Octopus Overlords

Just found out today that Bernie Sanders has a brother named Larry. I was on the fence before, but now I'm all about the Bernie.

This happened a couple of days ago

Civil Disobedience

Hold the applause for Facebook's rainbow-colored profiles, activists say

The Radical Faeries, one of the more idiosyncratic groups at San Francisco’s Pride, said the festival should dump Facebook as a sponsor because of the company’s ban on adopted names.

The policy was unfair to LGBT people who use adopted names to avoid homophobia or to express their true identity, they said.

How does FB know what your name is supposed to be? I've never used my real name. I even changed my account from one fake name to another fake name without any problems.

Moliere wrote:Hold the applause for Facebook's rainbow-colored profiles, activists say

The Radical Faeries, one of the more idiosyncratic groups at San Francisco’s Pride, said the festival should dump Facebook as a sponsor because of the company’s ban on adopted names.

The policy was unfair to LGBT people who use adopted names to avoid homophobia or to express their true identity, they said.

How does FB know what your name is supposed to be? I've never used my real name. I even changed my account from one fake name to another fake name without any problems.

Being forced to use your real name is not discriminatory. Facebook doesn't owe anyone an anonymous voice.

GreenGoo wrote:

Moliere wrote:Hold the applause for Facebook's rainbow-colored profiles, activists say

The Radical Faeries, one of the more idiosyncratic groups at San Francisco’s Pride, said the festival should dump Facebook as a sponsor because of the company’s ban on adopted names.

The policy was unfair to LGBT people who use adopted names to avoid homophobia or to express their true identity, they said.

How does FB know what your name is supposed to be? I've never used my real name. I even changed my account from one fake name to another fake name without any problems.

Being forced to use your real name is not discriminatory. Facebook doesn't owe anyone an anonymous voice.

Right. But the RF's are arguing that FB doesn't deserve visibility as a sponsor if their policy is such.

Holman wrote: Right. But the RF's are arguing that FB doesn't deserve visibility as a sponsor if their policy is such.

And that's their right. I disagree with them.

Moliere wrote:Turkish Police Use Water Cannons, Rubber Bullets, and Tear Gas on Gay Pride Parade

It's a step up from real bullets and truncheons I guess.

Moliere wrote: How does FB know what your name is supposed to be? I've never used my real name. I even changed my account from one fake name to another fake name without any problems.

If Facebook tried to, they could figure out your name. It's not like they don't have additional sources of information apart from what you input to them. (as one example, if you've ever signed up with a store loyalty card with an email address or phone number you have connected with facebook) And, of course, fake sounding names would be easy for them to flag

And Facebook has banned (at least temporarily) some people for having fake names.

GreenGoo wrote:
Being forced to use your real name is not discriminatory.

It is when that policy negatively impacts certain groups of people, like Native Americans, etc.

Not to mention that people have legitimate reasons for having false names, like having threats against them, etc.

It's a policy that's presumably designed to prevent fake accounts or people impersonating others, but it's badly designed (which has resulted in Facebook apologizing to various people).

A better policy might be:
- You are a real person
- You only have one account
- You are not trying to impersonate someone else.

Defiant wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
Being forced to use your real name is not discriminatory.

It is when that policy negatively impacts certain groups of people, like Native Americans, etc.

No it's not.

Other policies may or may not be more or less problematic, but that's not discriminatory.

It's not discriminatory because some people don't like it, and it's not discriminatory if it is wrongly enforced.

I guess if you don't have a name it might be discriminatory.

GreenGoo wrote:

Defiant wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
Being forced to use your real name is not discriminatory.

It is when that policy negatively impacts certain groups of people, like Native Americans, etc.

No it's not.

Other policies may or may not be more or less problematic, but that's not discriminatory.

In it's effect, it is.

And additionally, in the above cases, people weren't even able to put down their *real* name unless they went through extra hoops and even then they weren't always able to.

Requiring everyone to use their real names isn't discriminatory.

Requiring everyone to use their real names, and then refuse to approve accounts with certain real names very well could be.

Defiant wrote:

Moliere wrote: How does FB know what your name is supposed to be? I've never used my real name. I even changed my account from one fake name to another fake name without any problems.

If Facebook tried to, they could figure out your name.

Not likely. I am overly paranoid about my online privacy. I use a fake birthday, name, and location while never buying anything through them, for example.

Fireball wrote:Requiring everyone to use their real names isn't discriminatory.

Requiring everyone to use their real names, and then refuse to approve accounts with certain real names very well could be.

Absolutely. Uneven enforcement of a non-discriminatory policy is discriminatory, especially if a pattern can be identified.

hepcat wrote:Just found out today that Bernie Sanders has a brother named Larry. I was on the fence before, but now I'm all about the Bernie.

I was already in. Can I double down?

If Facebook required that everyone can have an account regardless of who they are, but you have to eat a ham sandwich first, would that be discriminatory?

If a non-discriminatory policy disproportionately discourages certain groups from access, perhaps it's not entirely non-discriminatory.

Defiant wrote:If Facebook required that everyone can have an account regardless of who they are, but you have to eat a ham sandwich first, would that be discriminatory?

Yes, as I already argued similarly with regard to the Boy Scouts of America and Christianity.

A more reasonable comparison would be everyone can have an account if they are alive, or if they have a brain, or if they have a functioning heart, or skin, or what have you. Any other fundamental aspect of being a person that does not change via race, or culture, or religion or whatever.

If there were people with literally no name, and that was preventing them from having an account, then it would be discriminatory.

Defiant wrote: If a non-discriminatory policy disproportionately discourages certain groups from access, perhaps it's not entirely non-discriminatory.

A policy that is not liked is not automatically a form of discrimination. I can't help what others think about stuff, and their opinion doesn't magically make stuff true because they believe it strongly enough.

Defiant wrote:If Facebook required that everyone can have an account regardless of who they are, but you have to eat a ham sandwich first, would that be discriminatory?

If a non-discriminatory policy disproportionately discourages certain groups from access, perhaps it's not entirely non-discriminatory.

Only if it turned out to actually be Canadian bacon. Then yea.

GreenGoo wrote:

Defiant wrote:If Facebook required that everyone can have an account regardless of who they are, but you have to eat a ham sandwich first, would that be discriminatory?

Yes, as I already argued similarly with regard to the Boy Scouts of America and Christianity.

A more reasonable comparison would be everyone can have an account if they are alive, or if they have a brain, or if they have a functioning heart, or skin, or what have you. Any other fundamental aspect of being a person that does not change via race, or culture, or religion or whatever.

If there were people with literally no name, and that was preventing them from having an account, then it would be discriminatory.

Every single person (setting aside those who might be allergic) is fundamentally and physically capable of eating a ham sandwich, just like everyone is fundamentally capable of give their real name to be broadcast publicly.

However, for various predictable reasons, certain groups of people are proportionally and significantly less likely to be willing to do so than other groups of people.

That's why it has the effect of being discriminatory.

(Similarly, everyone iswas capable of taking advantage of the right to get married to someone of the opposite sex, but certain groups were far less willing to take advantage of it)

Defiant wrote:If Facebook required that everyone can have an account regardless of who they are, but you have to eat a ham sandwich first, would that be discriminatory?

If a non-discriminatory policy disproportionately discourages certain groups from access, perhaps it's not entirely non-discriminatory.

I dunno, would a policy that excluded those who follow certain religious practices be discriminatory?

Rip wrote:

Defiant wrote:If Facebook required that everyone can have an account regardless of who they are, but you have to eat a ham sandwich first, would that be discriminatory?

If a non-discriminatory policy disproportionately discourages certain groups from access, perhaps it's not entirely non-discriminatory.

Only if it turned out to actually be Canadian bacon. Then yea.

Bacon from a Canadian pig, or Canadian-style bacon from any pig?

Max Peck wrote:

Defiant wrote:If Facebook required that everyone can have an account regardless of who they are, but you have to eat a ham sandwich first, would that be discriminatory?

If a non-discriminatory policy disproportionately discourages certain groups from access, perhaps it's not entirely non-discriminatory.

I dunno, would a policy that excluded those who follow certain religious practices be discriminatory?

Ya think?

Defiant wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

Defiant wrote:If Facebook required that everyone can have an account regardless of who they are, but you have to eat a ham sandwich first, would that be discriminatory?

If a non-discriminatory policy disproportionately discourages certain groups from access, perhaps it's not entirely non-discriminatory.

I dunno, would a policy that excluded those who follow certain religious practices be discriminatory?

Ya 'think?

On occasion, but it often makes my head hurt.

Max Peck wrote:

Rip wrote:

Defiant wrote:If Facebook required that everyone can have an account regardless of who they are, but you have to eat a ham sandwich first, would that be discriminatory?

If a non-discriminatory policy disproportionately discourages certain groups from access, perhaps it's not entirely non-discriminatory.

Only if it turned out to actually be Canadian bacon. Then yea.

Bacon from a Canadian pig, or Canadian-style bacon from any pig?

It would have to be a Canadian pig. No american would commit such blasphemy. Doing so is punishable by Kevin Bacon showing up at you house and doing your wife on the kitchen counter.

Rip wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

Rip wrote:

Defiant wrote:If Facebook required that everyone can have an account regardless of who they are, but you have to eat a ham sandwich first, would that be discriminatory?

If a non-discriminatory policy disproportionately discourages certain groups from access, perhaps it's not entirely non-discriminatory.

Only if it turned out to actually be Canadian bacon. Then yea.

Bacon from a Canadian pig, or Canadian-style bacon from any pig?

It would have to be a Canadian pig. No american would commit such blasphemy. Doing so is punishable by Kevin Bacon showing up at you house and doing your wife on the kitchen counter.

I've got some bad news for you. In Canada, we don't have Canadian bacon -- it's an American product.

Defiant wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Defiant wrote:If Facebook required that everyone can have an account regardless of who they are, but you have to eat a ham sandwich first, would that be discriminatory?

Yes, as I already argued similarly with regard to the Boy Scouts of America and Christianity.

A more reasonable comparison would be everyone can have an account if they are alive, or if they have a brain, or if they have a functioning heart, or skin, or what have you. Any other fundamental aspect of being a person that does not change via race, or culture, or religion or whatever.

If there were people with literally no name, and that was preventing them from having an account, then it would be discriminatory.

Every single person (setting aside those who might be allergic) is fundamentally and physically capable of eating a ham sandwich, just like everyone is fundamentally capable of give their real name to be broadcast publicly.

However, for various predictable reasons, certain groups of people are proportionally and significantly less likely to be willing to do so than other groups of people.

That's why it has the effect of being discriminatory.

(Similarly, everyone iswas capable of taking advantage of the right to get married to someone of the opposite sex, but certain groups were far less willing to take advantage of it)

Get back to me when revealing your name online is against your religion.

Analogies are great. You should tie this policy to the badges identifying jewish citizens during WWII in Germany somehow.

Defiant wrote: Every single person (setting aside those who might be allergic) is fundamentally and physically capable of eating a ham sandwich, just like everyone is fundamentally capable of give their real name to be broadcast publicly.

However, for various predictable reasons, certain groups of people are proportionally and significantly less likely to be willing to do so than other groups of people.

That's why it has the effect of being discriminatory.

(Similarly, everyone iswas capable of taking advantage of the right to get married to someone of the opposite sex, but certain groups were far less willing to take advantage of it)

There is no way that Facebook could argue that eating a ham sandwich is fundamental to their service. They could argue that requiring a real/verified name is fundamental to their service as they envision it. Someone could argue that it isn't, but Facebook would still have some ground to stand on. They wouldn't with the ham sandwich requirement.

An arbitrary requirement transparently designed to weed out certain individuals is discriminatory. A reasonable requirement backed by technical requirements or safety isn't.

GreenGoo wrote: Get back to me when revealing your name online is against your religion.

For someone who is in the closet for safety reasons or so they won't lose their job or for someone who is transitioning, it might as well be.

I can see the arguments, but Facebook is a private company, using Facebook in a private manner is not a right, nor required. Even for those that choose to use it, who they friend and what they post is strictly voluntary.

Google+ fussed at me for putting my tag in quotes in my real name. But their not the monolith in this space for anyone to gripe about too much.

It's their sandbox, they can set the rules.

Isgrimnur wrote:I can see the arguments, but Facebook is a private company, using Facebook in a private manner is not a right, nor required. Even for those that choose to use it, who they friend and what they post is strictly voluntary.

Google+ fussed at me for putting my tag in quotes in my real name. But their not the monolith in this space for anyone to gripe about too much.

It's their sandbox, they can set the rules.

They aren't (AFAIK) saying it is illegal, they're saying it's discriminatory.

(BTW, as an aside, not all the data collected by Facebook is "strictly voluntary" - they've collected data on non-users in the past and probably still do.)

Defiant wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: Get back to me when revealing your name online is against your religion.

For someone who is in the closet for safety reasons or so they won't lose their job or for someone who is transitioning, it might as well be.

That's a shame, but that's not facebook's fault, nor is it their responsibility to allow anonymous users because some users want it. Perhaps they should submit to consumer pressure and provide that service, but they certainly aren't discriminating because they aren't providing it.

It is unlikely that you will convince me that facebook is doing something discriminatory with their real name policy. I get that you don't like it. I get that you want people who don't like it to be called victims of discrimination, but that's not enough to make it so.

I have some sympathy for your desire for anonymity. I do not have a facebook account because I don't want to be on display on the internet. I do not fear for my life, but I value my privacy. I am not being discriminated against either. My reason is good enough for me. Your reason is good enough for you. Your reason is a really good reason, but that's still not enough to make the policy discriminatory.

Your position is tatamount to suggesting Facebook is discriminating against people who want to be anonymous.

Isgrimnur wrote:I can see the arguments

Let's be clear. There are plenty of arguments for not wanting to give a company your real name, nor have it displayed on the internet beside your comments on things.

There is no argument that suggests that the policy is discriminatory.

People know the difference between being discriminated against and just not liking something, right?

Defiant wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:I can see the arguments, but Facebook is a private company, using Facebook in a private manner is not a right, nor required. Even for those that choose to use it, who they friend and what they post is strictly voluntary.

Google+ fussed at me for putting my tag in quotes in my real name. But their not the monolith in this space for anyone to gripe about too much.

It's their sandbox, they can set the rules.

They aren't (AFAIK) saying it is illegal, they're saying it's discriminatory.

(BTW, as an aside, not all the data collected by Facebook is "strictly voluntary" - they've collected data on non-users in the past and probably still do.)

I'm aware that the argument isn't about legality. It can be as discriminatory as they like, as long as its not illegal.

My point is that there's no requirement to use it. If you don't like their rules, take your ball and go home. Start your own social network with blackjack and hookers. Protest their headquarters if it makes you feel better. But at the end of the day, the answer from them may always be 'No'. And in that case, there's nothing you can do to change it.

As for data collection, that may or not be illegal. That's for regulators to decide.

Defiant wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:I can see the arguments, but Facebook is a private company, using Facebook in a private manner is not a right, nor required. Even for those that choose to use it, who they friend and what they post is strictly voluntary.

Google+ fussed at me for putting my tag in quotes in my real name. But their not the monolith in this space for anyone to gripe about too much.

It's their sandbox, they can set the rules.

They aren't (AFAIK) saying it is illegal, they're saying it's discriminatory.

(BTW, as an aside, not all the data collected by Facebook is "strictly voluntary" - they've collected data on non-users in the past and probably still do.)

Yeah, it's about saying it is discriminatory, not illegal. And the proposed remedy is dropping Facebook as a sponsor or lowering their visibility as a sponsor, not a lawsuit.

I don't like their real name rules and so I just don't use Facebook.

Discriminatory in it's effect, if not intentionally discriminatory, because it's policy has a disproportionate and adverse impact on those in certain groups.

Isgrimnur wrote: My point is that there's no requirement to use it. If you don't like their rules, take your ball and go home. Start your own social network with blackjack and hookers. Protest their headquarters if it makes you feel better. But at the end of the day, the answer from them may always be 'No'. And in that case, there's nothing you can do to change it.

As someone once said, "We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope. Unless, at the end of the day the answer is 'No', in which case there's nothing you can do to change it."

As for data collection, that may or not be illegal. That's for regulators to decide.

Uh, what regulators?

The EU regulators seem to be all over personal data protection and collection. Ours aren't as quite on top of things.

Isgrimnur wrote:Ours aren't as quite on top of things.

That would be because there are none who's scope includes activities like this (outside of credit bureaus). But I understand Congress has started to take a look at the issue, so I'm sure they'll effectively address the issue any day now.