Also, civil disobedience doesn't mean what you think it means:
much like civil disobedience, you have no right to complain once
you are found to be breaking the law/policy and are punished for it
Anyways, by the comment about civil disobedience, I meant that, if you willfully break a law you feel to be unjust, what comes with that is a reasonable expectation of the punishment for breaking that law to be meted out.
I see it kind of like a button that says "By clicking okay, you will be punched in the face". The people that click okay don't have any reason to complain, they were warned.
Replace "punched in the face" with any possibly negative thing. If you are told that X will happen if you do Y, and you do Y, and X happens, don't complain.
That fits the Facebook situation rather well: "Oh, they want you to give a real name snicker Seymour Butz will do". There used to be an expectation that such rules aren't really enforced.
Now they are, and it's notable that Facebook picks a method (reporting on your friends) with a certain tradition.
As a side note: That approach and "don't complain" go well together: said tradition didn't favor free speech, either.
Honestly, I don't think that. But could you try to focus on the argument and not the person? Your ad hominem attack has contributed nothing - just like my first sentence contributed nothing either!
Let's take illegal immigration. Yes, there is legal immigration, but it's limited by draconian max quotas and a preference for the educated. But the US is still a great opportunity to find decent jobs and help support one's family. I feel for illegal immigrants in our country and if I had any way of supporting them (beyond just voting for pro-illegal and amnestey measures) I would! And I want to make the law and government as toothless as possible against.
Millions of people break drug laws. For some, it is damage themselves and the people around them, and encouraging them to be more dependent on the state and to resort to thieving.
But illegal drugs help a lot of people. There are possibly some various benefits for cannabis, and at the least it acts as a pain reliever. MDMA helps treat PTSD and potential has use in couples therapy. Mescaline, LSD, mushrooms and ketamine provide satisfaction to spiritual soul-searchers. Adderal and other amphetamines boost some forms of productivity.
Our founding fathers disliked taxes and were essentially smugglers and tax evaders. They had moral arguments against the law placed on them-- Karunamon would have them following the law anyway.
Karunamon has no empathy for the human reality of law breaking. If our political process does not find it convenient to de-criminalize actions that help humanity, how can we respect that law?
And so, I stand by my statement that Karunamon would make a great henchman. I can imagine him now, shouting at the criminals: "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND MORALITY ARE OF NO CONCERN, THE LAW IS THE LAW."
This comic sums up how I feel about the law: http://asofterworld.com/index.php?id=469
I am using many appeals to emotion, but I've still demonstrated that: following the law blindly is not a good strategy for the improvement of humanity.
What the everloving hell is that supposed to mean? Don't fucking join the service if the rules bother you - that too is an option.
It seems a lot of people want to have their cake and eat it too though, It takes some level of arrogance to say "Screw it all, I'm going to do it this way, ToS be damned", then get caught breaking those rules and suspended or somesuch, and then complain that the suspension happened.
Do not join $service if the rules of $service are offputting to you. That applies to every service ever made on the internet or real life. It applies to Facebook, G+, App, Twitter, a church, a discount club, or quite literally any other service.
Furthermore, if you join $service, and your account has action taken against it for breaking the rules you agreed to and said you would follow, you shouldn't complain. You did lie about the whole "I will follow the rules" thing.
Rule of law is a different matter than the terms of service for a web app. Breaking laws in real life has a great deal more negative consequences that getting your Facebook account deleted. One of these things is relatively minor, one is not.
I'm not sure whether this counts as a Godwin
I agree, and it's a pity that's the route chosen, because the point about what kind of atmosphere it creates is enough to carry the argument. It isn't hard to emotionally read that dialog as "Please select who you are more loyal to: A. Facebook B. Your friend C. I just can't decide! D. Why are you asking‽"
I can't imagine that in the longterm this is a gain for Facebook, even if they somehow squeeze a short-term bounce out of this.
(Though I can't help but feel that both the advertisers and Facebook may be overestimating the value of "really" reaching the real "people" they think they are. So very, very much behaviour information leaks into every minute of interaction with Facebook regardless of whether you are in your "real" account or not that I bet the ad algorithms still mostly work even on the "fake" accounts.)
I signed up for Facebook in September 2004. I most certainly did not agree to that rule, because as far as I can recall, no such rule existed at the time. You may make the argument that my continued use of their service implies assent to any subsequent modifications to their terms of service, but that's an issue that would need to be litigated.
Does Mark Zuckerburg strike you as the kind of fella who will go to prison to fight for your privacy?
Uploaded willfully by the people concerned. What is hard to understand about "don't put something online you don't want others to have access to"? (Values of "others" change with the service involved.. but you'd have to be frankly, moronic to put something on a social network site and not expect it to be accessible to others, as well as authorities if they come knocking)
However, I was thinking more about private messages and chats, tracking cookies, etc. Also pernicious: being tagged in other people's content.
Tying a real name to private data can have repercussions, even for responsible law abiding adults -- especially when the data is archived indefinitely, in one convenient central location.
On top of that you are putting the responsibility on people to "think of every bad use of this information which could happen, and if you are still happy, then post it". Which is an impossible task. Much better to enumerate what can happen, what it will be used for, which can be made a limited set of things, and then if you are happy with that, post it.
(And records of whether that information was given subsequently being recorded.)
The article's points on "snitching" seemed sound to me. Encouraging people to inform on one another and betray trust is generally societally harmful.
Did you mean legal name? And if so does that exclude legal aliases?
What about Madonna, is that her 'real' name?
This isn't rocket science.
The divide between "real name" and "pseudonym" is very fuzzy as soon as you step outside the "engineer box" and look at real world data. Many people in this world go by names that you would never expect to see on their driver license or passport, both of which seem to be things Facebook asks users provide to "prove" their "real names".
And lets not even get started on the fact that facebook is in fact part of real life. If people call you a certain name on facebook, they are calling you that in real life. Different names for different social situation is far from unheard of. Which is "real"?
Which is her "real" name? Most people use one of the English names. She responds the same to all three.
If she had to use her legal name everywhere, most of her friends would be unable to find her, as few of them even know her legal name. What makes her legal name more or less "real" than the others (which are used more, by more people)? Why?
What if your nickname distorts its origins further, such as "J", which easily turns into "Jay". Have we know left the realm of Real Names?
What if you prefer to go by a middle name? Or an ethnic nickname which doesn't have an obvious relationship to the original (i.e. Alexei -> Alyosha). What about the common practice of adopting a "Western" name for people who native names translate poorly into English?
Is a facebook employee qualified to judge whether you're using your real name?
Yes, and I could potentially sprout wings from my ass and become a travel carrier. The rest of this article is nothing more than a ton of thinly veiled fallacies, slippery slope and appeal to emotion the least of the two.
Is the feature dodgy? Perhaps.
Did you agree to the rules of the party before joining? Yup. One of which is: "Use your real name".
Should you be surprised if you get called out on it? Nope.
You're more than welcome to protest unfair policies (whether saying you'll put truthful info on a form is "unfair" is left as an exercise to the reader), but much like civil disobedience, you have no right to complain once you are found to be breaking the law/policy and are punished for it.
This is a website. Let's try to keep perspective here.