↪ 2015-08-29 Sat 19:46, [email protected] <[email protected]>: > > I don't think "no pseudonyms allowed" are necessarily an overall bad > thing, neither a non-obvious thing.
Yes, it depends on the context. We're not saying that not allowing pseudonyms in all circumstances is a bad thing. > From a quick glance at Facebook, it's pretty clear that pseudonyms > are almost exclusively used by fake profiles and spampots. I do not use Facebook, but I have read elsewhere that this is absolutely not the case. In any event, the behaviour of spambot isn't a good standard to judge whether the rule is good or not, spambots are just designed to abuse rules anyway. > I understand how pseudonyms can protect some people, who would like free > speech, but cannot for whatever reason. And this is an important issue for Facebook, considering that it's probably the most general and large platform allowing people to publish on the web today. > But disallowing pseudonyms also allow you to know that what they say is > something they're not afraid to take responsibility for. When you talk with > someone on Facebook, you can be far more sure, that you're talking to a > person who is who he says he is, and thus, you avoid some parts of > "trolling", i.e. pretending to be someone you're not, in the effort to trick > people. I do not think that disallowing pseudoyms is really working in Facebook to protect against trolling. Does it? In any case, for the reason stated above, I don't think that this alone is enough to dismiss the fact that disallowing pseudonyms harm the freedom to speak of some people and that it's too important to ignore. > That can still happen on Facebook, of course, but I think it's enough to not > make it a conclusively negative thing. I suppose we disagree. I'm interested in knowing what others would think here, but I want to also make clear that ToS;DR is also biased in favour of users’ rights online, and raising awareness regarding what's in the terms. Now, considering the amount of legitimate users who want to use pseudonyms in Facebook and considering the amount of these users who actually *do* use pseudonyms: I think they're entitled to know that unfortunately Facebook does not allow pseudos in their terms (when we checked--has this changed? The ToS have changed so the analysis is out of date at the moment). > And it's clearly possible to find places to by anynomous elsewhere, and still > reach a big audience. After all, the vast majority of sites allow pseudonyms, > including social media sites. I don't think there's anything quite as large as Facebook for this. Thanks for your input, -- Hugo Roy Project Lead, Terms of Service; Didn't Read https://www.tosdr.org Please use cryptography for email: see https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/ Merci d’utiliser la cryptographie pour l’email : voir https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/fr/ -- tosdr.org | twitter.com/tosdr | github.com/tosdr --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Terms of Service; Didn't Read" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tosdr. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
