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