Rethinking The Real-name Policy on Facebook
The Platform Naming Policy
As online platforms become prevalent in our daily lives, the properties, affordances and the dynamics of these platforms introduce different behaviors that we may encounter in our physical lives. While the affordances may not directly determine the behaviors of the users on the platform, they can shape the social practices that the users develop under such affordances [1]. One such affordance is the identity and reputation policy of a platform. Overall, there are 3 main policies for the identities of the users, real-name, pseudonymity and anonymity. We next analyze what social practices were developed by users under each naming policy.
The biggest social media platform, Facebook, is known for the real-name policy on their user profiles and requires phone numbers and emails to register for an account. In a real-name policy platform, users’ identities are easily traced back to their real lives in the offline space. Because users are participating in the platform using their real identities, the platform can be treated as an extension of the users’ physical real lives. And thus, users usually maintain their common social norms and practices from their daily life. However, this real-name policy also make it challenging for minorities. For example, users with rare names usually are suspended by the platform and legitimate dissidents or advocates of controversial issues may risk exposing their true identity. These minorities are usually forced to falsify their profile to be deemed “normal” or to protect themselves.
Platforms with pseudonymity naming system like Reddit allow users to register using a nickname without their real names. One does not need to provide phone numbers or emails to verify their account. However, even though the accounts are not linked to an offline identity, the history and statistics of the account are traceable and may be visible to other users. The pseudonymity nature of the platform also reduce one’s accountability for his or her words or actions. The unsavory subreddit “Jailbait”, where users share involuntary, sexually suggestive poses of young girls, has grown largely because men felt protected by the pseudonymity and are free from scorn and delegitimization they would have had from a physical world ([4] p.165). The affordance of pseudonymity and scalability allow for supporters of a certain value or interest, whether legitimate or not, to form and engage without risking their real identity.
Yet other platforms maintain or encourage complete anonymity, such as 4chan.com. Posts on these platform are unable to be traced to any users online and offline, allowing any participant to carry out their behaviors without any accountability. Anonymous sites differs from pseudonymous sites as there is no symbolic profile associated with an user and no history can be traced. On the pseudonymous sites, content moderation and antiharassment regulations can be enforced on the basis of the accounts, but this cannot be done on the anonymous sites. For these completely anonymous sites, it is safe to assume that the identity of any user will not be traced and hence the users are free from the consequences of their actions.
Alternatives of Real-name Policy for Anti-social Behaviors
Will Facebook be able to handle safety concerns and anti-social behaviors without the realname policy? Some alternative approaches can be made to combat the inappropriate behaviors with pseudonyms. Facebook relies on users to report inappropriate content and has deployed some algorithms detecting irritating content. To defer anti-social behaviors, training programs can be imposed on the users when they first register an account or before posting. If the policies are made explicit and the users are told to contribute positively and act responsibly before using the platform, the training program may deter some users from destructive actions and help prevent some undesirable behaviors. Wikipedia has employed this strategy when a user’s edit is reverted. Users will get a more comprehensive guideline and some tips from the editors. The guidelines serve as a training for new users to contribute to Wikipedia [2].
Another strategy to promote positive behaviors is a reward system, signaling individuals’ acceptances within a community and recognizing their contributions. Various platforms have the reward systems, Reddit’s karma points and upvotes, Wikipedia’s barnstarts for promoting the value of actions such as social and emotional support of the community that are less visible yet critical to the platform [3]. The social reputation mechanism is used to motivate and encourage positive behaviors. We can also use the same strategy to penalize the social reputation of those who act destructively by issuing penalties to those users’ accounts. Just as rewards incentivize contributions, penalties visible to the public and the communities may discourage inappropriate behaviors. In sum, alternative approaches can include but not limited to the following: a more rigorous content moderation algorithm, semi-automated reviewing systems for moderators employed by Facebook and volunteered from the users, reward and penalty system associated with the pseudonyms visible to the public.
References
[1] Danah Boyd. Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites, 01 2010.
[2] R. Stuart Geiger and David Ribes. The work of sustaining order in wikipedia: The banning of a vandal. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’10, pages 117–126, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
[3] Travis Kriplean, Ivan Beschastnikh, and David W. McDonald. Articulations of wikiwork: uncovering valued work in wikipedia through barnstars. 01 2008.
[4] Zeynep Tufekci. Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA, 2017