Talk:Facebook real-name policy controversy

NPoV nomination
I'm concerned about the lack of a neutral point of view in this article. In addition to the tone, almost all of the sources are opinion articles, self-published social media accounts, or are from activism blogs. Many of the names listed in the article are not listed at the sources linked, preventing verification, and do not have Wikipedia pages of their own to verify any information. There are also many Twitter posts used as sources from unverified accounts. Statements based on opinion articles featuring anecdotal experiences are also used: "However, since this apology, Facebook continues to delete profiles with suspected inauthentic names and even disregards government identification when supplied". The preceding statement used for its source an opinion article where the author wrote in first person, their own experiences with the issue. Also, there are some factual mistakes I'm concerned about, this article repeatedly refers to the punishment as deletion of the account, when in fact, the accounts are always suspended pending investigation. --Padenton (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the flag because there have been over two years of edits and it looks like the problems have been resolved. However, if you wish to reinstate it, please do not revert my edit, but instead place a new flag with a current date and indicate what is not neutral in your opinion. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Removed non-Wikipedia names from list
That list of notable deleted accounts will become impossible to maintain if we don't have a strict standard for inclusion, and the most straightforward criterion is simply to include any which have Wikipedia articles. --Slashme (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I second this. &#8213; Padenton  &#124;&#9742; 16:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Facebook demands you send them scans of...
Accord to facebook's own messages, in order for these users to unlock their accounts they have to scan in and send to facebook one or more of the following documents: Is anyone even mildly disturbed by the fact that they are demanding documents that can lead to IDENTITY THEFT?
 * State issued ID card
 * School/employee ID card
 * Military ID card
 * Immigration card WITH SIGNATURE
 * Passport
 * Social security card
 * Birth certificate
 * Bank statement
 * Utility bill

184.20.111.149 (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Demanding photo ID and or other documents from some users and not others is also a violation of FCC common carrier law including electronic communications carriers. The law calls for treating all users the same. False accusations have been used to attack the communications of political opponents. This is one reason the law was extended to specifically include electronic communications carriers. The law stemmed from an attempt by a local telephone company to cut off the telephones of Democrats before an election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.65.165 (talk • contribs)

yes, many people don't know that facebook does NOT DEMAND for IDs in some countries. As a matter of fact, facebook doesn't even have this report fake name function in its chinese language version. So if you use the chinese version of facebook, you can't even report fake names.

As the end of 2017, I see that facebook no longer replies to fake name reports. they used to show up on my facebook support page, but facebook doesn't do that anymore. --Facebookfakename (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Blackmail
As you can see, My neutrality is not working well enough to Edit on the real page. Would someone else, who is neutral, further explain that you have 1) No choice or chance to regain access to retrieve any information from the person's page- 2) The Page will no longer come up in search and will have 0 presence- 3) The time frame to remedy is indefinite, with some cases, supplying the correct required information, still not guaranteeing the page back and having to start again. -until the requirements are satisfied by FB.

These pages hold what may be years of a persons life or just 1 document that means very much to them, allowing no choice or chance of retrieval unless FB is allowed to be given verification of a marketing opportunity(ransom). Sources flood the internet. From dates of special treatment to old ladies crying how they can no longer see the grand kids..

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.128.21 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, 124.122.128.21. If you have reliably published second-party sources, please provide them and I or some other editor would be happy to help add their information to this article. All the best, Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 22:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Something like this?.."While some are able to successfully utilize Facebook’s appeals system, those whose accounts are removed for violating the name policy and who cannot– or refuse to – submit identification may be out of luck." . If you can not or will not comply you get no chance to recover anything. "In some cases we may not issue a warning before disabling your account"- The whole point is they don't give you a chance to claim what should be legally yours. If someone got evicted from a structure they would be allowed to take their belongings, and be given a warning for termination. Hard to find much reporting on this "blackmail"aspect of it... "The only two options that locked out Facebook users have is to either comply with the request and transfer a picture of a photo ID to Facebook, or stop using the site altogether." - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.75.91 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Facebook real-name policy controversy
Cyberbot II has detected links on Facebook real-name policy controversy which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * https://www.change.org/p/facebook-allow-performers-to-use-their-stage-names-on-their-facebook-accounts
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Vietnamese
I thought of adding that story to Scunthorpe problem but after researching a little, I now think it was an internet prank (look up "shoop") that got picked up by news media. Discussion. It doesn't appear to be a real Vietnamese name. I guess it's still noteworthy for this article, but it should be written with less credulity unless there's documentation grounded to something better than Facebook posts. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Roleplayers and Atheists
Guys can I suggest something, can we add to this topic the Roleplayers and Atheists subtopics to support them also?

Let's start with the roleplayers, some of them used Facebook to compensate for their needs and to cope up with their problems in the real world like they’ve got abused in schools, home, or work, depressed and bullied for some reasons.

While some atheists used it to explore their true self, know the meaning of atheism, to befriend an atheists like them through debate and discussions, and to protect their own identity from further harm (apostasy is punishable by death in some countries).

Atheist living in 13 countries risk being condemned to death, just for their beliefs (or non-belief) according to a new, comprehensive report from International Humanist and Ethical Union. All 13 countries identified by the study are Muslim majority. The countries that impose these penalties are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

Some countries also discriminate atheists, agnostics and freethinkers for their beliefs (or non-belief) which is against the teachings and morality of their theist counterparts. Religious people from these countries believed that atheists were demon, devil worshippers, Illuminati members (a conspiracy theory), terrorists (is some middle eastern countries), criminals (in some Asian countries) and don't have morals (according to some religious people Abrahamic Books were the source of morality).

Many atheists also got abandoned by their friends and families because of these, so they hide these kind of ideologies for their own sake. 121.54.54.224 (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Dubious flag - line that says FB has taken no action as of Mar 2017
I flagged the line in the article: "As of March 21, 2017, however, nothing has been offered or modified by Facebook." because this December 2015 source says: ''Starting today, Facebook users will notice a new system for reporting fake names along with a new system for responding to those reports. The system now includes specific support channels for LGBTQ issues, non-Western names, and instances of stalking or abuse. The new system will deploy in the United States immediately, expanding internationally depending on feedback from the US rollout.'' I don't have a FB account, so feel free to revise the article on this point if the 2015 article is accurate and conflicts with the flagged line. The source cited is not currently a reference in the article.5Q5 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've edited it -- Facebook's current policies show no evidence of this new system. I've also included a link to the EFF's criticism of it (that forcing victims of abuse to have to provide sufficient details of their abuse to satisfy Facebook that they're truly deserving of a pseudonym is hardly compassionate.) -Kieran (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Source for "Facebook's monitoring software detects and suspends such accounts." ?
This appears in the lead, but is unsourced. Can someone provide a source for this? Because https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/19/native-american-activist-facebook-lawsuit-real-name says: "What is known is that Facebook does not proactively search for names; instead, users flag names and a worldwide team looks at such reports to determine their legitimacy." SaltySaltyTears (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)