Facebook Users Must Be Allowed To Use Pseudonyms, Says German Privacy Regulator(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Facebook Users Must Be Allowed To Use Pseudonyms, Says German Privacy Regulator
http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/18/facebook-users-must-be-allowed-to-use-pseudonyms-says-german-privacy-regulator-real-name-policy-erodes-online-freedoms/
95 comments
Let's say that Facebook required you to have a well-lit photo of your face, taken within the last year. Would it be ok for Germany to restrict this requirement?
How about if Facebook required users to submit a form detailing all sources and amounts of income for the previous year? Strictly confidential, of course.
Germany would certainly have a double standard barring those practices, but they should.
How about if Facebook required users to submit a form detailing all sources and amounts of income for the previous year? Strictly confidential, of course.
Germany would certainly have a double standard barring those practices, but they should.
It is quite common for countries to have an explicit double standard for themselves and private companies, especially with things like documentation (and doing trials and locking people up, and fining people). This is not new.
as it is no located in Germany
Facebook have an office in Germany.
Here's some job postings: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/hamburg and their Facebook page for the office https://www.facebook.com/FacebookHamburg
Facebook have an office in Germany.
Here's some job postings: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/hamburg and their Facebook page for the office https://www.facebook.com/FacebookHamburg
Why do you need to protect yourself from trolls on facebook? Those are your friends. Unless you add every stranger that send you a friend request.
I'm not in favor of Germany on this one but sometimes the law/government should interfere to ensure people freedom. Just because it's a private company doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with our data even if we were the ones providing the data.
I'm not in favor of Germany on this one but sometimes the law/government should interfere to ensure people freedom. Just because it's a private company doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with our data even if we were the ones providing the data.
I use FB mainly for information distribution and conversation. It means that I interact with friends of friends, and with people who "are going" to my event (and I'm not knowing them in person). (And yes, I add Internet-only acquaintances, but not guys I don't know.)
Some of my personal experience says that (usually, not always) people under names don't troll that much.
Of course, the situation is different for small communities, or skill-driven communities, but (usually) not for open ones. (E.g. on HN anonymity works well.)
I don't say that I agree with FB's rules (personally I prefer "real names encouraged, but not required" policy on such "for everyone" sites). I'm just saying that there are pros and cons, both for FB and for its users.
Some of my personal experience says that (usually, not always) people under names don't troll that much.
Of course, the situation is different for small communities, or skill-driven communities, but (usually) not for open ones. (E.g. on HN anonymity works well.)
I don't say that I agree with FB's rules (personally I prefer "real names encouraged, but not required" policy on such "for everyone" sites). I'm just saying that there are pros and cons, both for FB and for its users.
> personally I prefer "real names encouraged, but not required" policy
That's what the German government is saying. They're not outlawing the use of real names.
That's what the German government is saying. They're not outlawing the use of real names.
Boyfriends/girlfriends turned stalker. Having others add you to groups without permissions. Hacked accounts.
I guess you could make a case for FB being a de facto monopoly on connecting with friends and therefore needing to behave in certain consumer-friendly ways.
Alternatively, "you want to do business in our country, you must follow our rules".
Not that I agree.
Alternatively, "you want to do business in our country, you must follow our rules".
Not that I agree.
Alternatively, North Korea, Mozambique, Cubs, and France can also say that, but why does it matter?
Sure, monopolies needs to be controlled. (Especially then there is no longer free market.)
However, for me there is a strong difference whether a monopoly chances rules (or as time goes by, the world changes - see move/music distributors) or people accepted it before it was a monopoly.
E.g. imagine that Germany say that HN needs to have pictures or, at very least, thumbnails. ;)
However, for me there is a strong difference whether a monopoly chances rules (or as time goes by, the world changes - see move/music distributors) or people accepted it before it was a monopoly.
E.g. imagine that Germany say that HN needs to have pictures or, at very least, thumbnails. ;)
> E.g. imagine that Germany say that HN needs to have pictures or, at very least, thumbnails. ;)
This is a weak slippery slope argument. Germany is not making arbitrary requests on web sites. Rather it is protecting the right of its citizens to anonymity, according to pre-existing laws.
This is a weak slippery slope argument. Germany is not making arbitrary requests on web sites. Rather it is protecting the right of its citizens to anonymity, according to pre-existing laws.
You can turn the same thing around, no one is forcing Facebook to do business in Germany. If they want to do business in Germany they have to follow German regulations.
Wouldn't this argument justify almost any government law or control? It's true that Facebook should follow the law of generally free or democratic nations. That doesn't change whether or not the law is good or bad, and whether or not they should fight it.
It's not the same thing at all, because the German regulations would be stopping two consenting parties from interacting with each other, while Facebook does not such thing (it just prevents some from interacting with Facebook itself).
EDIT: People assuming that I'm against all kinds of such regulations: cut that out, I never claimed that.
EDIT: People assuming that I'm against all kinds of such regulations: cut that out, I never claimed that.
The 800 pound gorilla Facebook and the average German teenage girl (to name just an example) aren't exactly equal consenting parties.
The law is there to protect individual citizens against the ruthless exploitation by major corporations like Facebook.
Especially when those corporations hold the key to either social isolation or abandoning your civil rights. The laws are there to prevent companies from abusing their power from effectively undermining individual people's rights and freedoms.
The law is there to protect individual citizens against the ruthless exploitation by major corporations like Facebook.
Especially when those corporations hold the key to either social isolation or abandoning your civil rights. The laws are there to prevent companies from abusing their power from effectively undermining individual people's rights and freedoms.
> [...] because the German regulations would be stopping two consenting parties from interacting with each other [...]
That might be a moral problem for libertarians. But there are lots of (not only German) laws along these lines.
That might be a moral problem for libertarians. But there are lots of (not only German) laws along these lines.
I never said it can never be justified. I live in the EU and agree with most of our consumer protection laws. I'm just drawing an important distinction.
Not participating in a transaction is a personal issue, which doesn't need justification. Not letting others participate in it should need to be very well justified, at least in a State that is supposed to be democratic and just.
Personally, and in this particular case, I find the justification lacking.
Not participating in a transaction is a personal issue, which doesn't need justification. Not letting others participate in it should need to be very well justified, at least in a State that is supposed to be democratic and just.
Personally, and in this particular case, I find the justification lacking.
If it helps - many FB users are minors. The gov't is making sure that they can post "LOL PUKED FROM TEQUILA FOR THE FIRST TIME" under a pseudonym.
That's precisely correct. Forcing Facebook to accept pseudonymous users represents a fundamental change in the nature of the service. Facebook can and should suspend service in Germany. It's unfair to users from other countries to have a bunch of anonymous idiots spouting off.
That's funny because half of my German FB friends (mostly female though) are using a pseudonym. A popular convention is to leave off half the letters of the first and last name each. So Hans Meier would be "Ha Me". These guys are writing the least inane postings in my news feed.
Anonymous idiots spouting off, oh my...
Anonymous idiots spouting off, oh my...
I don't know anything about German regs but couldn't facebook say: 'we reserve the right to kick you off our service for whatever reason we choose or no reason at all.
p.s. We prefer that you use your real name'?
Company: "We hire whoever we want".
Company proceeds to only hire men, despite women with similar or better qualifications applying. Company then sued for obvious gender discrimination, illegal in the US.
Company proceeds to only hire men, despite women with similar or better qualifications applying. Company then sued for obvious gender discrimination, illegal in the US.
... participation in FB is voluntary.
Facebook is used as the exclusive sign-on system for various services besides Facebook itself. For instance, Spotify uses it, and last I checked it is not possible to use Spotify at all without using Facebook.
If Facebook continues to grow, the consequences of not using Facebook could be more severe than at present. It's a classic example of network effects.
Once something becomes a necessity, such as telephone or internet, I think you have a strong case to say that even though using it is technically voluntary, the price of not using it is so high that most people have no choice.
Is Facebook at that level of necessity today? Not for me, but maybe it is for some people.
Facebook is used as the exclusive sign-on system for various services besides Facebook itself. For instance, Spotify uses it, and last I checked it is not possible to use Spotify at all without using Facebook.
If Facebook continues to grow, the consequences of not using Facebook could be more severe than at present. It's a classic example of network effects.
Once something becomes a necessity, such as telephone or internet, I think you have a strong case to say that even though using it is technically voluntary, the price of not using it is so high that most people have no choice.
Is Facebook at that level of necessity today? Not for me, but maybe it is for some people.
Technically voluntary, is still very much voluntary. As is using Spotify, or any other service that requires a Facebook login. I disagree with the philosophy that true online identity is better for all, but also disagree that Facebook should be forced to do this. People have other choices, and had other choices while Facebook was growing. People chose the 'true' identity social network long before it was the dominant player in the space. People kept choosing it before the super network effects kicked in.
And when your ISP starts requiring you to sign in with Facebook via a captive portal before you can browse the Internet at home, will you still continue to "choose" the "true identity social network"?
Why is the burden on Facebook to provide anonymity and not the providers of essential services to provide alternative means of registration?
Perhaps the German government is attacking this from the wrong angle then. It's not that Facebook should require psuedo-anonymous access, but rather, services that rely on Facebook should allow psuedo-anonymous access.
For example, Spotify should not exclusively rely on Facebook, as a non-anonymous access provider.
For example, Spotify should not exclusively rely on Facebook, as a non-anonymous access provider.
[deleted]
That is the extreme disconnect between libertarian and other perspectives. In the libertarian perspective all that matters is that two parties agree. There is no consideration given to the relative power of the two parties or the effect of their agreement.
Disqus says people with pseudonyms participate more
http://disqus.com/research/pseudonyms/
http://disqus.com/research/pseudonyms/
IANAL. If Facebook didn't have a headquarters in Europe (Ireland, according to the article), would there be any chance of Germany enforcing this?
I can think of a number of communities which have chosen to require the use of real names, and I wonder what kind of corporate structure they need to have in order to make that policy legally defensible against laws like these.
I can think of a number of communities which have chosen to require the use of real names, and I wonder what kind of corporate structure they need to have in order to make that policy legally defensible against laws like these.
Facebook have an office in Germany.
Here's some job postings: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/hamburg and their Facebook page for the office https://www.facebook.com/FacebookHamburg
Regardless Facebook Ireland Ltd., would fall under Irish, not German law.
Here's some job postings: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/hamburg and their Facebook page for the office https://www.facebook.com/FacebookHamburg
Regardless Facebook Ireland Ltd., would fall under Irish, not German law.
> IANAL. If Facebook didn't have a headquarters in Europe (Ireland, according to the article), would there be any chance of Germany enforcing this?
Not sure. But if they are offering their service to Germans, and, perhaps more important, make money from German companies via sale of advertising, there's probably a lever for German law to act on.
Not sure. But if they are offering their service to Germans, and, perhaps more important, make money from German companies via sale of advertising, there's probably a lever for German law to act on.
The regulator was actually saying that the goal of his move is to have it challenged in court. He wants to either establish to have a saying over Facebook, or, I guess, put some pressure on politics.
What on earth makes the Germans think that they can decide what facebook must do?
They are not deciding what Facebook must do in general, but what Facebook must do so that they can sell Germans to their advertisers.
Clarification (edit): With this I mean that they don't have to make pseudonyms available to, say, the French.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted. I absolutely agree that it is not the place of regulators to decide which features a website must or must not have. Let the German people decide for themselves what kind of usernames they would prefer.
> Let the German people decide for themselves what kind of usernames they would prefer.
They just did.
They just did.
No. A handful of politicians decided that the tens of millions of Germans who enjoyed using real name services would henceforth be banned from doing so.
Well, Facebook have an office in Germany for one thing.
Here's some job postings: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/hamburg and their Facebook page for the office https://www.facebook.com/FacebookHamburg
Here's some job postings: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/hamburg and their Facebook page for the office https://www.facebook.com/FacebookHamburg
Because they want to do business in Germany? Or do you assume that corporation rights are more important than individual rights?
Don't worry though. The communists in the UN will soon decide that Facebook needs oversight.
Germans have historically thought they can dictate their wishes on others.
Does this mean that all real name services are banned in Germany?
BBC story posted on HN earlier: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4937073
Interesting--there are other countries where you are required by law to register with your real name (and national ID #) on every site. South Korea had such a law until it was struck down in August of this year. The perspective on whether anonymity online is a right differs very much by local culture and political climate.
Of course corrupted governments don't want criticism from anonymous, hard to find sources.
I think it should be a rule in the internet that users should have a right to use whichever pseudonym they wish. Anonymity would be great too, but obviously it does not work in certain cases.
I for one won't use Facebook or any other social media as long as I can't use a fake name. At times it feels a shame, really.
I for one won't use Facebook or any other social media as long as I can't use a fake name. At times it feels a shame, really.
It may be against Facebook's TOS to use a fake name but you can definitely get away with it. However, if you are adding friends and family to your list of facebook friends then it might not be hard at all to figure your real name out.
Please let's not use 'allowed to use a pseudonym' and 'wants to hide his real name' interchangeably.
If you want to/have to hide your real name, a pseudonym might help (and your suggestion is helpful). But not everyone using a pseudonym tries desperately to hide his real name.
Nothing against your post, I just want to make a case for pseudonyms while avoiding to reduce this to 'some people are in real danger of violence' cases etc.
Let people choose their names. Regardless of their motivation.
If you want to/have to hide your real name, a pseudonym might help (and your suggestion is helpful). But not everyone using a pseudonym tries desperately to hide his real name.
Nothing against your post, I just want to make a case for pseudonyms while avoiding to reduce this to 'some people are in real danger of violence' cases etc.
Let people choose their names. Regardless of their motivation.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privacy-terminology-01 tries to define some of this terminology:
* Pseudonym: An identifier of a subject other than one of the subject's real names.
* Real name: The opposite of a pseudonym. For example, [...]
* Pseudonymous: A property of a data subject in which the subject is identified by a pseudonym.
* Pseudonymity: The state of being pseudonymous.
Pseudonymity is strengthened when less personal data can be linked to the pseudonym; when the same pseudonym is used less often and across fewer contexts; and when independently chosen pseudonyms are more frequently used for new actions (making them, from an observer's or attacker's perspective, unlinkable).
So according to these definitions, you're right that a pseudonym by itself may not require one to conceal their "real" identity. However, pseudonymity clearly does.
I think pseudonymity is the more fundamental as a general security property. So your example of a person using a pseudonym without significant desire for pseudonymity is more of a corner case, at least in serious discussions.
If we need a term for a pseudonym without strong pseudonymity, I propose we use the term from IRC and call it a "nick".
* Pseudonym: An identifier of a subject other than one of the subject's real names.
* Real name: The opposite of a pseudonym. For example, [...]
* Pseudonymous: A property of a data subject in which the subject is identified by a pseudonym.
* Pseudonymity: The state of being pseudonymous.
Pseudonymity is strengthened when less personal data can be linked to the pseudonym; when the same pseudonym is used less often and across fewer contexts; and when independently chosen pseudonyms are more frequently used for new actions (making them, from an observer's or attacker's perspective, unlinkable).
So according to these definitions, you're right that a pseudonym by itself may not require one to conceal their "real" identity. However, pseudonymity clearly does.
I think pseudonymity is the more fundamental as a general security property. So your example of a person using a pseudonym without significant desire for pseudonymity is more of a corner case, at least in serious discussions.
If we need a term for a pseudonym without strong pseudonymity, I propose we use the term from IRC and call it a "nick".
Family maybe, but figuring out the real name from friends can get difficult.
I know a guy who has been using an alias on facebook for the past 8 years or so. It is funny to watch when his alias creeps in to real life. Normal scenario, Bob meets Alice, a friend of a friend, at a party. They friend each other on facebook, Bob uses the alias Claude. Sometime passes and they run into each other elsewhere. Since Alice met many people that day and now mostly only remembers Bob as Claude from facebook. Some confusion occurs when Bob's friends call him Bob while Alice is convinced his name is Claude.
I know a guy who has been using an alias on facebook for the past 8 years or so. It is funny to watch when his alias creeps in to real life. Normal scenario, Bob meets Alice, a friend of a friend, at a party. They friend each other on facebook, Bob uses the alias Claude. Sometime passes and they run into each other elsewhere. Since Alice met many people that day and now mostly only remembers Bob as Claude from facebook. Some confusion occurs when Bob's friends call him Bob while Alice is convinced his name is Claude.
This happens to me a lot. I don't think Facebook are even interested in enforcing real names though, my middle name is currently "Hashtag", it is obvious that it is not a real name yet it was accepted.
That reminds me of a site that, in protest to arguments made for criminal hacking charges in the "MySpace suicide" case, changed its TOS to ban people named "Steve" from visiting at all.
I hope that we make more headway, in the legal and popular understanding, that website TOSs currently seem to amount to nothing more binding than "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs.
I hope that we make more headway, in the legal and popular understanding, that website TOSs currently seem to amount to nothing more binding than "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs.
All those big "social" networking platforms lately seem to be getting a little bit overconfident that they can just whatever they want with their users data. don't like the tendencies ... totalitarian on the network-side and mostly indifferent on the user-side.
I always wonder during those discussions - what exactly is a "real" name
supposed to be? I don't have "real" name. Rather, I have many chosen names, and
a name my parents gave me. I consider all of these names real, as they refer to
a facet of my personality, a part of me.
I do have a legal name - my birth name. It's but one of many. Why is my legal name important? It isn't. I don't even consider it my primary name. The concept of one single "real" name is severely retarded and flies in the face of reality. We need to get rid of this concept, along with the illusion of a single identity. I simply am not the same person when I am with my parents, when I'm with my meatspace friends, or if I'm hanging out on IRC with people I know pretty well, but have never seen or met. I'm someone different here on HN than I am on 4chan, or any other message board. That's perfectly human, and no company or law will ever change that.
I do have a legal name - my birth name. It's but one of many. Why is my legal name important? It isn't. I don't even consider it my primary name. The concept of one single "real" name is severely retarded and flies in the face of reality. We need to get rid of this concept, along with the illusion of a single identity. I simply am not the same person when I am with my parents, when I'm with my meatspace friends, or if I'm hanging out on IRC with people I know pretty well, but have never seen or met. I'm someone different here on HN than I am on 4chan, or any other message board. That's perfectly human, and no company or law will ever change that.
> Why is my legal name important? It isn't. I don't even consider it my primary name. The concept of one single "real" name is severely retarded and flies in the face of reality. We need to get rid of this...
No, sorry. No.
Your legal name is important. If you ever get incarcerated, your legal name will be on the docket. If you have a license or passport, your legal name will be on it. Your taxes have your legal name, as well as any other government certificates you may ever have.
No, sorry. No.
Your legal name is important. If you ever get incarcerated, your legal name will be on the docket. If you have a license or passport, your legal name will be on it. Your taxes have your legal name, as well as any other government certificates you may ever have.
But which legal name? I (along with everyone in this country) have 2.
If we're talking about legal purposes, then names are a pretty poor primary key. In such situations, SSN or other UUID would be superior.
For any recreational/social purpose, what's the point of requiring legal name? How many "John Smith"s are there in the world?
For any recreational/social purpose, what's the point of requiring legal name? How many "John Smith"s are there in the world?
The SSN is technically a NUID, not an UUID. So legal names are more important in international context (an Indian SSN doesn't mean anything in the US, for example).
But yeah, assigning GUIDs to everyone born in the world, like as "a93sz0sz" would allow uniqueness for thousands of years.
But yeah, assigning GUIDs to everyone born in the world, like as "a93sz0sz" would allow uniqueness for thousands of years.
Yet somehow, I doubt many people would appreciate that kind of uniqueness...
Actually legal names are a problem even within the US. I recently had problems with getting a California driver's license because my second middle name was abbreviated on my green card, but spelled out fully on my North Carolina driver's license, which I was transferring to California.
Yes, it will be in all these places. But in for example Sweden that is more of a convenience rather than of any actual significance. What is really used is your national identity number.
I virtually never write my entire name in forms. I bet I could use a pseudonym or fake name and nobody would care as long as the identity number is there. The only exception is passports where my legal name is important.
I virtually never write my entire name in forms. I bet I could use a pseudonym or fake name and nobody would care as long as the identity number is there. The only exception is passports where my legal name is important.
Your examples only make a legal name important if you consider these things
important. I don't, and they aren't. Part of why we need to get rid of the
concept of a legal name is exactly for this reason. A government has no
business and no authority to decide who I am.
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.
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.
You mean your legal name is used in legal scenarios? Say it isn't so...
Guess what, my "street name" is used in "street" scenarios, my "immediate and extended family name" is used by my immediate and extended family (not my legal name btw, nor has it ever been).
What makes the legal name special in any regard? They are all used in their niche.
Guess what, my "street name" is used in "street" scenarios, my "immediate and extended family name" is used by my immediate and extended family (not my legal name btw, nor has it ever been).
What makes the legal name special in any regard? They are all used in their niche.
The concept of one single "real" name is severely retarded and flies in the face of reality. We need to get rid of this concept, along with the illusion of a single identity.
Skkkkrrrrriiiiittttcccchhh
No, most of us are pretty happy with it because it works. OK, so you feel restricted by it, but you don't get to make the call on what people 'need' to do. These philosophical excursions are entertaining, but the fact is that your legal name is important because it enables the relationship between you and the complex society you inhabit. Money's an abstraction, but one which justifies itself daily by allowing people to buy and sell conveniently. Your legal name serves a similar function.
Skkkkrrrrriiiiittttcccchhh
No, most of us are pretty happy with it because it works. OK, so you feel restricted by it, but you don't get to make the call on what people 'need' to do. These philosophical excursions are entertaining, but the fact is that your legal name is important because it enables the relationship between you and the complex society you inhabit. Money's an abstraction, but one which justifies itself daily by allowing people to buy and sell conveniently. Your legal name serves a similar function.
your legal name is important because it enables the relationship between you and the complex society you inhabit
While I agree with this statement, it also occurs to me that society may be becoming sufficiently complex to warrant a level of flexibility in naming that we don't have. A legal name may be important for interfacing with some things, but it does not follow that all things must interface with your legal name. Facebook and Google seem to think it should, but mostly because they're advertising companies, not because it's a requirement of the services they provide, or a requirement for all the kinds of human relationships they're offering to mediate.
This mechanical imposition of a single identity where it has not previously been mandatory is what gets people calling it "severely retarded", etc.
While I agree with this statement, it also occurs to me that society may be becoming sufficiently complex to warrant a level of flexibility in naming that we don't have. A legal name may be important for interfacing with some things, but it does not follow that all things must interface with your legal name. Facebook and Google seem to think it should, but mostly because they're advertising companies, not because it's a requirement of the services they provide, or a requirement for all the kinds of human relationships they're offering to mediate.
This mechanical imposition of a single identity where it has not previously been mandatory is what gets people calling it "severely retarded", etc.
There are entire groups of people for which this isn't necessarily the case. For example a significant portion of mainland Chinese people use a chosen western name when interacting with services that operate in English. Just because a given use case for names is not a use case common to your social strata, does not mean that it may be common within other groups.
Prove it.
Reply here with a link to a scan of your State-issued Driver's License and national passport proving that your legal name is, in fact, "anigbrowl" in the next 24 hours or your account will be deleted and you personally (i.e., your legal identity) will be perma-banned from this service.
(Not really, I don't admin HN at all. But you won't do it either.)
Reply here with a link to a scan of your State-issued Driver's License and national passport proving that your legal name is, in fact, "anigbrowl" in the next 24 hours or your account will be deleted and you personally (i.e., your legal identity) will be perma-banned from this service.
(Not really, I don't admin HN at all. But you won't do it either.)
I think you missed my point, rather badly. I'm saying the concept of a legal real name is a valid one, not that you should have to use it everywhere. Anigbrowl is not my real name; I don't think people should always be required to go under their real name, which is why I don't use Facebook, for example. The use of pseudonyms does not invalidate the concept of a legal identity.
I don't believe you're really responding to what Anig said. He didn't say that you weren't allowed to ever be called anything but your real name; he just said that your legal name does have some special status in society.
Similarly, I was recently informed that it was my Twitter birthday. It was not the same as my legal birthday. This does not, however, deprive my legal birthday its significance.
Similarly, I was recently informed that it was my Twitter birthday. It was not the same as my legal birthday. This does not, however, deprive my legal birthday its significance.
I interpreted slowpoke to be arguing that the single identity theory was oversimplistic and illusory, a position with which I agree.
anigbrowl then came in with his "Skkkkrrrrriiiiittttcccchhh No, most of us are pretty happy with it because it works" remarks, which I felt was rather flippant. My response was meant to show anigbrowl the logical conclusion of his position. It's not an unrealistic possibility either, I believe it's been at times the official policy of Facebook, Google Plus, Blizzard, and S. Korea.
My point is that, no, a single identity doesn't work and really it never did. We all use many different context-dependent identities as we interact in life.
anigbrowl then came in with his "Skkkkrrrrriiiiittttcccchhh No, most of us are pretty happy with it because it works" remarks, which I felt was rather flippant. My response was meant to show anigbrowl the logical conclusion of his position. It's not an unrealistic possibility either, I believe it's been at times the official policy of Facebook, Google Plus, Blizzard, and S. Korea.
My point is that, no, a single identity doesn't work and really it never did. We all use many different context-dependent identities as we interact in life.
All you really pointed out is that his legal name is not "anigbrowl." And all he argued that was legal names do have some special importance, and it's out of touch with societal norms to say they don't. The fact that his name isn't "anigbrowl" is irrelevant to the fact that legal names have some special importance — both of these facts can coexist at once.
The logical conclusion of anigbrowl's position is not "You will be permabanned from this service if you can't produce a driver license reading 'anigbrowl'." This is an argument against a much more ridiculous stance than the one he took.
The logical conclusion of anigbrowl's position is not "You will be permabanned from this service if you can't produce a driver license reading 'anigbrowl'." This is an argument against a much more ridiculous stance than the one he took.
'anigbrowl isn't anonymous or even pseudonymous. He just uses a nick. His name is Edward On-Robinson. It's linked from his profile; all you had to do was click on his name to find that out. Similarly, my name isn't "t".
My response is as germane to this thread as your comment was.
My response is as germane to this thread as your comment was.
I did click on his name and check his profile but, alas, I didn't copy-and-paste to retrieve the URLs in his profile (which were not links) to see if any of them revealed his "real" name.
Skkkkrrrrriiiiittttcccchhh
The record scratch sound effect is a bad enough affectation when used in movies and television. Your point is more than strong enough to stand alone without it.
The record scratch sound effect is a bad enough affectation when used in movies and television. Your point is more than strong enough to stand alone without it.
No, you're you. You're just presenting different facets (whether conscious or not) of you.
I already have a pseudonym on facebook :P I had no idea you couldnt do that.
This is the worst thing they found in facebook's term of use? Really?
No, I think this was much worse:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/technology/facebook-backs-...
Much of what Facebook does is actually against European law, now it's down to enforcement:
http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/technology/facebook-backs-...
Much of what Facebook does is actually against European law, now it's down to enforcement:
http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/en.html
I don't use Facebook as people usually use but I have some accounts for API tinkering and some groups I follow. None of them use anything near my real name, residency, photos or other real personal data. It's a bit odd to explain to people from some groups I meet in person why I don't use my real name on FB, but they usually understand. There is no way for them to find this out, since my aliases sounds naturally and the fake data also seems real.
This strategy also applies for any other social-web services.
This strategy also applies for any other social-web services.
And real names have some advantages (e.g. much harder time for trolls); sure, they have disadvantages as well...
...but I don't like the idea of a country saying about features a certain product needs to have (or even - thinking that they can say, because AFAIK in the current state Germany can make usage of FB illegal for their citizens, as it is no located in Germany).