Facebook Exec: Online Anonymity Must Go Away

Chaonici writes "The EFF has a blog post about what appears to be Facebook's stance on anonymity on the Internet. Speaking last week at a social media conference hosted by Marie Claire magazine, Facebook's Marketing Director, Randi Zuckerburg, is quoted: 'I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away. People behave a lot better when they have their real names down. I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.' This position appears to apply to the entire Internet, not just Facebook (which already requires that its users post real names instead of pseudonyms). The EFF goes on to point out how this would be a bad choice for civil liberties online."

Proposed Kickstarter project:

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It seems only fair to let them lead by example. Anybody know what it would cost(in round numbers) to get more or less panopticon-caliber surveillance done, 24/7 on the upper echelons of the house that Zuck built? Perhaps some of Rupert's boys are back on the market?

Re:So They're Either Lazy or Stupid

[TheRaven64]

Absolutely agreed. The important thing is reputation, not identity. Reputation tied to an identity is useful, but the mapping from identities to people does not have to be 1:1. Ideally, each individual should have multiple identities in different contexts. People do in real life - most people have distinct (possibly overlapping) groups of colleagues and friends, and don't behave in the same way at work and in the pub.

Anonymous facebook

[binkzz]

This from the company who's officials are regularly quotes under demand of anonymity? Let the facebook staff be first who give up all their details online.

Re:Thus spoke Ben

[kilfarsnar]

While I don't necessarily agree with Zuckerberg's his point, i do agree with his sentiment. People use anonymity on the internet to be complete pricks. It's easy to talk a pile of trash when you aren't accountable for your blathering.

This is true, but so what? I would much rather have anonymity than be free of jerks. If someone is just mouthing off, they tend to be treated accordingly by others. I don't see rude comments online as a problem. Heck, I make rude comments sometimes, and I use this same handle all across the Internet. Besides, as Michael Kristopeit has demonstrated, using your real name doesn't keep you from being rude.

Re:Yeah, not buying it.

[Anonymous Coward]

you rarely know in advance that you will later turn out to have needed privacy.

Bingo.

Just ask anyone in China, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia who might have a suggestion that their government policies or staffing ought to be changed. Ask them if they'd like to have this wonderful Socialnetwork authenticated identity feature working 24x7x365 in order to "reduce antisocial behavior", "promote harmony", "adhere to Islamic principles", "defeat pedophiles", "reduce intellectual property theft"", or INSERT CAUSE HERE.

Back in the day, when the good ole USA was under de jure Royalist rule, affixing your real name to certain writings could get you a quick visit by soldiers. Hence, Ben Franklin and other revered founding fathers published under pseudonyms. They made use of pseudonyms and would not side with Randi's view.

If you have an ironclad guarantee that your government will always forever in the future act in your best interests and will never stoop to heavy handed tactics to stomp out political opposition, then by all means express yourself freely with your name attached to your postings.

Re:Thus spoke Ben

[MightyMartian]

I've long said just that. I think a law should be passed requiring 50% of all profits from any use of your data be sent to you as royalties. If they aren't going to abide by basic decency, then by god, make them pay, and if they try to hide their use, charge them with theft and throw their executives in jail.