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."

13 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 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.
  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.