Personally, I'm ambivalent towards the issue - on the one hand I really like the idea behind Facebook reflecting your real-life social graph, and I do fancy the ability to find someone by their real name. On the other hand, I had a fake account created for my IRC bot with personality that I meant to use both for fun and to optimize communication for a community, and I got really sad when that account got killed over Real Name Policy.
Yes. I am as likely to upvote someone with whom I disagree for presenting a thoughtful argument, as I am to upvote someone with whom I agree.
Been argued a million times, but downvoting as disagreemnt is silly IMO--unless you just want groupthink or a high school popularity contest. But, if you want thoughtful discussion, then reward thoughtful comments.
Now, of course if I care enough, then I have a choice: I can either stop using HN, or I can try to get the government to regulate it. Heh.
Hah, nice one. Though I thought as western civilization we've agreed long ago not to do that because everyone trying to regulate people they disagree with makes everything worse for everybody. Liberal ideals, or something. ;).
I think this is a decent argument. Facebook is pretty close to being a digital utility at this point.
But, a logical corollary of that argument is that if Facebook is a utility it's also expected for everyone to have it. Hence, it's fully okay for services to require Facebook access to log in (just as it's okay for companies to basically expect their employees to have a telephone).
So, which would you prefer: ubiquitous Facebook, with certain regulations keeping it in check, or a Facebook that you can readily opt out of because you don't agree with its policies.
> A compromise would be to allow Facebook users to get verified (similar to Twitter's verification)
I'm not sure I fully understand your proposal, but it actually sounds a lot like my opinion. It's not that I think Facebook profiles should be required to use their official legal name, just that they should use the name they use offline. Is that what you meant by verification?
How so? I am in no way required to live with running water and electricity in my house. Even things that are tangentially related, like my workplace requiring me to bathe and wash my clothes occasionally, don't require me to have the equipment to do so in my house.
Many workplaces will require that you are reachable by telephone. Pretty hard to do that without the equipment in your house.
I'm not sure how you would have a phone number without working with some phone service.
No simple EULA denials.
Yes.
In fact, Facebook is not a public utility, but a private company. And, unlike with a public utility, the public to which they are supposedly responsible aren't even their customers, but are their product.
This is not to defend them, and I'm not a Facebook fan. In fact, quite the contrary. I believe Facebook's entire model is based on the routine abuse of its users. That's all the more reason I can't understand why people who are uncomfortable don't just...stop.
For Facebook users (of which I am one), this service is an extension of our real-life social circles. We have (most of) our families, friends and colleagues there. Facebook Messenger is probably the primary IM for personal communication these days. You may dislike aspects of it, but there's no denying that Facebook is the best way of keeping the weak ties[0] (and turning them into strong when needed) that exists today.
We may bitch about the specifics, but the truth is - it enhances life too much to just leave it.
Ditching Facebook is not impossible though. The younger generation seems to be migrating towards Whatsapp and Snapchat.
There are regulations around FB, as well as civil remedies for violations of their terms, privacy policy, etc. They lay out how they will treat users and are beholden to follow it, lest face civil (and possibly criminal) penalties. As a user, you decide whether those terms are sufficient. If the people with whom you communicate can't be convinced to communicate with you otherwise, then why would you have a right to demand that FB accomodate your preferences?
That's a sincere question.
And, honestly, we have more choices than ever to communicate with people. Personally, I refuse to upload my life to FB for their monetization. But, much as I dislike some of FB's practices (and its fundamental revenue model), I don't see why people believe they should be able to dictate nuances of their various policies as if Facebook owes them the right to use their service on their terms. If people think that that what FB offers is worth the price, then they are getting exactly what they paid for. If they don't think it's worth it, then they should simply move on.
Corporations will take as much as they can, which is why regulations exist.
As much as I hate what Facebook is doing, I don't think this is anywhere near the right answer. Besides, do you really think governments want to see less information collected, when having that information makes it so convenient for them to obtain?
That's how regulations work. You dictate to a private business its responsibilities to its customers or users. I don't understand why that isn't the right answer (although Europe seems to do far better about this than the US).
> Besides, do you really think governments want to see less information collected, when having that information makes it so convenient for them to obtain?
This is a tired argument. The government is huge. Not every department is the NSA, nor is every department the FTC or FCC.
You should, at the very least, already know that this is not a universally held position, but rather one that many people oppose as vigorously as you support it. Without descending into politics, suffice it to say that doing so has no particular guarantee of solving more problems than it creates. Quite apart from the people who work at and run Facebook having rights, too.
People use Facebook voluntarily. "Facebook but not evil" is a viable business model.
Because the choice exists to either accept their terms and use it or reject their terms and not use it. But, what you are saying is that you reject their terms but, rather than disengage, you insist on using it, but believe the government should forcibly change those terms to your satisfaction.
BTW, they are actually regulated to some extent. Among other things, they spell out what they will and won't do. If they renege, then there are civil and possibly criminal remedies available.
How is this any different than unenforceable EULAs or employment contracts that overreach? You can ask me to sign something that violates the law; I can still use your service or become employed by you; that does not remove my protections granted under the law, but nullifies the parts of your contract or agreement that are unlawful.
But, in most cases, those who demand regulation or otherwise take umbrage with FB's practices in the current context are not questioning the legality of their terms, etc. Instead, they are asking, for instance, that the government proactively force FB to change practices with which they do not agree, irrespective of any legal tests.
The article itself literally speaks to people being endangered by a FB policy. All of this begs the question: at what point is it simply not worth it? It's nearly satire that people believe FB to be so critical that not even personal endangerment will deter them from using it.
Using FB is neither a requirement for survival, nor a fundamental human right. If their policies are endangering your life or simply not agreeable, then there's no need to launch a crusade. Just sign out.
Convincing all your friends and family to switch sites is not easy. Social networks provide quite a lot of lock-in. And while alternatives exist, they don't have the momentum, the audience, or the lack of friction.
Replacing Facebook is not primarily a technical challenge.
And, if the relatively few people who do care still continue to engage despite their concerns, then is that an even clearer message to FB that it's not a real problem for FB?
If you just ... stop ... you may find your social circle leaving you behind.
And, if what you're saying is universally true for kids, or even nearly so, then I'd say that we (collectively, as adults) have failed them in strolling hand-in-hand with them into a world wherein personal relationships are not viable without a profiteering third-party intermediary.
It's a bit extreme of a position.
And, I think it's reasonable to question how close his friendships are if they are dependent on Facebook.
But, that's probably true of society in general, wherein we seem to be trading quantity for quality where personal relationships are concerned. And the generation coming up now has almost no reference point as to any other way.
He didn't join Facebook because he was losing friends, he joined Facebook because of the social friction NOT being on Facebook caused. This is both less coercive and more insidious.
That's kind of a douchey thing to do to people, even if you're a private company.
I'm no FB fan but, here, FB is not "doing" anything to anyone. They offer a service, and a social one at that. If people choose to use it to keep in touch with their entire social circle, then why is FB responsible for ensuring that no one has a violent ex-boyfriend, nosy boss, etc.?
If using FB will endanger your health, then don't use it. That's the missing option in your choice set.
BTW, this is what happens when people outsource their relationships to a profiteering third-party. No one seems to question the wisdom of that "choice". Instead they want to force FB to be something it never was or claimed to be.
Public utilities have been privatised, and are required to operate under strict regulation. Why not the same for FB>
Now I'm prepared for the downvotes, but I don't think its wrong to expect certain behavior from tech companies in certain segments once they reach a particular size.
A compromise would be to allow Facebook users to get verified (similar to Twitter's verification), and then groups and communities could exclude non-verified profiles by default while allowing those non-verified accounts that they'd like to on a case by case basis.