(no subject)
In highly unsatisfying news, my facebook account was disabled because it was under a "fake" name. Well, you can imagine all the indignant things I had to say to facebook... but you needn't because I'll show you!
Firstly, this is indeed the email associated with my personal facebook account.
Secondly, that my account should be disabled because it is under a "fake name" is ludicrous. It is not a "fake" name, it is a _stage_ name. It is not misrepresenting myself, or impersonating someone I am not, or even using a facetious name for humourous purposes; on the contrary, my stage name represents my real identity more than my legal name does: Calamity Lulu, burlesque dancer associated with the Hubba Hubba Revue. Look at my email address: lulu@calamitylulu.com. Is that itself not proof of how inextricably entwined my identity is with that particular agnomen?
According to its FAQs site, "Facebook is built around real world interactions. Operating under an alias detracts from the value of the system as a whole. Users who operate under fake names are also prone to abuse. We take this standard very seriously and remove fake accounts as we become aware of them."
The majority of my real-world interactions ARE based on the name "Calamity Lulu." This is evidenced by the multitude of interactions to be seen on my facebook account: the hundreds of photos of me, many tagged by other people; the postings on my wall; the messages in my inbox. Does facebook insist these interactions are invalid because they are addressed to an array of letters different from the one on my birth certificate? It would be insisting that all works inscribed "Mark Twain" be burned and replaced with those clearly marked "Samuel L. Clemens." It's akin to telling Lady Gaga that she must only record albums under the name Stephani Germanotta despite the fact that 90% of the world knows her as "Lady Gaga." I notice, incidentally, that Lady Gaga is allowed to keep a facebook profile under that sobriquet: why the selective enforcement of this "rule"?
Furthermore, the purpose of facebook is, ostensibly, networking. If I were to use my real name on facebook, there would be two undesirable outcomes which would void the usefulness of my using facebook in the first place: 1., that the people with whom I wish to network on facebook (mainly the burlesque community), would not recognize me, and would not be able to find me using the name that they know; 2., the people who might search for me under my legal name are precisely the ones I do not wish to find my facebook profile. While there is nothing morally wrong with performing burlesque, it doesn't mean I want my casual associates or employers to ogle photos of me topless. As a legal adult of sound mind and good standing, what I do in my free-time is none of their business, and I resent facebook insisting otherwise.
Furthermore, if facebook were really concerned about "real-world interactions," would it not logically follow that they would ban the "friending" of anyone other than an individual one has met in real life? And yet, we all know this not to be the case: most users of the facebook interface have scores, if not hundreds or occasionally thousands, of "friends" with whom they have never had the slightest "real-world interaction."
Furthermore, those people who create fake profiles with the intent to abuse them are highly unlikely to draw attention to the fact with a noteworthy or creative name. A pedophile, for example, using facebook to pose as an underage person in order to prey on underage people would try to be as convincing as possible and would most certainly pick a "realistic" or common name. Does a pedophile have more right to operate on facebook than I do simply because their chosen name is more mundane?
Moreover, what criteria does facebook have in order to determine an acceptable name? What right has facebook to determine whether a name is acceptable in the first place? Unlike France or similar countries, where parents are required to select their children's names from an approved roster, the United States of America not only grants parents the right to give their child any nonoffensive and nonnumerical name, but it also accords individuals the right to change their name to one of their own choosing. With modern parents routinely becoming creative in the naming process, instituting spelling different from what is traditional or even making up names entirely ("Neveah" comes to mind, something that was entirely made-up with no previous recorded usage, which went on to become quite popular thanks to its introduction by a celebrity couple), I repeat: who is facebook to tell people that their names are unacceptable? Does facebook, too, keep a roster of facebook-approved names?
Lastly, have there been any accusations or indicators of abuse from my account as "Calamity Lulu"? If not, then why on earth should facebook object to a name, which is neither offensive nor controversial? Does facebook not have better, more important, and more pressing matters to attend to than name censoship--for example, weeding out those pedophiles mentioned in my hypothetical?
One can only reasonably conclude that facebook's real motivation in his absurd insistance is one not mentioned in their FAQs: their unwaivering and horrifying detemination to collect every shred of private information from their users for marketing purposes.
regards,
Calamity Lulu
Firstly, this is indeed the email associated with my personal facebook account.
Secondly, that my account should be disabled because it is under a "fake name" is ludicrous. It is not a "fake" name, it is a _stage_ name. It is not misrepresenting myself, or impersonating someone I am not, or even using a facetious name for humourous purposes; on the contrary, my stage name represents my real identity more than my legal name does: Calamity Lulu, burlesque dancer associated with the Hubba Hubba Revue. Look at my email address: lulu@calamitylulu.com. Is that itself not proof of how inextricably entwined my identity is with that particular agnomen?
According to its FAQs site, "Facebook is built around real world interactions. Operating under an alias detracts from the value of the system as a whole. Users who operate under fake names are also prone to abuse. We take this standard very seriously and remove fake accounts as we become aware of them."
The majority of my real-world interactions ARE based on the name "Calamity Lulu." This is evidenced by the multitude of interactions to be seen on my facebook account: the hundreds of photos of me, many tagged by other people; the postings on my wall; the messages in my inbox. Does facebook insist these interactions are invalid because they are addressed to an array of letters different from the one on my birth certificate? It would be insisting that all works inscribed "Mark Twain" be burned and replaced with those clearly marked "Samuel L. Clemens." It's akin to telling Lady Gaga that she must only record albums under the name Stephani Germanotta despite the fact that 90% of the world knows her as "Lady Gaga." I notice, incidentally, that Lady Gaga is allowed to keep a facebook profile under that sobriquet: why the selective enforcement of this "rule"?
Furthermore, the purpose of facebook is, ostensibly, networking. If I were to use my real name on facebook, there would be two undesirable outcomes which would void the usefulness of my using facebook in the first place: 1., that the people with whom I wish to network on facebook (mainly the burlesque community), would not recognize me, and would not be able to find me using the name that they know; 2., the people who might search for me under my legal name are precisely the ones I do not wish to find my facebook profile. While there is nothing morally wrong with performing burlesque, it doesn't mean I want my casual associates or employers to ogle photos of me topless. As a legal adult of sound mind and good standing, what I do in my free-time is none of their business, and I resent facebook insisting otherwise.
Furthermore, if facebook were really concerned about "real-world interactions," would it not logically follow that they would ban the "friending" of anyone other than an individual one has met in real life? And yet, we all know this not to be the case: most users of the facebook interface have scores, if not hundreds or occasionally thousands, of "friends" with whom they have never had the slightest "real-world interaction."
Furthermore, those people who create fake profiles with the intent to abuse them are highly unlikely to draw attention to the fact with a noteworthy or creative name. A pedophile, for example, using facebook to pose as an underage person in order to prey on underage people would try to be as convincing as possible and would most certainly pick a "realistic" or common name. Does a pedophile have more right to operate on facebook than I do simply because their chosen name is more mundane?
Moreover, what criteria does facebook have in order to determine an acceptable name? What right has facebook to determine whether a name is acceptable in the first place? Unlike France or similar countries, where parents are required to select their children's names from an approved roster, the United States of America not only grants parents the right to give their child any nonoffensive and nonnumerical name, but it also accords individuals the right to change their name to one of their own choosing. With modern parents routinely becoming creative in the naming process, instituting spelling different from what is traditional or even making up names entirely ("Neveah" comes to mind, something that was entirely made-up with no previous recorded usage, which went on to become quite popular thanks to its introduction by a celebrity couple), I repeat: who is facebook to tell people that their names are unacceptable? Does facebook, too, keep a roster of facebook-approved names?
Lastly, have there been any accusations or indicators of abuse from my account as "Calamity Lulu"? If not, then why on earth should facebook object to a name, which is neither offensive nor controversial? Does facebook not have better, more important, and more pressing matters to attend to than name censoship--for example, weeding out those pedophiles mentioned in my hypothetical?
One can only reasonably conclude that facebook's real motivation in his absurd insistance is one not mentioned in their FAQs: their unwaivering and horrifying detemination to collect every shred of private information from their users for marketing purposes.
regards,
Calamity Lulu