Den mandag den 31. august 2015 kl. 08.31.34 UTC+2 skrev Hugo Roy:
> ↪ 2015-08-29 Sat 19:46, askebi...@gmail.com
> > I don't think "no pseudonyms allowed" are necessarily an overall bad
> > thing, neither a non-obvious thing.
> Yes, it depends on the context. We're not saying that not allowing
> pseudonyms in all circumstances is a bad thing.
> > From a quick glance at Facebook, it's pretty clear that pseudonyms
> > are almost exclusively used by fake profiles and spampots.
> I do not use Facebook, but I have read elsewhere that this is
> absolutely not the case. In any event, the behaviour of spambot isn't
> a good standard to judge whether the rule is good or not, spambots are
> just designed to abuse rules anyway.
Well, that's how it used to be. Now that you mention it, you are right that it's not the case any longer. Facebook is also allowing nicknames now (Settings->Edit Name->Add Another Name->Nickname), so I guess they're moving slightly away from it.
> > I understand how pseudonyms can protect some people, who would like free speech, but cannot for whatever reason.
> And this is an important issue for Facebook, considering that it's
> probably the most general and large platform allowing people to
> publish on the web today.
Facebook would not be likely to have existed if not for the real names. Remember that it only got so popular, because it was something exclusive, and something personal. And I'm not sure it's a strong enough platform that they'll keep being popular if they allowed pseudonyms. Because something usually happens when a majority starts using pseudonyms: it becomes scary to have you real name, since most people choose not to. So how could you trust people with your real name if they don't?
> > But disallowing pseudonyms also allow you to know that what they say is something they're not afraid to take responsibility for. When you talk with someone on Facebook, you can be far more sure, that you're talking to a person who is who he says he is, and thus, you avoid some parts of "trolling", i.e. pretending to be someone you're not, in the effort to trick people.
> I do not think that disallowing pseudoyms is really working in
> Facebook to protect against trolling. Does it?
> In any case, for the reason stated above, I don't think that this
> alone is enough to dismiss the fact that disallowing pseudonyms harm
> the freedom to speak of some people and that it's too important to
I think it does protect against trolling. But it doesn't protect fully of course. But trolling also usually occurs from people who have a profile picture of something that isn't themselves (an object, or a place for example), which means that you can know that people who are not ready to be open about themselves, don't have a picture of themselves. I think it does make a difference.
> > That can still happen on Facebook, of course, but I think it's enough to not make it a conclusively negative thing.
> I suppose we disagree. I'm interested in knowing what others would
> think here, but I want to also make clear that ToS;DR is also biased
> in favour of users’ rights online, and raising awareness regarding
> what's in the terms. Now, considering the amount of legitimate users
> who want to use pseudonyms in Facebook and considering the amount of
> these users who actually *do* use pseudonyms: I think they're entitled
> to know that unfortunately Facebook does not allow pseudos in their
> terms (when we checked--has this changed? The ToS have changed so the
> analysis is out of date at the moment).
I don't disagree with that. I think it's good to inform users about this. The reason I have the ToS;DR plugin as well, is because I'm not great at going through the ToS.
> > And it's clearly possible to find places to by anynomous elsewhere, and still reach a big audience. After all, the vast majority of sites allow pseudonyms, including social media sites.
> I don't think there's anything quite as large as Facebook for this.
I think Facebook is the biggest place, yes. But what is "for this"? I think it really depends on what your purpose is. If you're a company, there's no point in pseudonyms of course (unless you're trying to phish). And if you're a (human) person, I can't think of many (if any) scenarios where you can do something on Facebook, that you can't do elsewhere. At least, I can't think of any features where Facebook would be useful for someone who wanted to be anonymous. Because there's forums for all kinds of things. Reddit being one of the big platforms (suicide hotlines, anonymous addicts, sensitive sexuality subjects, religion change from fundamentalist families - and many more). And for news, there's twitter. And for social interaction in very specific subjects, there's all the many forums that exist.
Maybe for the games? Or events?
Although I think the games are hardly good enough to attract a lot of people for that to be relevant - and I have difficulty imagining many cases where it's relevant (from a protect-user-rights perspective) to by anonymous when discussing an event. Perhaps demonstrations? That's all I can think of. Because if it's more private than that, then there's no useful idea in using Facebook.
So I guess, I just don't understand why someone would want to be anonymous on a platform, that is mostly useful, because you're not anonymous.
> Thanks for your input,
Thank you for your reply as well!
Kind regards, Aske B. Vammen