Not strictly accurate if a) they create shadow profiles b) it's almost impossible to permanently delete an account c) the site puts a login wall on every single page forcing you to have an account to access anything
Yeah like connecting with people you'd like to reach (which Facebook doesn't do a terribly good job of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6090712) but people here seem to think email/calling is the only acceptable form of social media (but what if you don't have someone's contact info? well, that gets justified as "nobody needs to connect with long lost contacts")
If you're not banned, why not simply create an account and message them properly? If following the platform's basic guidelines feels like too much effort, perhaps the communication wasn't that important to begin with. The barrier to entry is quite low (for a human) and you don’t even need to connect the account in anyway to your other online personas. The biggest benefit would also be that YOU can be found when people want to connect with you…
Real name systems (for routine discourse) are bad. Walled gardens are bad. I should not need to forsake my privacy unless I wish to or alternatively a material need exists.
Don't need to connect the account? What sort of joke is that? They require you to use your government recognized name.
There are no straw mans here the only thing that shows is your entitlement. Maybe read it again because it looks like you either took everything out of context or didn’t comprehend it.
Your last sentence also just doesn’t make any sense. Why would you worry about platform x if „they“ „know“ everything anyways. I was talking about your anonymous online personas.
Complaining about potential guidelines on one platform when numerous unrestricted spaces exist online seems rather narrow minded, especially given the abundance of alternatives available. Just use it as a modern telephone book. You have total agency over yourself and if or how you use it.
True, "banned" was likely a non sequitur as opposed to a straw man. Many of your other remarks are as well.
If multiple services require you to use the same identifier then those accounts are trivial for anyone to find and link.
The existence of alternative services with different terms does not address the issues raised in this thread. Neither does it change the fact that I think the existence of real name policies makes society worse. Of course I'm going to complain about that.
> Just use it as a modern telephone book.
Other people upload information about me into said book. There are various things that I can't do unless I use said book and those have nothing to do with looking up contact information.
It would be bad enough if the only issue were that the provider of the telephone book could every contact lookup. Unfortunately that is but the tip of the metaphorical iceberg.
isn't this "telephone book" just what the databroker industry does (and has been, and will continue to do)? I'm not even sure there's any bright line distinguishing databrokers from the ad-personalization industry, or credit reporting, etc.
Sure, I guess? So is someone going to argue something along the lines of privately owned real name walled garden social media being no worse than intentionally sharing all of your personal correspondence and various other metadata with a data broker? I'd be inclined to agree with such an argument but to what end?
>You have total agency over yourself and if or how you use it.
Nir Eyal would like a word
>If following the platform's basic guidelines feels like too much effort,
That's the straw elephant in the room
>perhaps the communication wasn't that important to begin with.
And this is the particularly dehumanizing part
>entitlement
Is that what entitlement is? Preferring to avoid using the services of an unethical vendor if possible? Or is the entitlement in the "being able to afford to avoid..."?
We were talking about a potential new non profit platform not facebook. (Well, I was until one child comment had to bring up fucking Facebook again.) That was the whole point of the discussion and now everyone and their mom ignores it because you all seem to love condescending rage comments. Eh… not worth the keystrokes.
> We were talking about a potential new non profit platform not facebook.
We were talking about the impact that platforms with real name policies have on society simply by existing and being widely used. Particularly relevant considering that the first comment in the thread was about just such a platform being officially provided by the government and tying accounts to a government issued ID. The second comment in the chain, which you responded to, explicitly referenced Facebook.
> you all seem to love condescending rage comments.
Your arguments don't hold any water and you're having difficulty accepting that fact.
I know quite some people who do by conscious decision not own a smartphone considering these are surveillance bugs with an inbuilt phone function, for which you even have to pay.
