First, shame on you and yours for asking people to rat on other people. Do you understand what could happen in the real world?
Next, I am a little sick of this "real name" business since Facebook and Google get it so wrong. I will give a couple of examples.
I grew up on a reservation in the US. Several of my friends have been given "Indian Names". Is that their real name or would Google / Facebook say that it's not valid because it is not a state issued ID. Is Google/Facebook combing the cultures of the world to pick out what they believe?
I do sysadmin work. Several people are named the same as parents / grandparents, but are known by other names. I use what people call them for their accounts not their official id. I would say I am right and have a better grasp of what their name is then someone who only uses official ID. Heck, would Google/Facebook take a tribal ID?
The cases of people trying to get away from a bad situation where Facebook / Google basically provides a target, not a safe place, are too numerous to iterate.
It isn't about the people using Facebook / Google. It is about your customers: the advertisers.
I should get a couple of people from around here (Native American reservation) to sign up and see how messy their policy is.
If you cannot validate names, then you probably should not use a real name policy. It bad enough Facebook (and I guess Quora) causes people pain, don't add your own wounds.
There's a lot more to it than that. Part of it is that Facebook does have a "real names" policy, but they don't actually define what a "real name" is, and they also don't enforce it nearly as recklessly as Google does.
Also, it's important to separate the notion of a "real name" from a legal (wallet) name. A legal name shows up on government issued ID, and is called "legal" because it falls within the law of that government.
A "real" name, to me, is a label that can refer to an individual, animal, place, or thing within a given context. For example, I consider "aestetix" just as real as any other name, and there are some people who have known me for over a decade, solely by "aestetix." To them, it's quite a real name.
But consider people who use different names for political reasons, social reasons, safety reasons, etc. Mark Twain, Voltaire, Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King), and so on all had very legitimate reasons for using a non legal name. Imagine you're trying to post updates on Facebook about awful things your oppressive country is doing to you (think Iran or Syria). Or imagine that you have a stalker who is trying to hunt you down. The list goes on.
I think it's pretty obvious that none of the major websites have thought this stuff out very well.
In addition to these sorts of serious, immediate dangers, certainly others of us prefer to never use our real name online because it is so uncommon. It's one thing to be Jim Smith, it's another to have a unique name and have your entire online history available to google. I figured this out in the 90s (via dejanews, before google even existed), and have never ever used my real name online since.
Further, I don't understand why some feel the need for me or anyone else to justify this position. It's real simple. I don't use services that try to enforce real ID or sometimes I use a fake name. It's extraordinarily creepy to me that facebook and google can not only determine my real name, but want to force me to use it online.
Better yet, stop checking for "real" names. If I use something as a name of Facebook, it's because that's what I want to go by. What does it matter what's on my birth certificate?
You are not your name. The fact that you have an official name does not mean the government is "deciding who you are." And beyond that, in most places, you can choose which name is your official one if you care that much about it. I do not understand what your beef is here.
If you don't think that Facebook should require your official name, I get that. But trying to deny that people generally have one seems odd.
"I'd also wonder how often it is that one doesn't use one's real name when trying to network for business reasons."
Example at my company would be people who moderate and respond to customers using the various social networking sites on behalf of the company. On facebook they currently do this by setting up a secondary "company" facebook account separate from their personal account, and they use their first name only prefixed by the company name. This allows them an online identity, but not enough information for the customers to stalk them personally. Probably about 5% of my company's staff is forced to have a facebook profile along with various other online profiles for use within the company.
"If your boss is forcing you to get a G+ account with your real name, I think you've got bigger problems."
There's a lot of people in a company that are required to use their real identity and reputation for the company. I don't understand why this is a problem. It just depends on your job. Take for example, the PR people. They must give their real first and last name when they are interviewed.
"If this real names issue remains a big issue people just won't use Google's offering and Facebook/other will win. Let them decide it."
I guess it depends on what you mean by "big issue". I think the point of this whole campaign is that they are trying to raise awareness because for most people, your real name is fine, but for a small minority, it's very unfavorable.
> Why? How so? And - why do we care? If users want to choose their name, how is it relevant if it's frustrating for _other_ people to be unable to locate them?
Well, because that's the way Facebook works. They made a decision early on to require real names because most of the value of Facebook hinged upon the ease of finding friends and family. Imagine if the white pages allowed people to use pseudonyms. It wouldn't be worth much, would it?
> How many people are searching the ex-gf/-bf by name to stalk and see what they're up to?
Dunno, lots? Who cares?
> And - frankly: I know more people on FB with 'fake' names than with 'real' ones. Family, friends, random acquaintances, 70% don't use their real name. The range is from fantasy names (like, obviously invalid/~random~), to play on words/phrases (localized variants of 'Some Dude' or similar) to the braindead exercise of writing your name backwards (you'd be there as "Kram Rettun").
This is purely anecdotal but I would put the rate of actual names used among my friends at around 99%. Now, granted, that may because I haven't found the acquaintances from my past who do use fake names, but that only bolsters my point. If most people used fake names then a large part of the appeal of Facebook would dissipate.
> Isn't it very frustrating as well if people got married and - whoa - just give Facebook their _current_ 'real name'. You wouldn't be able to find them. Maybe the service should require you to list the maiden name, blocking you for failing to do so?
Facebook has a solution for the maiden name problem, btw, (by allowing users to enter an "alternate name")[https://www.facebook.com/help/131728300237162/], and again, this is purely anecdotal, but I see a very high percentage of people in my network taking advantage of this feature. I would wager it's because most people want to be found by their friends and family.
> Against the TOS? Yeah, sure. Impossible to enforce for localized jokes or seemingly valid names anyway. And quite frankly, if it's 'frustrating' for people that want to search for old contacts is really, really not interesting _for those users_.
I don't personally have a problem with people circumventing Facebook's TOS and I'd gather that Facebook probably doesn't care all that much either. What I do have a problem with is a government arbitrarily setting a TOS for a website that people can choose whether or not to use.
It's possible to be invisible in Facebook search? I had no idea. Do you think most do?
I emphasized the difference between "cannot be found" and "don't make it easy to be found." This is different than the extremist "delete and recreate their online presence every time someone accidentally reveals the connection." There's a difference between being found a year later vs being found two days later.
"Facebook/Google+ accounts ought to be the same as what you use in the real world."
Okay, then what's involved if one changes one's real world name?
One of the other points in that long list of objections to a real name policy concerns "those whose religious conversion involved taking a new name who have not legally changed their name."
If I become a Sikh and take on the real world name of Kaur Dalke Singh, how do I change my Facebook name? Do I have to get a legal name change first? Otherwise, Google+ allow accepts "proof of an established identity online with a significant following" (which assumes I have a significant following elsewhere) or "References to an established identity offline in print media, news articles, etc." (so, what, I announce something in the local paper?).
Why "ought" the modern versions of Yusuf Islam and Muhammad Ali wait for the law to acknowledge their name changes before making the change on Facebook? Why "ought" Malcom X wait upon the law before he can reject his slave name of "Little"? Would Google+ allow people to change their names for these situations? What if the local government bans me from using my new name as my official name?
Consider Blaer Bjarkardottir, a teenager in Iceland. Her given name was not allowed by the Icelandic Personal Names Register, so she has no legal name. She is referred to as 'Stulka' - 'girl' in legal documents. Ought she wait until the Icelandic government either allows her her name, or forces her to accept a new name, before she's allowed to use Facebook/Google+?
You said (of using a pseudonym) that "all it does is lower the quality of everyone else's interaction with Facebook by causing confusion, and give those people a false sense of security that their unsecured profiles will never be associated with them." Malcom X's reason for choosing a new name had nothing to do with the reason you assume is why people want to use a pseudonym. Malcom X was well known. If I had the same epiphany, and decide to no longer use my operating system name of 'dalke' but instead go by X ... would Google+ accept it? Or reject it because I'm not famous enough?
Look, you're right. Anonymity and even pseudonymity is part of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. But to say that no one is harmed by requiring a real name policy is to be oblivious to the real-world issues concerning what a "real name" actually is.
I've noticed the same phenomenon (knowing tons of people on Facebook--to be clear, just "normal people" I knew from college--with ludicrous handles on Facebook). It thereby really bugs me when people hold up Facebook as an example of why real name policies are good, or claim that forcing real names is ok because Facebook set a precedent, when it is fairly clear that Facebook doesn't really care.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Seriously, why is it so problematic if people use names they chose for themselves? There are even countries where it's a very bad idea to go online with your real name for fear of government persecution or other repercussions. Is Facebook going to enforce ID papers on, say, Egyptian dissidents as well? Sure they like to link all accounts with physical persons as intimately as possible, but it's not exactly in the best interest of their users.
> Facebook doesn't need you to give your name to figure out who you are. They don't sell advertising based on your name.
Well, they do need your name to link and correlate it with other data sources (like address books uploaded by people, offline data sources like data brokers, etc.) and use that to show "better ads" and make more money. The value lies in identifying related information with attributes like name, age, sex, location, preferences, check-ins, etc.
> Also, I think it's unfair to pretend that real names don't make a difference. They're a big part of what makes Facebook different than MySpace, Twitter, or other social networks.
Nobody is pretending. There are millions of people, not just a few exceptions, who use their real names and still engage in horrible behavior on Facebook. It's a misconception that "real names" makes people behave better or brings in accountability. It doesn't for the ones who harass others. On the other hand, using a real name exposes people to plenty of abuse online, like getting their profiles reported and deactivated because of Facebook's nonsensical rules and utter lack of any consideration for users, while bullies just go around shutting down people. Facebook is a great tool to shut people down whom one may disagree with.
Reading EFF and other sites' articles on Facebook's "real name policy" and the later rechristened "authentic name policy" would show the dark side of using real names online.
"If half the people on FB have pseudonyms it will make the process of reconnecting with old friends and family frustrating"
Why? How so? And - why do we care? If users want to choose their name, how is it relevant if it's frustrating for _other_ people to be unable to locate them?
How many people are searching the ex-gf/-bf by name to stalk and see what they're up to?
Isn't it very frustrating as well if people got married and - whoa - just give Facebook their _current_ 'real name'. You wouldn't be able to find them. Maybe the service should require you to list the maiden name, blocking you for failing to do so?
And - frankly: I know more people on FB with 'fake' names than with 'real' ones. Family, friends, random acquaintances, 70% don't use their real name. The range is from fantasy names (like, obviously invalid/~random~), to play on words/phrases (localized variants of 'Some Dude' or similar) to the braindead exercise of writing your name backwards (you'd be there as "Kram Rettun").
Against the TOS? Yeah, sure. Impossible to enforce for localized jokes or seemingly valid names anyway. And quite frankly, if it's 'frustrating' for people that want to search for old contacts is really, really not interesting _for those users_.
I am sure I am. But that is not the point. I gave other examples too, and the point is that requiring "real" names breaks down in all kinds of different cases, most of which by themselves are probably not that common, but that adds up to affecting millions of people.
E.g. which name for my ex is most "real"? Her legal name? Using that would prevent most of her friends from finding her - it's not the name she uses. This is common for vast numbers of immigrants with names that are hard to pronounce.
> This is the difference between a social network meant for the general populace and one specific for tech folk.
Facebook is trying to be the one to decide how we should interact with our friends, and fails to understand even how names are used in real life, not just for "tech folk".
You're ignoring the root cause of this discussions. Which service that you're listing has a 'real name' policy?
Skype: Pseudonym (this one)
Twitter: Pseudonym (the same)
Reddit: Pseudonym (the same)
AIM: Uhm.. Nope. Guess allows pseudonyms? Not sure
GMail: No restrictions either
G+: Same as FB, hopefully the next target on the list of this group.
So - most of your list aren't playing that 'give us your real name and be prepared to hand over your ID to prove that fact' game with their users. Which is what the discussion is about. Of the services that do this, FB clearly is the leader. Or in a monopoly-esque situation.
If using your real name gets you in trouble for X reason then what does Facebook have to do with it? Using your real name anywhere would get you in trouble.
So then Facebook is obviously not the right place for it if you need strong anonymity. Again, what is the blame on Facebook as if they came in and registered your name and profile by force? Choose wisely for your scenario, that's all I'm saying.
If anything, real name identification just gives people ways to harm themselves socially in the real world. It's not going to deter antisocial behavior. Like the stereotypical crazy uncle at Thanksgiving - He's just no longer invited to Thanksgiving because they saw his extremist views in a much greater detail than otherwise.
This is why I stopped using Facebook years ago. It's bad enough that recruiters will filter me from a job opportunity over my GitHub activity grid. I know they are also researching my social media activity and most people have realized this now, and are not sincere when they feel like they are being surveilled.
The conversation here goes pretty well, no real names required. I actually think it's the opposite, real names bring in our real world problems and identities.
A fresh name is a fresh start and maybe you take the chance to do better this time.
It seems like people feel free to post the most atrocious nonsense on Facebook under their real name or maybe using one of the apparently billions of fake accounts that look just like real people. I don't think trust really works in internet conversations with strangers, you can't ever know their motives even if you know their names.
I like proposition A, but proposition B is not good. Real names policies mean people who are at risk of violence or job loss (e.g. domestic abuse, transgender, religious and ethnic minorities, poor people) must either conform or risk themselves for having a political voice. Given official news and political parties lie constantly about state affairs, real names don't even help with trustworthiness! Look at the President.
Instead, I would advocate that you should read everything critically and that any news you accept must meet some evidence threshold and logically make sense in a coherent narrative. Learning real history helps.
I strongly suspect that we were lied to about the rationale for real names policies on Google, FB, etc. They wanted data for their advertising business and to help enforce political conformity (their businesses benefit from a politically stable base of operations). It clearly didn't help suppress hate speech or insane conspiracy theories.
That's true, though I always look essentially the same; my visual image is a sort of a "name".
(OK, yeah, I might wear different clothes in different circumstances. And some of us use makeup which makes even our face look a bit different.)
I guess I'm trying to say that I'm OK[1] with there being a place (Facebook) that requires real names while there are places (Twitter, most of the rest of the web) that don't. Different requirements for different contexts lead to different tones and different conversations.
Anyway, this is all a bit beside the point of this post, which seems to just be about an overzealous FB employee demanding a famous person (that presumably they didn't recognize) had to use the name on his ID.
[1] Yes, I'm privileged and have a standard Western-style name and nobody dangerous stalking me that I need to hide from, etc etc.
Next, I am a little sick of this "real name" business since Facebook and Google get it so wrong. I will give a couple of examples.
I grew up on a reservation in the US. Several of my friends have been given "Indian Names". Is that their real name or would Google / Facebook say that it's not valid because it is not a state issued ID. Is Google/Facebook combing the cultures of the world to pick out what they believe?
I do sysadmin work. Several people are named the same as parents / grandparents, but are known by other names. I use what people call them for their accounts not their official id. I would say I am right and have a better grasp of what their name is then someone who only uses official ID. Heck, would Google/Facebook take a tribal ID?
The cases of people trying to get away from a bad situation where Facebook / Google basically provides a target, not a safe place, are too numerous to iterate.
It isn't about the people using Facebook / Google. It is about your customers: the advertisers.
reply