Honestly, I don't get it. While approach to usernames and privacy varies, participation in FB is voluntary.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 proceeds to only hire men, despite women with similar or better qualifications applying. Company then sued for obvious gender discrimination, illegal in the US.
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"?
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.
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 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.
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.
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".
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. ;)
> 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.
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.
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.
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).