Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Tweaks Its "Real Names" Policy (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Facebook has announced a US-based trial of minor changes to its controversial process of name verification, apparently in response to last year's controversy over LGBT and transgender users who were penalized for determining their own identity.

The post about the changes reveals that users who report someone else for using a 'fake' name can now provide more background information, and that users who have been asked to confirm their identity by uploading documents, such as a passport or birth certificate, can now also provide additional background information for Facebook to take into account.

This article argues that a frivolous social network should not be allowed to co-opt government-level identity checks simply because it began life in the university arena, and has telescoped the necessary supervision of teenagers transiting to adulthood into a far wider and more diverse network of users.

114 comments

  1. A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is a disposition towards citizen identity that is usually only allowed to governments

    I don't get this idea that doing this level of check is somehow a restricted right. No one is being forced to use facebook, if they want to require users send them a blood sample, their left tooth, and 5 million dollars to keep their account, I don't see how they shouldn't be "allowed" to demand this. At what points does facebook become something to which fair access to is governed by law (not snark, really curious.. I know there are laws regarding say, restricting access to a restaurant, so possible some of those apply?)

    Personally I strongly dislike this recent trend of pushing the use of your real identity, especially with recent actual occurrences of people being harassed in real life due to online activities. It's one of the many reasons I choose not to use facebook (the other being I find whatever voodoo they do to recommend friends disturbing, I signed up with fake info awhile back and it started recommending people I actually did know from both family and work.. which honestly creeped me the fuck out). I don't feel like my rights are being violated though.

    1. Re:A right? by KGIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Libertarian in me says they're not violating any law and you are not actually required by law to make use of their services. Thus, it is their property. They can require you only type with your left thumb, type without capital letters, use a real name, provide proof, or pay any sum they insist they want you to pay. You are, of course, free to not make use of their services. Until such time as they're forced, by law, to be used then they're free to make any and all stupid choices they want that are still within the law.

      People might not like it. They don't have to. You have choices. That's the great thing about this internet thing. There are plenty of options for those who want to take or make them. You don't have to conform. You don't have to fit in. You don't have to follow. You can be different. You can be odd. You can lead. You can opt-out of participation. Equally important is that you don't have a right to participate. That's okay. There are plenty of people with whom you can associate. The path of least resistance is often the path of least interest.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re: A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I live in Canada and up here the name you choose to go by can change on a daily basis with the only exception being when signing legal documents.

      I'm glad I don't have Facebook. Tried it for the first time 6 months ago and used it for about 3 months before I realized I don't want to be exposed to how stupid and ignorant some of the people I associate with can be. I'm much happier being in the dark about it.

    3. Re:A right? by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have choices.

      Yes, you do, and many of the choices that you have involve attempting to persuade Facebook to change its policies.

      You are free to publicly protest their rules. You are free to state your case about why you think Facebook's requirements are ridiculous. You are free to publicly shame them if you believe they are acting in a way contrary to social moires or the moral sensibilities of their target audience. You have the right to tell the world that Facebook is just a web site and maybe it should get over itself.

      You even have the right to rant in Slashdot comments. Truly, the Internet is a grand place to be.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    4. Re: A right? by donscarletti · · Score: 0

      Facebook's raison d'Ãtre is to provide a non-anonymous online forum. While plenty of people like me or whoever happens is reading this post, are happy to talk to "Anonymous Coward" or "donscarletti", there are many people who would rather not do that. Facebook is there for such people.

      Many people I know have no Facebook profile whatsoever. I have a Facebook profile, on which I just share pictures from when I travel and sometimes write short updates about where I live and where I work. I do not write anything political, anything praising or criticising other people, anything showing me in an unfavourable light or anything I would not want strangers to see connected to my name. Many people I know post whatever pops into their head no matter how embarrassing since they don't believe in the need for anonymity. Whatever they do, they chose to do.

      Facebook is the social network for those who do not like and are threatened by anonymity. Using an alias on Facebook is like wearing clothes in a nudist colony. Transgender people are welcome on Facebook, just like religious people are welcome in a nudist colony, but it cannot bend its rules for everyone's specific situation.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    5. Re: A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think my problem with it is the number of products and services that sort of need a facebook account- for instance, a lot of mobile games. In practice, you can make a fake account with a real sounding name, and you'll never be called on it- but that's a lame workaround.

      It is their website and they can do with it what they want- but it's still shitty that by being successful they have a ton of really annoying things hooked into them.

    6. Re:A right? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      No one is being forced to use facebook, if they want to require users send them a blood sample, their left tooth, and 5 million dollars to keep their account, I don't see how they shouldn't be "allowed" to demand this.

      One could argue that given that the government has a monopoly on issuing certain kinds of documentation, there should be some legal limits on how that documentation can be used.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    7. Re:A right? by mlts · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there can be a compromise given... As of now, FB has an icon for people who have proven that the account has been vetted. Why not have the current ID vetting give another icon (or perhaps none at all), and then have a tier under that where people can create IDs at will... but it will be obvious to all comers that the person's name and ID is fictitious.

      This would be basically how SSL certs are handled now. EV certs for the top tier, regular signed certs for most things, and the big warning if a site uses a self-signed or invalid certificate.

      If someone wants to be free of trolls, they can auto-block people who have not vetted themselves, with an exceptions list for those people that don't state their real identity. (Kigurumi players come to mind, as well as furries.)

      Expanding on this, I don't see what is wrong with a pseudo-anonymous system, with a reputation factor built in. This way, if you trust a friend's opinion of people, and she flags someone as a troll, that negative reputation will propagate to your reputation DB (unless you override it.) However, if someone you don't know, but are friends with strongly dislikes someone, their opinion will not affect interactions with that person.

      One can always use degrees like PGP (fully trusted, partially trusted, untrusted, ultimately trusted), or just use 0.00 to 1.0 for weighting, where a stranger's opinion is 0, while a trusted friend with a 1.0 weight would have their opinions weigh as much as yours.

      I personally prefer a pseudo-anonymous system, perhaps with the ability for the system to certify that a userID was vetted somehow, so there is some proof that there is a live person, and that ID corresponds to someone legit. However, sometimes, it is good to have the ability to be the AC, or jump IDs, so you are not having to explain to people something goofy you did 5-10 years ago.

    8. Re: A right? by ShaunC · · Score: 2

      Many people I know have no Facebook profile whatsoever.

      Sure they do, they just haven't claimed it yet. Facebook compiles as much information as it can to build dossiers about people who haven't signed up, and that "shadow profile" can be linked to their account if they do make one. The Belgian government recently banned this practice, but the rest of us are stuck with it for now.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    9. Re:A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      > You can opt-out of participation.

      Considering that facebook builds shadow profiles of people who have chosen not to create accounts I have to call bullshit - a big steaming pile of bullshit - on you.

    10. Re:A right? by mlts · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that social network sites are becoming required for things, such as having a job, arranging meetings, group conversations, messaging, and other items.

      I know I lost a job interview because I didn't have a Twitter account, and the interview called me a "fossil" because of that. (I really don't need Twitter because I have better things to do with my time) So, social media is important, and is moving to almost a message board for everyone.

      It gets me wondering about someone setting up a social network, registering as a common carrier (so they are not responsible for people's hate speech.) Then, with a reputation system (person "A" is a friend of person "B" who sets person "A"'s opinion weight at 1.0. Person trolls person "A" who blocks person "C"... person "B" then auto-blocks person "C" as the reputation propagates.) Of course, something needs to be done about speech not protected by the 1A or equivalent (threats of bodily harm or damage), but with a reputation system in place, a troll would wind up completely ignored after a while as negative reputations propagate.

    11. Re:A right? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Requested, not really required. You have options. Stop letting people, including yourself, forget that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:A right? by KGIII · · Score: 2

      But of course. I don't believe I implied you didn't have a right to complain.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > That's not you participating. You can opt out.

      That is a meaningless, empty statement. There is no opting out, facebook won't even acknowledge that they have built a shadow profile to track you much less let you "opt out." Don't be one of those ideologues who can't see the real world for what it is.

    14. Re:A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you can choose to be a hermit isolated from society. Live like a normal person or live like ted kaczinski. Great fucking 'option' that is.

    15. Re:A right? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I do not have an account. I still have a fine social life. Hell, I'm up early so I can finish up a few things and head to Florida in the morning. I'm not much of a hermit. I even have one of those real life girlfriends. And children - they have Facebook accounts. They email me or call me or, sometimes, we visit.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    16. Re:A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > I repeat, that's not you participating.

      Correct. It is not me participating it is them tracking me without my consent, without my participation and without any recourse.

      >. If you don't want to play by their rules, don't use their site.

      Fuck off you dumbshit. I AM NOT USING THEIR SITE. Ca-fucking-piche? Read the goddamn links, I didn't put them there for my benefit.

    17. Re:A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your kids have facebook accounts then facebook has a shadow profile of you. Why haven't you opted out of that? Hypocrite.

    18. Re:A right? by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      I know I lost a job interview because I didn't have a Twitter account, and the interview called me a "fossil" because of that.

      You were probably lucky not to get that job. A company dysfunctional enough to blacklist candidates without Twitter accounts -- and insult said candidates to their faces while doing it -- is not likely a company that would be fun to work for.

      I have a Facebook account, which is getting used gradually less often due to Facebook's retreat from XMPP, though purple-facebook might bring the usage back up some. I've never had a Twitter account and still don't really understand the appeal.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    19. Re:A right? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I have opted out. That shadow profile is not me. That's something somebody made up about me. I had no part in it, I took no part in it, I don't even care if they do it. I opted out. It's not hard. Do not participate if you do not like it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:A right? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's not you. That's some dumb ass company using your name. Don't participate. If you want to go further then block their tracking cookies, block their scripts, opt out. If I can figure out how to block their shit, you can. Don't participate, don't join their site, don't give them content of your own volition, don't give them views, and don't use any services that require their services. It's *really* not that hard. Use something like uMatrix or NoScript if it bugs you. Follow the APK and use hosts files. Null them at your router. Do not participate. Don't join, don't give them more information, don't go there. Do, on the other hand, feel free to bitch about 'em but, really, it's probably easier to just ignore them than it is to get them to change their ways.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    21. Re:A right? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that there has not been a lawsuit over racism yet. Facebook requires you to enter two names (first and last), and for cultural reasons some people only have one. That discriminates against people from countries where one name is the norm.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That discriminates against people from countries where one name is the norm.

      Insignificant. If so, write "Ungabunga / son of Rongorongo" in the two fields. That is what Gilbert MacAdams or John McArthur are about, literally.

      (Although I much doubt people still with just one name have any literacy to "sign up" per se? Even in Raj India the use of two names for natives was mandated like 170 years ago by the british colonial administration.)

    23. Re: A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "someone you don't know, but are friends"

      This is what's wrong with facebook.

    24. Re:A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot, breaking the law with age discrimination. The word "fossil" would make it a slam dunk lawsuit.

    25. Re:A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that extremist libertarians always have no fucking clue how the real world works? You expect regular people to take extreme technical measures in order to "opt out?" You might as well be telling people that they shouldn't participate in the fiat currency system and pay with barter because "its probably just easier to ignore money."

    26. Re:A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that he should also preach at all occasions, that if anyone is taking a picture with their phone which inevitably will land on a FB page, they should take care NOT to tag him...

    27. Re:A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't lose that job. The losers lost you due to insane job requirements.

    28. Re:A right? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That too. I've even asked family members to avoid that. Let me be in peace.

      I also figured out where the confusion was with a prior post. You can opt out. No, you can opt out of participating. That seems to have not been clear with my earlier post. I'd assumed it was clear but, given the replies and some thought, I think that's probably where the confusion lies. Don't take part, you don't have to. The profile isn't you. That's just data in storage somewhere. Give 'em as little as you can and move along.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    29. Re:A right? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Not only do I manage but many of the people I know, most of whom are not Libertarians, do not participate. You don't have to. It's not that hard to go through life without it. I'm not *that* far from normal.

      Err... As to the fiat currency? I'm not sure why we should do away with the idea but I do participate in the barter system quite frequently. That's a personal choice and probably not suitable for everyone so I'm not sure why you think I'd advocate such. Oh, wait, no - I'm not an extremist, really. I'm pretty moderate and actually pretty far left of any elected official.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    30. Re:A right? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I've also heard they discriminate against Asians. A FOAF (friend of a friend) told me that they kicked out someone named Fook Yew.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    31. Re:A right? by Mattcelt · · Score: 1

      Try explaining that to someone who uses that shadow profile that you claim is "not you" to make decisions - auto insurance, life insurance, job interview, etc. about you. Which anyone can legally do.

      But really, why should you be required to defend yourself against something you did not choose to participate in in the first place? And what about decisions based on that profile that are made about you that never make it to your ears? You could be discriminated against through a process that does not involve you, does not accurately reflect who you are, and over which you have no control. I don't know about you, but I don't see how that could not be concerning.

    32. Re:A right? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Don't bother explaining it to them. If they can't figure out that it is not you then screw 'em. I know loads of people who have done just fine. I've read two anecdotes of people who claim they did not get a job due to not having an account (though, judging by their post history - that might not be the reason). There's fuck all you can do about it, don't give 'em more data. Do not participate. Turn off the tracking crap, don't go, don't add to the pile.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    33. Re:A right? by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      I think that if people had their real identity online, the internet would be a less hostile place because people would choose their words and their position more carefully. After all, if you write something you believe in, should you not be able to stand behind it? If you screw up, just back track your statement. After all, back tracking just means you learned something from the argument that you didn't know before. I've often back tracked my arguments on SlashDot. I've even sent apologies to users I believe I may have offended.

      So someone please explain to me a really good reason for which your identity should be concealed in PUBLIC forums? Maybe I'll do some back tracking after :)

    34. Re:A right? by spads · · Score: 1

      Personally I strongly dislike this recent trend of pushing the use of your real identity, especially with recent actual occurrences of people being harassed in real life due to online activities. It's one of the many reasons I choose not to use facebook (the other being I find whatever voodoo they do to recommend friends disturbing, I signed up with fake info awhile back and it started recommending people I actually did know from both family and work.. which honestly creeped me the fuck out). I don't feel like my rights are being violated though.

      I have seen that. Presumably it is from your visiting their pages with that identity? That's all I can think, because I didn't have them in my contacts or anything.

      --
      Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
    35. Re:A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that discrimination based on social media membership?

    36. Re:A right? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      They're in a dominant position in their field. It's network effects: if I stop using Facebook I lose asynchronous access to some of my friends (who don't use email), I don't keep up with others, and generally wind up being cut off from a useful stream of information from friends and family. I lose a lot by switching to another social network.

      If a company becomes a monopoly, and network effects tend to do that, it needs to be regulated.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    37. Re:A right? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's likely that the company has a dysfunctional HR department, and the actual technical areas may be well-run and pleasant to work in. Besides, sometimes you need a job, and can't afford to be picky.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    38. Re:A right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that once it is on the Net, it can't really be backtracked.

      I had a job interview where the interviewer brought up something snide I wrote on comp.sys.amiga.advocacy back in 1990. Yep, 25 years later, I was being asked if I were still a troll or not because I explained in a snide way that Commodore needed to look at market share or get lapped by Apple and Wintel. I later was told that the post on USENET bashing the Amiga was the reason I wasn't hired.

      Once it is online, it is forever, It is nice to state something, without worry that it will be held against you for life. Even if you backtrack a statement, people will remember the original, and won't realize you have learned and changed since then.

      So, I really don't like having everything directly signed with my name. If I wanted it signed, I'd PGP sign it.

    39. Re:A right? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      We could argue that latter statement for quite some time but, suffice to say, don't let Facebook monopolize you. Yeah, you may lose something and you may gain something. I function just fine without it and I know many others who do the same.

      Sorry for the delayed reply. Was back on the road.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. It makes a lot of sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If their product is the users, you are attacking the heart of their business model by providing an incorrect name.

    1. Re:It makes a lot of sense by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If their product is the users, you are attacking the heart of their business model by providing an incorrect name.

      This. They are causing massive harm to individuals and society in several ways: careerwise (since social media is now checked by employers), by reducing social mobility (the same way), and in terms of chilling free speech. All so that they can sell your identity to advertisers, intelligence agencies, and data mining firms.

    2. Re:It makes a lot of sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if he wanted you to know, you would know so you could gay bash him some more.

    3. Re:It makes a lot of sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Facebook has been slowly on the way out of my life. Not much more to go!

    4. Re:It makes a lot of sense by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      Simple, you would've stayed in touch in the first place.

    5. Re:It makes a lot of sense by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If their product is the users, you are attacking the heart of their business model by providing an incorrect name.

      Yet in the United States it is entirely legal to adopt any name at all, for any reason you want, under certain restrictions (most having to do with how you interact with the government and sometimes banks - frequently because of government). There is absolutely no requirement that I use my birth-name, although there are some inconveniences. As far as my friends know, my bullshit made-up Facebook name is actually how I wish to be referred to.

      Asking me to provide proof of my name is really asking me to produce documentation that corroborates my story: documentation I can easily (and legally) fabricate, or else may itself have been a fabrication that does not support my facebook identity. It seems like in our brave new digital age, the we should have our children change their identity every year to establish some history.

      It is a total waste of time to continue down this road, my name is whatever I say it is. Until it comes time to pay taxes, then it's whatever my parents said it was on the day I was born.

    6. Re:It makes a lot of sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not really. FB have shadow accounts based on people that might not even exist, and probably you, if you don't even have a Facebook, as long as someone you know has talked about, or uploaded pictures of, you.
      Google does this as well.

      You can still track and identify anonymous users indirectly through others. Pretty damn well at that, especially these days.

      Combined with sentence analysis, you can even get a reasonably decent understanding of who that person is, and whether it is indeed the same person between one anonymous post and the next.
      Of course, it can be defeated easily if you have a focused persona and lazy persona where you just chill and make silli typoes here and there because lol fcuke ducation. (still makes my heard hurt even trying to type like that retard-speak. Requires actual effort to be retarded)

    7. Re:It makes a lot of sense by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is a total waste of time to continue down this road, my name is whatever I say it is. Until it comes time to pay taxes, then it's whatever my parents said it was on the day I was born.

      I don't know that the IRS cares either, as long as the TIN (taxpayer identification number) is correct and the numbers add up.

      Facebook has made, and will continue to make, money from selling my demographic information, and companies that want to sell me stuff don't care if my name is Fred Willard or Bjorn Florgen as long as I have money they can separate me from.

    8. Re:It makes a lot of sense by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 0

      This. They are causing massive harm to individuals and society in several ways: careerwise (since social media is now checked by employers), by reducing social mobility (the same way), and in terms of chilling free speech. All so that they can sell your identity to advertisers, intelligence agencies, and data mining firms.

      Last time I checked, using Facebook is voluntary. I am under no obligation to click any ad, and if I don't like one, I can mark it as repetitive/offensive/etc. If any employee tries to view my profile, the only thing they'll see is that I have one, if they can even guess that it's mine, since I don't use my photo for my profile. Stop pretending that using a private site is a right instead of a privilege.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    9. Re: It makes a lot of sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody said it's a right. What was said is that it's harmful. It encourages self censorship and groupthink. Not using it cats suspicion in certain social and business settings. Not using it has an opportunity cost in terms of communicating with friends and family who are too technology ignorant to use something else.

      I can and do choose not to use it and nothing will ever persuade me otherwise. Using it or any other social network is more harmful than not doing so to me, but one cannot pretend there isn't a cost to that.

      The internet and the world would be much better off if these things never existed but I can't (and wouldn't) do anything about that. That some private entity I want no part of can negatively affect my life is more than a little disturbing though.

    10. Re:It makes a lot of sense by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      On the plus side, Facebook is very helpful for creating spare burner personas. If someone has a Facebook profile with a few stock photos and randomly liked posts most people and web sites seem to assume they are real. You can create a few of them so they have friends and to use later.

      When you are finished with a persona, don't forget it kill it off and set up a memorial page. It makes the others look even more real when they like posts about friends dying.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re: It makes a lot of sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Educate your family and find an employer grounded (loosely at least) in reality.

    12. Re:It makes a lot of sense by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      On the plus side, Facebook is very helpful for creating spare burner personas. If someone has a Facebook profile with a few stock photos and randomly liked posts most people and web sites seem to assume they are real. You can create a few of them so they have friends and to use later.

      When you are finished with a persona, don't forget it kill it off and set up a memorial page. It makes the others look even more real when they like posts about friends dying.

      The stupid part is Facebook has a huge problem with fake accounts spamming comment areas of news and other types of web sites that they can't seem to stop. Yet they go after their bread and butter.

      They could easily solve this by saying "WE want to know who you are, but we don't care what your profile says." A good half of the people on my friends lists use fake or incomplete or names with nicknames in them. It's never been a problem. I either don't care who they are or already know who they are because I know them in person.

      The force the real name thing didn't work for Google, it's not going to work for Facebook either.

    13. Re:It makes a lot of sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IRS sure is interested in your political leanings though.

    14. Re:It makes a lot of sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just a 1 page affadavit and 2 min in front of a judge. You basically swear that your name change is not to hide from a criminal record or to hide from people you owe money too. And $200+ for fees

  3. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    At long last, I can use my rightful name on my Facebook account.

    Sincerely,
    Seymore Butts

  4. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    People use their real names online? I'm got numerous Facebook personas and there's fuck all anyone can do about it.

    Facebook and Co. can eat a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned.

    1. Re:Really? by Anrego · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and there's fuck all anyone can do about it

      Until they mandate everyone validate their identity. Things like requiring a mobile number for account creation is already becoming popular. It's depressing but not using your real name is going to become harder and harder, all so they can show you ads that are still probably going to be irrelevant.

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? 1 billion people are happy with their terms and conditions and policies. If you are not, go use something like diaspora or whatever.

    3. Re:Really? by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not necessarily. You're forgetting the group of users who are unhappy yet continue to use the service because not having an account destroys their social lives.

      With social media the only winning move is not to play.

    4. Re:Really? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Not that I want to join the moron ranks of facistbook, but if I did I'd simply use my burner phone which is also under a fake name...

    5. Re:Really? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No it's not, we're just going to get more comfortable with lying and fabricating documentation. Which is OK too.

    6. Re:Really? by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      Not when it finally hits single signon stage. Net access will be like a driver's license. It will be illegal to fabricate.

    7. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not necessarily. You're forgetting the group of users who are unhappy yet continue to use the service because not having an account destroys their social lives.

      With social media the only winning move is not to play.

      If you are forced to use FB, it is not FB's fault, but your social circle's. Don't blame FB.

      It's like saying you hate a specific shop, but you go there because that's where all your friends hang-out. How is it the shop's fault?

    8. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I believe that is inevitable. There are many, many people who want to see that world.

    9. Re:Really? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Lying? Sure. Forgery? That is a rather nasty thing to have on your criminal record. Doesn't matter if it's for "trivial" reasons like getting into a club while underage, it's an official document and they do prosecute it. You can tell Facebook to go shove it because they have no right to see it, but if you present it as such you're on the hook. Don't expect them to unban your account though.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:Really? by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Facebook is in the process of becoming single sign on for a lot of sites. For example, if slashdot went that way, those who don't want to deal with facebook would have to walk away. Eventually such people are cornered. yeah, sure, facebook can do what it wants, but that doesn't mean they aren't user-hostile.

    11. Re:Really? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      yes. The people who are so insecure they must know as much as they can about everyone else. Paranoids.

    12. Re:Really? by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      People use their real names online?

      Sure they do!

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    13. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "With social media the only winning move is not to play." EXACTLY!! Don't want facef*ck to have your real name? DON'T USE FACEF*CK!!! You want privacy? AVOID "SOCIAL MEDIA" LIKE THE PLAGUE!!!!

    14. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things like requiring a mobile number for account creation is already becoming popular. It's depressing but not using your real name is going to become harder and harder ...

      Not really, burner phones are only $10 at most department stores.

    15. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, your problem is not FB. In the specific example your problem is slashdot. Not FB.

    16. Re:Really? by brantondaveperson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      because not having an account destroys their social lives.

      Seriously? How does it do that, exactly? Does your email stop working, does your phone self-destruct? Are you teleported into outer space? It's possible to communicate with people without funnelling everything through a third party service that repays your loyalty by making large amounts of money from your information, and keeping it. Delete your Facebook account (I seriously encourage everyone to actually do this. The world would be enormously improved), and you'll find that your social life continues to function. We all gave Facebook this power, we can take it back.

    17. Re:Really? by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      I've never -- ever -- run into a site that requires I use Facebook rather than create a separate login. I expect the only sites that require Facebook sign in, rather than simply allow are mostly limited to stupid Facebook games, like Avian Dysfunctional Conflict Resolution Disorder, etc.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    18. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a very simplistic view. It does not take in account the complex nature of social interaction, just the views of one individual or one organization/company. The world is not black and white like you claim, and the greys inbetween are different for everyone.

      ONE underlying problem is the level of incompetence of the general user base. When people think Google or Facebook IS the internet, have no clue how to find and sift through information*, believe that personal data can be of no harm to them, that passwords are a hassle and should be '1234' or the likes, monopolistic services like Facebook will thrive. If almost all users, especially the computer-illiterate, are on Facebook, you can bet that companies/organizations that want to get in touch with these users will use Facebook. And now you have a lock-in scenario. The only winner is Facebook.

      *=Facebook "curates" information for you but at the same time does not give you much option to choose what you see and search capabilities are poor at best. What Facebook does is creating an information bubble in which you are content, but doesn't give you much new. This is a scary scenario, but as long as people does not react, and why should they –they don't know better, this will stay.

    19. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People use their real names online? I'm got numerous Facebook personas and there's fuck all anyone can do about it.

      Most of the time, it's someone else on Facebook that reports you. It's a malicious act. As long as you don't piss off one of the SWJ faggots on your friend list you'll be fine.

      Facebook and Co. can eat a bag of dicks as far as I'm concerned.

      Indeed.

    20. Re:Really? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      No but many people arrange social events only through Facebook. You get a Facebook event invite. Sometimes your friends will remember that you are the one person in the whole world who has no Facebook account and will notify you via email. Of course if there is a change of plans and the event gets updated, chances are you will be left out and show up at the wrong place and wrong time. Would not having an email account affect your social life? Facebook is the new email and new shared calendaring.

    21. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because not having an account destroys their social lives.

      Seriously? How does it do that, exactly? Does your email stop working, does your phone self-destruct? Are you teleported into outer space? It's possible to communicate with people without funnelling everything through a third party service that repays your loyalty by making large amounts of money from your information, and keeping it. Delete your Facebook account (I seriously encourage everyone to actually do this. The world would be enormously improved), and you'll find that your social life continues to function. We all gave Facebook this power, we can take it back.

      Try not having a cell phone. No, really. Try it. No texting. Demand everyone send you emails. Watch as they find it too much work to include you and you're left out. Your best friends will make the effort but you'll lose all the casual acquaintances and interaction quickly. Your besties don't always organize every event--and they will forget or not know that the organizer didn't make the extra effort to contact you. That's what you lose.

      I went through this myself. I held out as a luddite on texting and didn't have it until 2009. I missed things. A friend of mine I hadn't seen in years who was in town sent a message not realizing I didn't have texting. I never got it and I didn't get to see him. I missed out on other spur-of-the-moment activities. My social life wasn't destroyed without having it, but I certainly missed things.

      I never used FB much either in the past. None of my friends used it a tall. Now I can't have a social life without it. All my new contacts after coming to a new city use it extensively to reach each other.

    22. Re:Really? by Pebby · · Score: 1

      I loathe FB and their policies as much as the next person, but the problem is that, as another commenter pointed out, FB is very much requirement for arranging events and communicating because of the social inertia. Sure, you don't need a cell phone either! Throw it out, just communicate with people on your land line! Okay.. that's a little tricky.. the world moves on without me. You know, you don't need a phone at all. Just communicate with people by pen and paper!

      Of course all of this is doable, but it is absurd to speak in absolutes and ignore that if everyone around you is 'speaking a new language' you can get by just by keeping the old one. You have to twist arms or be less efficient. Remember, at the end of the day, no one really cares about the implementation details: I just want to be able to talk to my friends, organize social gatherings, and share information.

      We/I care because we understand the privacy/corporate-control implications, but... where do we go from here?

  5. whut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    passport? birth certificate?

    facebook has zero need for any of that... such a bad idea.

    1. Re:whut? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Interesting

      passport? birth certificate?

      IANAL, but it's not clear to me that it is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1543 to forge a passport for the purposes of fucking with Facebook, it's not clear based on 18 U.S.C. 1546 that it is a crime to provide a false passport for the purposes of fucking with Facebook, and it's not clear under 18 U.S.C. 1541 that Facebook is actually allowed to verify a passport (i.e. they are not a sanctioned body, as far as I know). You can do whatever you want with birth certificates, as far as I know, insofar as Facebook is concerned. All of this falls apart if you are actually trying to break a law and using false information to conceal your activities, but in that case you're already in cost-benefit analysis land and hopefully know what you're doing.

      Maybe someone is going to have to do this and get taken to court over it to "see what happens", but I have no intention of telling the truth on the internet unless I have a good reason to do so.

    2. Re:whut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe someone is going to have to do this and get taken to court over it to "see what happens", but I have no intention of telling the truth on the internet unless I have a good reason to do so.

      I would wager if Facebook adopted a policy of kill the false prophet (if someone claims account x is using a false name, and it verifies as being a true name then the accuser gets banned for lying). I would wager that this would drop 99% of all people claiming account x is a false name.

    3. Re:whut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it's still unlawful to violate a site's TOS under 18 U.S.C. 1030, so YMMV.

  6. I miss read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    When I first saw the title I read it as "Facebook Tweets ..." and I just about fell off my chair!!!

  7. It doesn't coop anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This article argues that a frivolous social network should not be allowed to co-opt government-level identity checks simply because it began life in the university arena, and has telescoped the necessary supervision of teenagers transiting to adulthood into a far wider and more diverse network of users."

    Just don't use Facebook. Problem solved. I did that and have never looked back.

  8. I never created a femme FB page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but then maybe I'm already a suspect as some of my friends wonder about me why I look at an attractive woman, instead of checking out her bod, I wonder where did she got her dress, shoes, and who does her hair and makeup.

    1. Re:I never created a femme FB page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe you're just a faggot

  9. Phuc Dat Bich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  10. Wait, what? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Facebook would expect me to upload my birth certificate and/or passport to be used in their people catalog?

  11. They wouldn't have me by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    I guess I couldn't sign up for Facebook, because I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:They wouldn't have me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I couldn't sign up for Facebook, because I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

      It's your fault for letting the man eat you. I bet you brought it on yourself, by prancing around looking all delicious, wearing nothing but strategically placed parsley.

    2. Re:They wouldn't have me by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I guess I couldn't sign up for Facebook, because I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

      It's your fault for letting the man eat you. I bet you brought it on yourself, by prancing around looking all delicious, wearing nothing but strategically placed parsley.

      The mind reels!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:They wouldn't have me by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      I bet you brought it on yourself, by prancing around looking all delicious, wearing nothing but strategically placed parsley.

      I wonder if I can talk my wife into this.

  12. Facebook only cares about the $$$ by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2

    Their various spokespeople have been dancing around the truth behind this; but it's all about the advertising money. If your not using your real name, then they can't easily tie you back to whatever profiling system they use that pushes ads based on marketing databases. My theory is that many of the "complaints" that get accounts removed are coming from various companies who pay to advertise with Facebook; to them "fake accounts" are wasting their money. No corp gives a flying f*ck if your a victim of domestic abuse, a trans hiding from a beating, or even if your in the US's witness protection plan. To them, a fake name = wasted ads. The only reason Facebook is even addressing this is because of the social backlash.

    1. Re:Facebook only cares about the $$$ by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      This is a fun way to get modded up but I don't think there's much truth to this. Look at the type of AC trolling we get here but also even some pseudo-anonymous trolling. When people have to use their real name, they are on better behavior. The policy keeps getting tweaked to deal with corner cases but the principle is still that you aren't anonymous on FB so exercise the same restraing you would in "real life" since FB is the new real life.

    2. Re:Facebook only cares about the $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about that. Firstly, there's lots of advertising/marketing stuff they can do without knowing your name. Secondly, it's quite hard for them to make use of your name even if they know it. I think Facebook perhaps has other, stronger motives for wanting people to use the same name on Facebook as they use elsewhere. One of those might be so that people who know you from other contexts can easily find you on Facebook and might then start interacting with you through Facebook rather than through somebody else's e-mail system which Facebook doesn't have access to and can't spy on. In other words, it might be more about making you identifiable to other people who know you rather than making you identifiable to Facebook.

    3. Re:Facebook only cares about the $$$ by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I'm a troll IRL, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    4. Re:Facebook only cares about the $$$ by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Then you can use your real name on FB and have fun trolling. People can choose to unfriend you. But then the trolling will be boring so you will try to sign up again with the name of your high school nemesis and the real name policy will thwart you. If I could post and moderate, I'd give you the funny mod though. You deserve it.

    5. Re:Facebook only cares about the $$$ by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      In a way your right, but not completely. People still say very hateful things on Facebook that they can't say at their job or they'd be fired; people post pictures of drugs that they wouldn't do out in public. For example, if someone at a large corp decided to forward an email saying "All Muslims are brutal killers and should be shot on site" to everyone in the corp address book, they'd most likely get fired...but they still post stuff like that in the "public setting" on Facebook. Sometimes it can backfire, but only if someone can get an HR drone to actually go notice, AND it's causing "the general public" to speak out against that particular corp. Perhaps in the near future social media and real-life will be tied together more; but right now it's not.

      I still stand by my advertising money theory as one of the major reasons Facebook bans accounts. It's only one reason; another is there are people who really hate specific segments of the populace and will go to great lengths to cause those people problems. The LGBT community seems to be a particularly targeted group; statistically many of the banned accounts belong to them. Yet, at the end of the quarter, all a publicly traded company is "legally" concerned with is profits. Accounts that aren't actual names cause mismatches in targeted advertising; Facebook is under contractual agreement with their advertisers to ensure that this doesn't happen.

      And "better behavior" is the wrong term; "politically correct" behavior is a better match. I don't publicly (on Facebook) post about Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli; but only because I live in a very conservative area of the US and it would socially and economically impact my life. That this treaty is a part of the countries history is beside the point; most people in my area would still take great offense including my current and future employers.

    6. Re:Facebook only cares about the $$$ by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I have no doubt that what you are saying is true - more information makes for better advertising. But I really don't think it's part of the rationale. Any online forum needs a way to deal with trolling. Almost every news site with a comment system ended up shutting it down. Here at /. we use a moderation system to keep things going. FB uses a real-names policy. Even if, as you point out, it doesn't stop everybody from behaving in ridiculous ways, it allows other users to identify them and not interact. Remove their posts from newsfeed or unfriend them. That gets more people using FB since it's a better user experience and the increased traffic is a much bigger factor than the improved targeting. (Targeting is pretty good with no information thanks to tracking cookies. In fact they can probably figure out your real name.) Nothing is going to keep everybody within reasonable bounds. If there were such a thing we wouldn't need a real life legal system. But FB is one of the few online forums that isn't poisoned by anonymous idiots and, in that sense, the policy is working.

  13. couples with joint accounts? by capoccia · · Score: 1

    everyone's getting excited about outing some LGBTQs, but i'm guessing there are many more couples sharing joint accounts with names like John Jane Doe. and then you have all the completely fake accounts that do nothing but spam. my guess is that if someone wants to use a fake name, the only way facebook is going to know about it and take some action is if some of their friends are jerks and turn them in.

  14. Which "Real Name?" by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    There are a large number of people, even in the USA, who can honestly say that they have more than one real name. One of them is the name that they use in everyday life, the other is used for religious and/or cultural purposes. I'm one of them, and only one of my real names has a web presence. In the unlikely event that I were to get a Facebook account, guess which one I'd use.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  15. Papers please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Papers please!

    Please, your papers.

    1. Re:Papers please. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Comrade, have you voted for Dear Leader yet?

  16. I think it's time to change my name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once I legally become "Anonymous Coward", I'll disappear into decades of slashdot postings, and never be found by a computer again.

  17. easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Go to the courthouse and buy a new name.
    2. Register new FB account using your new official documents.
    3. Go back to the courthouse and buy your old name back.

    Worse case: Your county might make you keep the name "Shi'thead Omglol" for 30 days before you can change it again.

  18. Liberal delinquent madness raging rampant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > determining their own identity

    The above sentence means a brick fell onto someone's head and he/she lost memories from the impact, prompting the person to go on a journey to recover his/her identity. That has nothing to do with sexual deviations.

    It is absurd to think that a dragster queer can determine his identity as a she, just by wearing female (and indecent at that) wardrobe. The identity is genetically encoded: male and female, occasionally a hermaphrodite, as well as caucasian, negro, redskin, semitic and mongoloid, etc. raciality. One cannot just define one-self as e.g. a woman or japanese, without genetical basis.

    1. Re:Liberal delinquent madness raging rampant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is growing evidence that suggests that gender dysphoria is actually caused by abnormal development of the brain. Whether caused by hormonal imbalances in the mother during gestation or the long list of drugs and chemical that women are exposed to in this modern day and age, the brain in the early developing fetus forms incorrectly according to the genetics. Some drugs, for instance, can cause an immunity to the effects of testosterone, which is key in the development of a fetus to exhibit the secondary sex characteristics, and it is now proving that it is also key to brain development as well.

      The problem is that when the brain doesn't match the body, since we can't fix the brain (no matter how much psychology and psychiatry advances), modern medicine's "fix" to the problem is to surgically intervene and change the outward gender appearance of the person afflicted with gender dysphoria. It is far from an ideal solution, but if a person can't live any other way, then it is a solution.

      Personally, I truly believe that there are really transgender people out there. I have met a few. But this recent trend of announcing to the world that you are "gender queer," "andro-," or "gender-fluid" is, IMHO, a fad much like bisexuality was in decades past. Yes, you can be bisexual, but in the end, you will settle for one sex or another to form long term relationships. That much is hard-coded into our genes. I think the current fad of flipping from girl-mode to boy-mode and back again is nothing more than a form of social rebellion against the status quo. As soon as the status quo catches up with them, there will be a new fad to move on to, and anyone parroting the old fad will be seen as just that...old fashioned.

  19. The solution is simple by Damouze · · Score: 1

    Don't use Facebook.

    --
    And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
  20. Facebook is still acting like a cop by labradort · · Score: 1

    Regardless of the tweaks, facebook is still asking for government ID to be sent to them, which will link the pseudonym to a real person in a way that only the police could be interested in. Outside of financial transactions, I have no other online services which require such a thing. On slashdot, web forums, CB radio, or G+, I can be any handle. For this reason, I continue to ban Facebook from my online activities.

    1. Re:Facebook is still acting like a cop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is InQTel. This used to be public knowledge.