_________ Fediverse platforms should use a real names policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-name_system

#EvanPoll #poll

The Wikipedia article has links to specific examples of this kind of policy.

@evan Real name policies are a good way to mitigate certain kinds of abuse but ultimately they tend to also get used for top-down abuse.

I've been penciling out some distributed reputation stuff that could solve this problem without becoming a privacy/surveillance thing. I plan to try implementing it sometime after I actually finally launch my app. FEP work to follow if I can suss that out.

@evan useful for verification purposes, but users should be able to sign up without as well.

@evan I reject any call for mandatory real-name policies on any internet platform. Private associations? sure. Government? of course.

I understand and acknowledge the challenges in moderation/enforcement vs evildoers without them; It does helps minimize casual asshats. But the real evil ones, spewing horrific content or hate - they're motivated to find ways around it anyways.

Motivated LEO can find you now despite not knowing your real name. All RNPs do is cut out one of x bench warrants.

@evan i think that this policy may a place, to support some level of trust. But i dont think it's necessary for everyone, and it will only make fedi worse for all

@evan

By “platform” do you mean the software that an instance runs or the instance itself?

@evan I'm few tending towards none. As long as we have governments willing to abuse our ID to surveil us and our "legal names" are administered by those governments, I would prefer not. The second reason is that policies like these reinforce a long domestication process driven by states (for lots of wrong reasons) where "real names" and "legal names" are treated synonymously. But fact is, most places around the world, people have had several real names depending on context.

@evan My ideal scenario would be that the fediverse reinforces a different story where we acknowledge that people can have different names, just like they can have different identities depending on different contexts. Artists have had artist names, freedom figthers have nom de guerres, artisans have "artisanal names" (Smith, Butcher, Gardener, Potter etc). Where I come from, most people in my town have several names, of which one of them is always where they live (area or house)

@stepheneb @evan Good point! I answered thinking of _instances_ where real name policies made sense. Government instances, or news organizations, for example, with curated membership and a need for accountability.

@novelgazer @evan

While I wouldn’t say an instance “should” use a real name policy I think it’s fine if an instance does have a real name policy.

I almost always use my real name — and trivially recognize that is not the choice for many other folks and that’s fine.

@evan How would one federate trust of the verification for such a thing? If it can't be verified, real name policies are pointless.

@evan
im missing an answer:
„hell no! (while it would be ok for me personally, white cishet male mid-40s with good job, it would be absolutely bad for some friends)“

@evan My "real" name is the one I ask you to use here, now, in this context. PERIOD.

@stepheneb https://evanp.me/pollfaq#define

@evan
F

I can think of some edge cases, like an instance that hosts professional or brand accounts insisting on accurate identification for messaging (not wanting "sockpuppets").

But in general, "real name" policies are a disaster for many reasons.

@evan how do you define "real". My name here has been my online moniker since at least 2003. I had another before this one (back in CompuServe days). Other than a specific instance where my legal name online is a matter of public record I have never used my legal name online for a variety of reasons. The most basic is that I grew up with an appreciation of privacy that that I believe in to this day. However I also consider my current moniker as "real" as my legal name.

@evan There's a few cases -- few of which exist right now -- that would benefit: an instance for public figures, for instance, where the poster's identity is essential for countering misinformation.

Though most would benefit from a _known identity_ policy (one that accounts for aliases) rather than a _real name_.

@evan I said few because I can see a few small exceptions to what I generally feel which is that requiring real names is a policy that specifically hurts marginalized folk the most and, as such, I am against them. Someone asked about this in a talk I was giving today and while I am often in favor of a *consistent* identity (just to avoid rampant sock puppet issues the likes of which plague Wikipedia) that doesn't have to include real names (whatever those are).

@lakelady I'd suggest looking over the linked Wikipedia page, which covers the issue of what "real names" have meant for different platforms at different times.

@evan yes I'm familiar with that definition and I was calling it into question.

@evan Only where it's appropriate

@julian I think I have some pretty great solutions to all of this! But I can't really document any of it until the other dev work on my app stabilizes a little bit.

It's great to hear there would be support for the idea, at least in principle. I'll probably ping you about it once I have something written out about it, if that sounds good.

@evan

Funny how there is no mention at the link of #Fediverse

@SpaceLifeForm what?

@evan is anyone asking for this?

@evan literally as asked: is anyone asking for a real names policy on the fediverse?

@evan

Sorry. Missing sarcasm tag.

@SpaceLifeForm "there is no mention at the link of Fediverse" didn't parse for me. Now I think you meant, the Wikipedia page didn't mention Fediverse platforms?

@evan I've seen some small UK village council forums and in that kind of small, trusted community setting, I could see that being a decent policy.

That said, the forums I've seen are public to people outside the village (otherwise I wouldn't have seen them!) and I think that's a far worse idea.

@evan The fediverse is a safe haven for us who believe in digital rights. Loosing that ability kills the edge fediverse brings.

@evan I haven't really seen people requesting this, is this an issue that's come up recently?

@BathysphereHat so, I don't get this question. Who would be requesting it? Why would those requests go to you?

@evan

Correct.

A lot of conversations! I think these make a lot of sense for instances where there's natural real-world affinity, like for universities or companies. My employer org, Open Earth Foundation, has a Mastodon server for employees and we all use our real name.

I think we will always have anonymous and pseudonymous instances, so there's always going to be a mix. But which will be "most"? I'm hopeful that we get more companies and universities here, so I'm going to use some wish craft and say "most". Thanks for all the answers!

It might be fair to compare email servers and account. Are most email servers real-name or pseudonymous? Not sure, but my gut says real-name. Huge commercial services like Gmail and Outlook might have more total accounts, and many are pseudonymous? Not sure how the numbers add up.

@evan I remember the google nym wars days. And I wish I had saved the research, but I found a couple of university studies that showed that real names did NOT result in more civil online behavior. Anyway. I have been NomdeB online for a couple of decades now. People know me and my online personality as NomdeB. They can judge my civility based on my history. How would people know I was really Jane Doe anyway (and what would it matter) if I had used my real name.

@evan I also knew many people who could not use their real names because of their senior, etc. positions IRL. I would have been sad if their voices had been missing because they had so much expertise and experience to add to online conversations which they could not do publicly as themselves.

@nomdeb I don't think your employer asks you to use your real name for work email because it makes you more civil. They expect you to do it because it's the cultural norm.

@evan You'd want a static IP capable of RDNS lookup (reverse DNS) to run a mail server. Mail servers are well-identified. Once upon a time, this was not the case, but that scheme was open for abuse.

@evan I hope nobody ever feels like they need to use their real name if they don't want to on a typical public instance.

@mattl I think LinkedIn in is a likely candidate to join the Fediverse, and they have a real name policy.

https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a1337288

I think Threads has a real name policy:

https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/authentic-identity-representation

Flipboard asks for your real name for login but you can use a pseudonym.

@me I don't know what a "reasonable manner" is, but Meta, LinkedIn, and maybe some other networks have real name policies.

@novelgazer @stepheneb @evan I also considered my answer as meaning in the rare case that an instance is run by say local government and they want to know that those participating are local, it would possibly make sense to have a real names policy on that instance.

@BathysphereHat the poll is over now. Nobody has to ask for permission to set up a Fediverse server. My employer, Open Earth Foundation, has a Mastodon server and we use our real names for profiles because it's for work. I don't know if it counts as a policy or just a norm.

@evan Interesting. I think it's fine if people want to set up a specific real-names-as-policy instance too, like you described for the one at your day job.

@evan yeah the one word what? response was annoying enough to not care about the answer. "I'll answer after the poll" would've been perfectly valid. The other was just irritating as an adult.

@evan @nomdeb

Everyone knows me as idea...
I've used the name for long enough so that it's got me all over it and as I'm known, I keep the moniker in place.
Noone remembers my real name anyway.

AND, Idea is the voice I've developed over years; it has a life of it's own.

@matt I trust that all the emails I get from ibm.com addresses include the names those people use at work. I don't have to verify that; it's a cultural norm.

@evan That answers my question! I meant like, I've seen people on other platforms saying that they should have real name policies, and I was wondering if you had seen people saying the same thing here.

@BathysphereHat it came up during a call. I realized there were already a few ActivityPub-enabled services that have real name policies, and I wanted to see what people thought about the idea.

@evan a work setting is vastly different than a social network, especially one where there’s no barrier to someone setting up a server of their own and becoming their own “authority”. Consider how that might play out: server A has a real name policy and validates IDs, server B has a real name policy and doesn’t. How many people would know the difference? Would they believe the validity of either is equal? What difference would it make to the rest of the Fedi that doesn’t have a policy?

@matt people use the Fediverse for work, and will do so more in the future. My employer, Open Earth Foundation, has an instance for staff. All of us use real names. It's not a policy, just a cultural norm. It does not matter to anyone else on the Fediverse; they don't need to verify it.

@matt The Fediverse is a global coalition of independent, interoperable social networks. There are a lot of social networks that are not yet connected; I think regulation and market pressures will get them to connect over time.

@evan thinking about this more (and this is strictly a hypothetical, no formal proposal here), if CoSocial, being a cooperatively run non-profit, would implement ID verification but maintain pseudonyms, I'm not sure I would be against it.

It would help ensure that users are, in fact, people, Canadian, and don't have multiple acnts. All things that help us keep our community authentic.

If the feds are looking for you, they're getting you. This would need consultation with at-risk groups though.

@evan of course, that would mean we'd need to store PII, and I'm not sure I'd trust even us with that given our budget 😅