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.
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.
If their product is the users, you are attacking the heart of their business model by providing an incorrect name.
At long last, I can use my rightful name on my Facebook account.
Sincerely,
Seymore Butts
When I first saw the title I read it as "Facebook Tweets ..." and I just about fell off my chair!!!
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.
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.
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...
No it's not, we're just going to get more comfortable with lying and fabricating documentation. Which is OK too.
Not when it finally hits single signon stage. Net access will be like a driver's license. It will be illegal to fabricate.
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?
Sadly, I believe that is inevitable. There are many, many people who want to see that world.
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?
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
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.
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.
yes. The people who are so insecure they must know as much as they can about everyone else. Paranoids.
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});
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.
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.
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
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.
Comrade, have you voted for Dear Leader yet?
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.
Don't use Facebook.
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
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.
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.
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?