Facebook changes how it enforces 'real name' policy in wake of criticism
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
They're just changing the enforcement mechanisms. So while the changes seem positive (Lil Miss Hot Mess says some good things about them), they're just around the edges, not getting rid of the actual harmful policy.
Even without a person's "authentic" name, Facebook has so much information that most people willingly part with that it could still sell a lot of well targeted ads.
It seems like there's something else sinister that has not been revealed all this while as to why Facebook continues to "stand by" this names policy. Or the people making the decisions are incompetent to understand and uncaring to do something positive. Or both.
I see it as a smart product decision where the benefits outweigh the concerns of a vocal minority that project having to use your real name as this ludicrous sin, while at the same time saying that if you don't like a product you can just NOT use it.
Why? I actually enjoy using FB infinitely more than Twitter/Myspace (years ago) because I see it as a network of people - not company profiles or shit like that. While they might layer on things like company pages or video content or other shit, the fundamental foundation of their product is the social graph, with people centered as the nodes. I don't give a shit about your screen name, and I don't want to have to try to remember it.
Regardless if you agree/disagree, brand image does matter in the real world, and I think Facebook product folks know this.
And it's nice that you see it as a network of people (with company pages all over the place, but whatevs), but as has been pointed out over and over and over and over, some people can't use their actual names. Maybe they're not out, maybe they have stalkers, maybe they're stuck in a country where they face violence for their political choices (hell, maybe they're muslim in America.)
Being able to not give a shit about real names means you're one of the people privileged enough and from the right background such that you don't have people trying to hurt you for being yourself.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/chris.cox/posts/10101301777354543
If the response is "no popular social network I want to use allows me to use a pseudonym to my liking," I again refer to one of my original points that there's probably a reason why it doesn't last, and why networks that try to allow it like Ello eventually don't grow/survive -- people put trust in a social network that feels like a network of real people.
If you want citation for the last point, I'd point to the fast success of NextDoor, but I concede it's mostly a hypothesis, as I don't regularly use that product and haven't seen it since the beta.
I would also suggest so few social networks succeed that it's nearly impossible to draw conclusions about them. As a counterpoint, tumblr is within an order of magnitude of the size of fb and they allow complete anonymity.
Things like checking what name most people call you on your birthday seem quite reasonable though.
Not reasonable once you realize there are people who have well-used nicknames they might not want to go by on facebook, and just regular old ineffective if they have their birthday hidden in their profile.
Facebook has made a deliberately choice to be a social network for digitally mirroring your real life friendships, not establishing an independent "online" identity.
If you don't like that, don't use Facebook.
For me, the fact that Facebook is filled with my real friends, using their real identities, is essential to its utility.
I wouldn't want to drown or be electrocuted.
This doesn't require a hypothesis that water or electricity are "evil", it just requires an understanding that sometimes you don't want to suffer harm from something that otherwise might be a good thing.
And, as you say, brand image does matter. That's why doubling down on a policy that leads to outing victims of violence, telling first nations people they don't have "real names", making it so you can't find anyone who has built their career under a stage or pen name, etc. wouldn't be the best move.
Additionally, pretty much everyone I interact with knows me by my "fake" name. Forcing me to switch to that would result in a lot of friends not being able to find me. Yes, if you grew up in a "typical" family you don't have these issues, but there are a lot of people who have damn good reason for not wanting to have another outlet for people to continue abusing us.
I had been good friends with someone for about three years before discovering his real surname when I booked flights for a group. I doubt more than two or three of the people he spends time with most weekend know this; I've not told anyone.
(On the other hand, I shared a hotel room with someone I was sure used a fake surname, since it sounded ridiculous, but it was on his driving license.)
It sounds like most of your friends know you by your "fake" name. That should absolutely be the name you're allowed to use on Facebook and I think their policy supports that. (In fact, this announcement is allowing for alternative forms of "proof" like what people wish you happy birthday with.)
While they haven't done the best job of finding ways of enforcing it in the past, Facebook has frequently stated that they want your offline and online names to be the same (not that you must go by your legal name).
Ok, we changed the title to say that.
They fiddle with their terms of service (particularly this one policy, which is most egregiously anti-consumer) every few months, when the noise gets loud enough that they can't ignore it, it lets a little steam out of the pressure to change, and they go back to the highly profitable business of being mildly evil.
As with every change facebook has made to their real names policy, they've made it clear they are in control of your identity online. If you use a name that is not your legal name, they make you jump through hoops to satisfy Facebook's desire to know who you are. I'm not saying they can't do this; of course they can. But, it's time for people to stop letting them get away with the claim that the policy benefits anyone other than facebook.
I know people who have had to jump through those hoops, even after the last round of "we're changing the real names policy, it's totally fine!" articles. People with abusive exes, trans folks, sex workers and entertainers for whom the line between "personal" and "professional" life is thin and could be dangerous for them to have it get too thin (like having their real name on social media), and folks who just prefer to use another name and are known as that name among all of their friends.
Trans folks have been in front on protesting this because they have frequently experienced shame and fear at having their identity challenged, and facebook is doing it online on a massive scale. Probably every trans person has experienced having to show ID to prove they are male or female. They've experienced having to argue with family over what name they wish to use. They've experienced being incorrectly called "sir" or "ma'am" or "he" or "she", even after clarifying that they prefer something else.
Facebook is being the asshole that keeps using the wrong pronouns/names/etc. despite being asked not to, and when challenged on it, demands to see ID to "prove it".
Again, they can do whatever they want; they're a private entity with their own goals and desires. But, we don't have to buy any bullshit about why they're doing it.
It's just kind of funny to keep seeing this happen. They did it at least twice with the cookie that tracks you across the web even when you've signed out of Facebook, and they kept using that excuse that it's a technical error.
Then when the EU privacy bodies actually called them out on it in Courts, their "whoops, we never intended to do that" excuse suddenly turned into "waaait a minute, we use that feature for security...and stuff! Why are you hurting your citizens, EU?!"
If you tell me to call you Lord Joseph, is it really so wrong for me to ask you for your credentials? If I refer to you as 'him,' not 'His Lordship,' am I really the one in the wrong?
Do you sincerely believe the two situations are comparable?
In other words, because you don't like the name "Lil Miss Hot Mess" (I assume because it is not as serious as "Joe" or "Torgo", as names go), is it OK to call anyone by whatever name you prefer, and refuse to acknowledge them as anything else? Whether I think "Lil Miss Hot Mess" is a ridiculous name or not doesn't alter the reality that facebook daily "disappears" people's accounts whose names aren't up to their standards. This change in policy gives people a week to protest that disappearance, but it doesn't change facebook's level of control. They still decide who you can be online (at least on facebook).
The thing is that I don't know where to draw that line on what is "too ridiculous", and I don't think anyone else really does, either. So, given that names are arbitrary (even when enforcing a "real names" policy, there are people who have ridiculous names), and given that enforcing a real names policy harms countless people, and given that not enforcing real names has very little negative result except to facebook's bottom line (and even that is negligible), I just don't see it as defensible.
The argument that it prevents abuse and bullying is shown to be a lie by the fact that this policy has been used, since facebook's inception, to bully people, and facebook has for all that time remained complicit, and even an active participant, in that bullying. You can't claim to want to prevent bullying if you're the one holding the victim down while someone else punches them.
No one can make you call Lil Miss Hot Mess by her chosen name, but, ethically, I don't think anyone can tell her not to go by that name, and I don't believe it is ethical to demand she "prove" that's the name she wants to go by, either. If she says it's the name she prefers...well, who would know better what she wants?
FB: "Our policy has never been to require everyone on Facebook to use their legal name. The spirit of our policy is that everyone on Facebook uses the authentic name they use in real life. For Sister Roma, that's Sister Roma. For Lil Miss Hot Mess, that's Lil Miss Hot Mess."
Not using someone's preferred name / gender pronouns is plain and simple being an asshole. Nobody really gives a shit about your opinions on being trans or whatever -- we've literally heard every argument you could possibly make many, many times. Just don't be an asshole so my day isn't ruined and I can pretend your outdated views don't exist.
It's not a joke: it's a serious example. You are not (I assume) nobility in any recognised peerage; a man who believes he is a woman is not in any recognisable sense actually a woman.
Or maybe you are actually a peer, or maybe she really is a woman. In which cases yes, I'd like to see proof which outweighs the evidence to the contrary.
> And, I've mentioned that many trans folks find that kind of response hurtful.
It may be hurtful to the theoretical you-of-the-example to note that you are a commoner; it may be hurtful to a man who believes himself a woman to note that he is a man. But, y'know, you are and he is.
It's hurtful to me when folks point out my errors and mistakes, but I can't change reality to match what I think it is or want it to be.
> Do you sincerely believe the two situations are comparable?
Yes, they are exact analogues from my point of view, for the reason that neither noble titles nor sex are subjective: they are objective reality.
You are talking about someone whose biological sex at birth was male, and whose gender is female. In other words, you're confusing biological characteristics with gender.
Gender refers to self-identity, cultural behavior, and presentation. The World Health Organization[1] and the Oxford English Dictionary[2] have accepted this definition.
On Facebook, users may fill a freeform gender field (not a dropdown) and select a preferred prounoun. Users are not required to substantiate gender, nor would there be a way to. Notably, Facebook never asks anyone to give medical info about their biological sex. Neither should you.
[1] http://apps.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_eng...
You'll need to back that up with some citations. My understanding of the relevant science, from many angles (biology and psychology, in particular) says otherwise. The science says that sex and gender are much more complex than merely "either/or" and that trying to put a binary onto something that complex isn't useful and potentially even dangerous for those most at risk.
And, my personal interactions with people who suffer from gender dysphoria, among other issues, tells me that it causes harm when I refuse to respect their desire to be called by their preferred name and gender. I don't want to cause harm, particularly when it costs me literally nothing to respect my friends' wishes.
If you tell me to call you "Lord Joseph", I'll say sure, and oblige, as I would for "foobar", "zeveb", or any reasonably pronounceable nickname without obviously undesirable connotations. Which kinds of credentials would be relevant for me to accept to call you the way you want to be called?
> If I refer to you as 'him,' not 'His Lordship,' am I really the one in the wrong?
"His Lordship" would arguably be quite a mouthful... But certainly, for the much less convoluted case of people asking to be called by their favorite single-syllable gender or genderless pronoun, I would think that it would not be courteous to use one that you don't like. How exactly would my perception of your gender be more relevant than your own?
Legally, the State, who go so far as to issue official documents indicating one's legal name.
In some jurisdictions it is perfectly legal to assume additional names, of course.
This is a tautology, since a "legal name" essentially means the name the government has for you. They will generally (though not necessarily reliably) provide credentials that a name applies to you. This does not mean that they make the decision about all names that apply to you.
All they care about is what you are called.
Calling someone by their preferred name is kindergarten-level etiquette. It is your right to break from that simple etiquette, but the rest of us have the right to dismiss you as an oaf.
I see noooo problems with this. /s
Re: real names as a deterrent against bullying, -look no further than HN and see that real names aren't really needed at all. In fact lots of real names places are way worse.
It's somewhat true that anonymity is disinhibiting... but that's a good thing, because it leads to fresh and creative thinking. You'll get plenty of noise, but there'll be plenty of signal too.
The theory that people are unwilling to put their name to abusive or awful comments seems compelling, but the evidence tends to contradict it. There are more than enough people who simply don't care.
Agree, only I would add a few more options:
* Real-looking troll accounts.
* Don't understand the consequences
* Feel it is The Right Thing To Do
Just saying.
Not sure what the enforcement policy was or is, but I can say that it isn't real comprehensive. Maybe they only act when something is flagged by other users?
I will never give Facebook my real name. Professionally Facebook is useless and my friends know who I am. Facebook has my phone number and it's already too much information.
I have an unusual last name that get flagged by FB as fake. Five years ago I sent them proof of my name and they changed it, but then locked my ability to edit the change (they added my middle name, I just wanted first name last name).
Its pretty annoying, and when my parents and other family members started making facebook accounts they often had to do First Name Middle Name because Facebook's name changing policies are arcane and they make it extremely inconvenient to contact them.
My mother, who was flagged by facebook and then reenabled, recently got remarried and wanted to take her husband's last name, but Facebook won't let her make the change.
personally i don't upload anything to fb. It's only a messaging platform for me(if i don't upload anything there's nothing to be "stolen")
Also, Facebook is already a cesspool.
The tools shown don't seem to address that.
My friend lost their common law name of like 40 years, no-one even knows who the heck their birthname is when facebook shows it.
Facebook should save the real name BUT NOT DISPLAY it. You can display whatever you want. Fake name or what you like. Your friend can find you (if they know your real name) with search but nobody else can see your real name.