visit 18 minutes

      Total number of Facebook pages 54,200,000

      Percent of 18-34 year olds who check Facebook when they wake up 48 %

      Percent of 18-34 year olds who check Facebook before they get out of bed 28 %

      Average number of friends per facebook user 130

      Average number of pages, groups, and events a user is connected to 80

      Average number of photos uploaded per day 205

      Number of fake Facebook profiles 81,000,000

      Remember, for the LGBT community the consequences can be as serious as grievous bodily injury or death at the hands of a complete stranger. Chanting "free enterprise" as a justification in this situation puts you firmly on the side of potential violent thugs.

      And just to help you sleep well tonight, there is no way to know if all the people who were targeted were LGBT or not. Given the vile stupidity of the perpetrator, there might have been cases of mistaken identity. It's not like the person who did this is the most stable or thoughtful person around. In fact, you could have been on the list. Sleep tight.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    9. Re: What an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A London theater refused to stage a Jewish film festival because the event had received a small grant from the Israeli embassy.

      Oh no! The next step must surely be the gas chambers!

    10. Re:What an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      No, I tend to just stop listening to and argument when it's a string of cherry-picked far-fetched hypotheticals.

      For example: what if Facebook *didn't* have a real name policy? And what if missing a real name on one particular account allowed a rapist to escape capture? And what if that rapist's next rape fathered a child? And what if that child were the next Adolf Hitler? And what if that resulted in 12 million Jews being slaughtered?

      All because of no real name policy.

      I'm sure you're glad you read all that and processed it in order to form a cogent counterargument.

    11. Re:What an asshole by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have to agree with the other commenter. You're no one special that can guarantee with absolute certainty that no personal agenda would be carried out. And actually, "hate speech" is many times used as a political cover. A very common tactic of the SJW. What you define as hate speech I may not and vice versa.

    12. Re:What an asshole by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Name changes are just annoying to IT. New username, move user folder, new email address, update three different databases, update the address book, configure email alias... then wait about ten years until everyone stops emailing the old address.

    13. Re:What an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I know better than to go against the LGBTQOMGWTFBBQ crowd with a real name. They'll hunt you down, harass you, try and get you fired, try and get people to boycott your business, etc., etc. Which is incredibly ironic considering how "persecuted" they claim to be and how much they demand "tolerance." Ironic and sad.

  3. Blame shift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If applying your own laws is "throwing a wrench" perhaps your laws are the problem?

  4. Differential enforcement by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is not this guy nor Facebook's rules, but that the rules were enforced in a biased manner. This will always be a problem with only enforcing a rule after a report, because unpopular groups or individuals will be reported more often than the majority.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  5. Facebook empowers bullies by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's troubling is the fact that no one at Facebook contemplated the possibility that this policy would be used as a form of bullying. Their aribtrarily-enforced rules about nudity are routinely used the same way by homophobes, who go around reporting innocuous photos (and even illustrations) of partial male nudity or even just gay couples kissing or showing affection, causing headaches, suspensions, and even bans of gay people from the site. And they do so with complete impunity because they can do so anonymously, and there is no penalty for false reports. The users who are reported are given no right to challenge their accusers (or even know who they are), and effectively no right to appeal. Facebook's own policies and procedures facilitate and empower this kind of harassment and abuse. And they're just now noticing?

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  6. Facebook policy is the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is facebook's pointless, unfair, side-effect prone, and essentially pinheaded "real name" policy that is the problem. Without the policy, the problem would not exist (and people who would have otherwise not had to reveal their real names could be a lot safer on the site.)

    But that's the nature of the beast. They're selling you to advertisers, and they can do whatever they want with you. Any idea you had about the site being about you is laughably off-base. What it is, is bait for you. They'll do what they need to do to attain and maintain critical mass for their actual customers (advertisers), and not one thing more.

    The citizens are, by and large, far too dimwitted to move to a network where they *are* the focus. And so it goes.

  7. Differential enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem is, in fact, with Facebook's rules. Facebook did not recognize that a class of persons, that they would have been better off providing protection for, strongly identified with a name other than their legal name.

    The rules were not enforced in a biased manner, but in a blind manner.

    What you want is a compensatory bias to be applied after a report. That's not unbiased enforcement.