Facebook’s Zuckerberg: "Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity"

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has a history of speaking his mind on privacy, and what he speaks is often fraught with problems, ignorance, and arrogance. For example:

  • He’s spoken wistfully about the desire to get people over the “hurdle” of wanting to preserve some semblance of privacy online.
  • He’s proclaimed that social norms on privacy have changed, and that Facebook is merely reacting to these shifting norms.
  • His remarks also often reveal his failure to recognize the complexity of the issues of privacy — and trust — between users and Facebook.

But, today, I found a new statement that brings Zuckerberg’s hubris to a new level.

SocialBeat has a very thoughtful piece urging Zuckerberg to be forthright and explain what he truly and genuinely believes about privacy. While searching for evidence of Zuckerberg’s broader philosophy of information, a passage from David Kirkpatrick’s forthcoming book, The Facebook Effect, is quoted:

“You have one identity,” he emphasized three times in a single interview with David Kirkpatrick in his book, “The Facebook Effect.” “The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly.” He adds: “Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”

Let’s repeat that last part:

“Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”

Wow. And I thought Elliot Schrage’s statement that “Everything is opt-in on Facebook” was going to be the craziest thing I read this week.

According to Zuckerberg, the person responsible for the world’s most popular website for sharing information about oneself, wanting to manage your flows of information in such a way that might present a different version of your “complete” self to your friends, family, co-workers, and more distant friends shows a lack of integrity.

Really.

Zuckerberg must have skipped that class where Jung and Goffman were discussed. Individuals are constantly managing and restricting flows of information based on the context they are in, switching between identities and persona. I present myself differently when I’m lecturing in the classroom compared to when I’m have a beer with friends. I might present a slightly different identity when I’m at a church meeting compared to when I’m at a football game. This is how we navigate the multiple and increasingly complex spheres of our lives. It is not that you pretend to be someone that you are not; rather, you turn the volume up on some aspects of your identity, and tone down others, all based on the particular context you find yourself.

Some social networks recognize this. Moli, for example, built its entire business model on the idea that users should be able to manage their identity based on the audience. (See my comments on Moli here and here.)

Even Facebook allows this common and normal practice through the use of Limited Profiles (which used to have greater functionality and use value).

But, it seems Zuckerberg does not want people to be able to manage who gets to see what about them. He subscribes to the repeated corporate philosophy that if you don’t want something viewable by everyone, then just don’t share it. All or nothing. One identity is all you have, all you deserve. (And all that you’re contractually bound to, given line 4.2 in the new terms of service, which I commented on here.)

Mark: I can deal with the fact that we have completely different philosophies of information, privacy, and now, identity. But once you start questioning people’s integrity for simply wanting to manage their identities online, that’s crossing a line. You’re better than this.

At least I hope you are.

UPDATE: Please be sure to read Henry Farrell‘s thoughtful comments (and the subsequent discussion) on this matter over at Crooked Timber, including his mention of Richard Sennett’s The Fall of Public Man, which is “all about the collapse of people’s ability to create public personae for themselves that differ radically from their private selves.”

UPDATE 2: And please read danah boyd’s post: Facebook and “radical transparency” (a rant).

UPDATE 3: Kieran Healy has a nice reflection here, which includes this engaging passage:

There are many different definitions of identity, not all of which make sense. I prefer the view that an identity is a set of assertions about yourself that you may lay claim to. So in a sense everyone only has one identity and has only ever had one ‘identity’. But in practice we expose different sets of claims depending on the circumstances. Nobody puts their membership in Alcoholics Anonymous on their CV.


A quick note (Sept 19, 2014):

Wow. In the last 24 hours, this 4-year-old post has suddenly had over 60,000 page views and over 10,000 shares on Facebook. Unfortunately, this new attention to Zuckerberg’s 2010 statement on identity & integrity is a result of continued frustration over Facebook’s policy prohibiting the creation of profiles with anything other than one’s legal name, punctuated by a recent crackdown by Facebook on people using stage names, adopted nicknames, or drag names as their primary profile names. I’m glad we’re drawing attention to this extremely problematic and unfair policy, but I am saddened that we still must endure these kinds of technological injustices in 2014.

For those interested in further scrutinizing the rhetoric of Mark Zuckerberg, you’ll be interested in my project The Zuckerberg Files, a digital archive of all public utterances of Facebook’s founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.

[image by Carlo Nicora]

97 Comments

  1. Recommended reading for anyone planning on designing an architecture for a social network that will seem ‘intuitive’ is Sandra Petronio’s “Boundaries of privacy”. Maybe Diaspora will get it right.

    Reply
    • FACEBOOK is a COMMUNITY and Mark Zuckerberg and his disgusting corporate cohorts have done nothing less than declare a digital GENOCIDE against an at risk, minority, and historically disenfranchised part of that community. This is a much bigger issue than I think people even realize. Erasing peoples digital identities in today’s world is akin to a denial of their right to exist. When you deny someone’s right to exist, you send a message that others can do the same, which leads to discrimination, violence, and in the worst case death and yes, it among other things, has contributed to genocides. Facebook is well on its way to becoming the very worst Fascist Orwellian nightmare. This is the slippery slope we all……whether gay, straight, black, white, tan, trans, etc. , should ALL be VERY concerned about.

      Reply
      • Then don’t use it. No one is forced to have a FB account. Just a bunch of whiners who need to get off the internet and do something productive.

        Reply
        • Yep, because as long as I choose not to use the platform, the injustice goes away.

          Reply
        • Well there’s two points in response to that reaction.
          1) People aren’t allowed to criticize something without being termed ‘whiners’? It seems that if you are a part of a website then you should be able to comment on what you would or would not like from that website. You are contributing content, your very presence is what makes it a draw for advertisers. One would think that Facebook would be interested in hearing what you think. But even if Facebook is 0% interested in what you think, you should still be able to post a criticism on a blog completely outside of Facebook.

          2) Facebook is large enough such that it’s an integral part of marketing for online and some real life businesses. It’s not a simple matter of dropping out when that means a loss of money that you live on. And for the social lives of social circles. People use Facebook and nothing else to invite people to birthday parties etc.

          Reply
        • I totally agree with your comment! I tell people if you don’t like what you see don’t look at it!!people who just moan and bitch about nothing should not be on the Internet at all! and besides mark does not know what the hell he Is talking about anyways.treat for what it is ignorance, because that’s all it is.

          Reply
        • News Flash: You’re whining. And you’re online.

          Reply
        • Well, it’s his website, not yours. He can do what he wants with it. It’s like going into someone’s house and saying you don’t like the rules or the way it looks. Just because they open their door to you does not give you the right to dictate how they run things. Don’t like it? Go to Google+

          Reply
      • Facebook is a community, but it is also a corporate business owned, made, and maintained by Mark Zuckerburg. If he is a genocidal corporate fascist, then this is his genocidal corporate fascism community. If he decided that a minority should be removed from his genocidal corporate fascist society because they fail to reliably follow a rule he created for his genocidal corporate fascist community, then he is well within his rights. In my opinion, he should not remove that group of drag queens living under aliases and new identities, but he created those rules for his own possibly fascist reasons and it would be perfectly acceptable for him to follow them.

        Reply
      • This whole thing is complete BS. Remember MySpace? I barely do as well. Facebook has just made sure that it fades into oblivion, much the same way MySpace did. Simply not using it does not take away the injustice. As our political climate becomes more and more hostile and repressive, the last thing we need is something used for entertainment take the same route. Mark Zuckerberg (Mr. cannot be used here as you are a spoiled little boy), your idea of privacy should not be the only consideration. Facebook is supposed to be a progressive company but if this is their progression, no thanks. I will stand by while you sell our information and advertise to us mercilessly. I can get over that… you trying to change our idea of privacy, no ma’am. I can’t wait to see the eventuality of this because I am sure you will be left in the dust trying to get people to log into their Facebooks. What’s sad is, it didn’t have to be this way.

        Reply
    • So according to Zuckerberg you can only have one identity? I’m sure the IRS will be happy to hear that and will be happy to remove the “inc.” at the end of every corporate name so they can tax the owners personally.

      Reply
    • “…an example of lack of integrity…” says the billionaire who blatantly stole his fortune building idea and screwed everyone in the process. Clowns like these need to go, from top to bottom. Now. And permanently.

      Reply
      • The above examples are surely good reasons to keep a low profile, perhaps for staying off-line. I generally check anyone’s statements about what someone else said, if possible and hadn’t heard this one before. I found: http://www.michaelzimmer.org/2010/05/14/facebooks-zuckerberg-having-two-identities-for-yourself-is-an-example-of-a-lack-of-integrity/ and as the casual reader can see he actually did not say “showed a lack of integrity” which is why the (unnamed?) (UnKle Mikey?) author didn’t put the “shows” in (his?) quotes. MR Zuckerberg did say it was an “example of a lack of integrity”. I think, considering the context of public forums there is a strong argument for this being true. Many People seem to want to express many opinions, in these forums. I have noticed that those who use pseudonyms are much more likely to rant, disrespect anyone who does not think as they do, resort to lewd or uncivil language, even espouse violence on those they disagree with. Take the Zimmer blog, “LetsGetReal” says, “…” says the billionaire who blatantly stole his fortune building idea and screwed everyone in the process. Clowns like these need to go, from top to bottom. Now. And permanently.” Is this really constructive? Now Kindly define “needs to “Go””? As far as Facebook goes, who thinks it would be a good idea to just ignore the fact that many minors (despite the rules) are on Facebook, most/many with their parents awareness, tacit approval. So let’s jus allow anyone to use any name, that would include the child molesters… still a good idea? If you want a low profile, don’t go on Facebook, because frankly I would want to bet on who can access my posts to day, much less tomorrow. If you want to socially interact, be social enough to present your name. Your real name.

        Reply
        • Somebody sent me an article that I’ve lost but it basicall was discussing a study that was done on the most popular social media platform and FB came in first for on-line bullying, stalking, verbal abuse, death threats, and political shouting matches. A lot of good real names do for you. The name isn’t the problem, the problem is people a not a fist distance away from the people they a “talking” to. That’s why they feel they can get away with it.

          Reply
  2. I think it is unlikely you’ll top this IM exchange from his Harvard days that’s posted on Business Insider’s site:

    Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
    Zuck: Just ask.
    Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
    [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How’d you manage that one?
    Zuck: People just submitted it.
    Zuck: I don’t know why.
    Zuck: They “trust me”
    Zuck: Dumb fucks.

    I’m guessing he wishes he had better privacy protection.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5

    Reply
  3. It seems like there are two levels of opt-in/opt-out going on here.
    There’s the normally discussed one of opting in or out of particular privacy settings, the importance of defaults etc.

    The second one is the extent to which we opt in or out of Zuckerberg’s political philosophy of information. Even if his philosophy of privacy is anything other than an ideological cover for a business model based upon data aggregation and mining, then he’s imposing it on other people via the power he’s aggregated together on facebook, often through the back door.

    The changes to architecture and the terms of service, after people have joined and started using the service (which we know is difficult to leave)therefore indicate a willingess to enforce one’s philosophy of information, privacy and personal identity onto others.

    Viewed in those terms, it’s almost totalitarian. That might be going to far. Paternalistic? helping us little private children out in the world of full disclosure?

    I don’t think it is though. I doubt he’s really setting himself up as the moral abiter of integrity. I suspect its self-serving rhetoric rather than totalitarian ambition.

    Reply
  4. @David – you’ve hit the nail right on the head. In Zuck’s words, we’re all “dumb fucks” for willingly succumbing to his philosophy of information. The worst part is that we should have seen it coming.

    Reply
  5. Zuckerberg’s philosophy is sadly in keeping with American jurisprudence on privacy — and why I got fed up with it. The problem with privacy via expectation is that it is a recursive loop, or a race to the bottom. So for example, Zuckerberg is making statements that might be thought of as both descriptive and normative. Facebook is causing people to have fewer expectations about privacy and the management of different identities, which then further weakens privacy, and is then reflected at Facebook in a new iteration of features.

    Reply
  6. @Joseph: I completely agree. And I think that’s why I might be leaving Facebook altogether today (Zuckerberg’s birthday).

    Reply
  7. I know it’s fun to demonize public figures we disagree with, but it’ll take more than a redacted BusinessInsider attribution to convince me that IM exchange wasn’t made up.

    Reply
    • Pretty sure it’s real. I remember seeing it in the early years way before zuck was a household name.

      Reply
  8. @Jason – agreed, but the greater concern, to me, is that even without verifiable proof, such reports of Zuckerberg’s attitude are believable, and that’s the problem all of FB is facing.

    Reply
  9. Thanks for this, and for the links. I have my own rant here, but the short version is that Zuckerberg’s position really reflects a privileged majoritarian position in a *social* sense; in a society where “wealthy white male” is sort of the default, a wealthy white male like him has the privilege of assuming that no one needs to maintain much distance between their private and public lives because wealthy white males like him have the least social need to do so. But when Sennett talks “about the collapse of people’s ability to create public personae for themselves that differ radically from their private selves,” he’s describing a kind of differentiation that has particular value and salience to minority communities (of every sort), for whom that schism describes very important and basic kinds of double consciousness; when you’re a white male, etc, you have the privilege of assuming everyone else to be like you, but to the extent that you’re not, you have to be aware of the different communities you navigate between. In short, privacy means something very different depending on where you stand.

    By the way, one thing I think it’s useful to remember about Zuckerberg is that he’s a 25 year old billionaire. Such people are not normal.

    Reply
  10. We are a social media marketing company, and are among a growing group of professionals screaming for allowing people two personal profiles: one for friends and family, and one to use as the “face of a business” which would then be linked to a business page.
    With so many security issues, and FB constantly changing things, having pictures of your kids on your profile that you also use to keep in touch with clients, and potential clients, just doesnt jive.
    The problem lies in the fact that you use your personal profile to invite people to your business page. So if I meet someone who I want to connect with, and be able to message with etc, they must be a friend. Them liking my business page closes out this opportunity of a personal connection beyond just the business page. BUT I dont want this potential client to see pics of my kids, or posts i make about a Harry Potter movie or something more controversial like a religious debate on my wall.

    So we would be allowed on personal profile to keep in touch with family and friends, and people we know who we are fine sharing pics of kids, vacations, and discuss controversial topics, then one personal page that would be the face of the business page which would connect to this 2nd personal profile. Seems simple enough.

    The only thing to do, is for all of you who want to be allowed 2 profiles, is to go to FB help page, and you will see “make a suggestion” buried in there. Well, suggest they allow 2 personal profiles. If they get this in motion, you wont ever have to worry about being shut down, your privacy, and what you post where.

    Go do it now, and spread the word!!!! Facebook DOES listen, but you need to speak.

    Reply
  11. Social and privacy is an oxymoron. What’s the point of sharing information if you don’t want it to be seen by anybody else? Same rules apply just like in a physical environment: if you don’t want people to know where you live don’t tell them.

    Reply
    • I have some friends in the witness protection agency who this will affect. It will also affect anyone who wants to have a profile with their stage name/business page. I wouldn’t want potential clients to see controversial posts that I share with my friends and family, such as religious or political views, or for them to see pictures of my family-it is none of their business. It limits freedom of speech-not directly, no, but imagine if you had a private page that was shut down or the settings altered so that now anyone can see everything you’ve posted, all your information, etc. I have had problems with stalkers, and I’d rather them not to know where I work.

      Reply
  12. if you fixed your URL’s, so that they were shorter, I’m sure you would do better in the SERPs!

    Reply
  13. @David – you’ve hit the nail right on the head. In Zuck’s words, we’re all “dumb fucks” for willingly succumbing to his philosophy of information. The worst part is that we should have seen it coming.

    Excellent point, excellent blog

    Reply
  14. Stealing other people’s ideas and profiting off of them shows a lack of integrity…

    Reply
  15. So when will all the celebrities who do not perform under their birth certificate name be told to take their sites down?

    Reply
    • Exactly.

      Reply
    • The example I’ve seen bandied about in the past is 50 Cent. Does he Facebook, and is he going to have to use his real name?

      Reply
    • Kevin N. – it’s already happening.

      I know a musician, cEvin Key, from the well-known Canadian Industrial band Skinny Puppy.

      That is not his real name, but he has used his stage name (above) on 60 albums over the past 31 years. If there is anyone (outside of the acting realm) who is known nearly solely by his stage name, it is cEvin.

      A few days ago he was locked out of his account (like the drag queens) and forced to change his personal account to use his real name, which outside of his family (and the most rabid of Puppy fans) he is unknown by. He is livid.

      Reply
  16. Spoken like someone who has never had to fear for his life there are many reasons people have to se alias.

    Reply
  17. When Facebook speaks of “discouraging bad behavior” it is clearly code for discouraging LGBT behavior. Facebook is a reflection of the personality and hang ups of its leader Marc Zuckerberg. It is not the first time that he has displayed discomfort with anything regarding human sexuality, including medical information. He has also recently banned information pages about female condoms. Facebook’s Name Policy is not just about Drag Queens.
    It endangers political dissidents in many countries, victims of rape, teenagers fleeing abusive homes, victims of stalking and harassment, etc. It unnecessarily outs closeted gays. Not to mention attacking authors with pseudonyms, performers with stage names, and anyone with a legitimate reason to hide their name. And at the same time Facebook creates false identities for rich celebrities.
    It is an attack on the right of Free Speech.

    Reply
    • It isn’t just LBGT – I got kicked off for having a role-playing character account. I’m waiting now to be booted because I use my middle name, the one that everyone knows me by, rather than my “legal” name, the one on the id that can be used to sell my name to people who want to sell me things.

      They can’t market us if we can’t be identified and marketed to by our credit card, student id’s, ss#.

      Reply
    • Amen Douglas B! (And you too, anniebl)

      Add a couple more to the list – teachers who do not want their students sniffing about into their private lives (I bet there has been at least one teacher fired as a result of a Facebook post they’ve made about their private life) or people that have security badges which require background checks in order to be renewed every few years – who don’t want that Facebook post about how they went to a rave party 20 years ago to cause their badges to not be renewed (== termination).

      Reply
  18. Look, no aspersions, nor any sympathy, just a simple fact: if Zuck is on the Aspy scale as some people intimate that he is, then he has challenges around the whole “managing a social identity and social situations” think anyway. It may be exhausting for him to have any more than one way of being. (I was married to someone on the Aspy/Autism scale, I know)

    Reply
    • Steven, there are transgender people on the Autism spectrum. Transgender people frequently use names other than their legal name. Infact, I’m a transgender woman myself, and while I myself am not on the spectrum (or at least not that I know), I know trans people on the spectrum and people in general who are on the spectrum. What you are saying is insulting to people on the spectrum (implying that they can’t understand ethical issues because of their difficulties on social matters) and it’s excusing Zuckerburg. It is kinda gross. This is Zuckerburg being an asshole, don’t excuse it in this way.

      Reply
  19. MIGHT WANT TO READ THE 3 Faces of EVE!!

    Reply
  20. So we transgender people have no integrity if we transition?

    Reply
  21. “Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity”…
    Uh….no…
    Mr. Zuckerberg – are you ‘slow’ or have you given up on thinking, and come to a complete stop – or worse, yet, shifted to reverse???
    Question:
    Does someone who is both a father and a brother one who lacks integrity?
    Answer:
    Of course the Hell not.
    Question:
    Is someone who is a boss or a manager and is also a mother lack integrity?
    Answer:
    Of course the Hell not.
    Now, let’s switch gears just for a brief moment:
    If you are forcing entertainers to use their legal names, do you realize that you must also foolishly and needlessly attack the remainder of the entertainment industry:

    Katy Perry must change her name back to Katy Hudson.
    Demi Moore? —–> Demetria Guynes
    Albert Brooks —–> Albert Einstein
    Meg Ryan —–> Margaret Mary Emily Anne Hyra
    Woody Allen —–> Allen Konigsberg
    Elton John —–> Reginald Kenneth Dwight
    Conway Twitty —–> Harold Jenkins
    Whoopi Goldberg —–> Caryn Elaine Johnson
    Maya Angelou —–> Marguerite Annie Johnson
    Chevy Chase —–> Cornelius Crane Chase
    Alan Alda —–> Alphonso d’Abruzzo
    Diane Keaton —–> Diane Hall
    George Michael—–> Georgios Panayiotou
    Hulk Hogan —–> Terry Jean Bollette
    Dido —–> Florian Cloud de Bounevialle Armstrong
    (imagine writing that on forms!)
    Bruno Mars —–> Peter Gene Hernandez
    Tina Turner —–> Anna Mae Bullock
    Tammy Wynette —–> Virginia Richardson
    Gene Simmons —–> Chaim Witz
    Stevie Wonder —–> Steveland Judkins
    (And this list could continue for several hundred or several thousand people!)

    Michael Keller speaking to Mark Zuckerberg. I don’t hate you. Really, I don’t. But I believe the $$ that you have made since you were a common folk to this point have dulled your senses – including your common sense to the point that you don’t or won’t realize that there aren’t many people on this planet that would know to search for the names that I listed instead of their stage names. These people have no more or less ‘integrity’ than a father who is also a brother…an aunt who is also a sister, etc. Get a grip and stop fucking with people, just because you need a hobby that consists of NOT fucking with people.
    I firmly believe that are way too many times that you firmly have your head stuck up your ass.
    Peace to you all.

    Reply
    • The whole names thing is just
      1) another money grubbing move to make authors, performers and entertainers move from using a PERSONAL Profile to a BUSINESS Profile – FAN Page FICTIONAL Character Page. FB wants them to PAY to get their posts seen, with NO ability to interact with fans to the degree a personal profile does.
      2) knee jerk reaction to pressure from the Vocal Religious Minority who have been targeting these people for over a year now. It started out with reporting pictures posted for being porn. Photographers, male models, pictures of same sex couples kissing, (usually male) breast feeding moms, etc…. Meanwhile pictures of aborted fetuses continue, beheaded victims of violence in the Middle East continue and posts of outright hate speech, pages calling for the exterminations of gays, bashing of gays take over a year to get taken down.
      As to the comment above about the “A-List” performers above, you’ll notice that these are NOT profiles but pages for and about the entertainer. They do not purport to be the person behind the postings. That is the difference.

      Reply
  22. Just another example of corporatations wanting to track individuals and violate our privacy.

    Reply
  23. This pretentious douchebag can take his website and shove it up his azz. Anonymity online is the first line of defense against identity theft. I’ll be damned if I’m going to give people a treasure map to my entire life just to use a stupid social media site.

    Reply
  24. Wow. All you brainiacs seem to miss the simplicity: If you don’t like it, don’t use it. Problem solved.

    Reply
    • You are totally missing the point, idiot…fuck you….problem solved.

      Reply
    • For some people facebook has all of their following / clients so it’s not so easy to just not use it. Don’t be a pompous ass.

      Reply
    • “Help, I’m being harrassed and discriminated against out on the street!”
      “Hey, if you don’t like the street, don’t use it.”

      There you go. One of the stupidest arguments known to humanity.

      Reply
  25. When Facebook speaks of “discouraging bad behavior” it is clearly code for discouraging LGBT behavior. Facebook is a reflection of the personality and hang ups of its leader Marc Zuckerberg. It is not the first time that he has displayed discomfort with anything regarding human sexuality, including medical information. He has also recently banned information pages about female condoms.

    Facebook’s Name Policy is not just about Drag Queens.
    It endangers political dissidents in many countries, victims of rape, teenagers fleeing abusive homes, victims of stalking and harassment, etc. It unnecessarily outs closeted gays. Not to mention attacking authors with pseudonyms, performers with stage names, and anyone with a legitimate reason to hide their name. And at the same time Facebook creates false identities for rich celebrities.
    It is an attack on the right of Free Speech.

    Reply
    • When we lose the ability to speak freely about issues that those in power are uncomfortable with, such as ending the prohibition on cannabis, LGBT rights, about the corruption within our legislative process and the .01% who are turning our nation into their own personal monopoly game then we have become a fascist country . Facebook has become nothing more than a data collecting provider to the NSA….. so shame upon us for not speaking out against this continue PIOUS TRIPE by those in control.

      Reply
  26. If having two accounts is equal to a lack of integrity then what can having several accounts be likened to?

    Reply
  27. I know plenty of people who don’t have full real names on facebook. I also know couples that have one facebook account so the name is something stupid like “TimMaria Still Together” and they get to have their profile. I’d rather have a Myspace than a Facebook.

    My friend and I both have had our names changed legally but it’s not your “birth name” are we still wrong? and as for not having the name that appears on our credit card, 1) how would YOU (Zucker-fucker) know what name legally appears on my credit card, identity thieving bastard? 2) My identity is whatever I want it to be. Humans are fake in general. They are always changing their personality based on their enviornment, I act differently with my family than with my friends and at work and so on. The Internet is the LAST place that I want some asshole to judge me just because he thinks he’s better than me. You don’t know me or what I’ve been through. My Identity keeps me safe, Just like Batman’s mask.

    Reply
  28. I feel that deleting drag performs due to name is not a good choice. Yes I’m gay and No I’m not a performer. I’m Not especially a fan of Idea of drag. However. That is a group that works tirelessly and gives back greatly to many disenfranchised with in the community as a whole. They give to AIDS orgs etc. Shame that you would put a stigma on people with good intent. they are a bit strange but good intent.

    Reply
  29. Zuckerberg would have a point if he was managing a bank or credit bureau. But he’s not. While it’s generally amusing and good for killing time, Facebook is a trivial forum for childish prattle and gossip. Get a grip on your out-of-control ego, kiddo.

    Reply
  30. “What’s the point of sharing information if you don’t want it to be seen by anybody else? Same rules apply just like in a physical environment: if you don’t want people to know where you live don’t tell them.”

    What an odd thing to write.

    Just because you share some information with some people, that doesn’t mean you want to share all information with all people.

    I don’t want people to know where I live. I don’t put that info on Facebook or any other public place. I have a non-published phone number.

    This has not stopped online resources from publishing my private information even though I’ve removed myself repeatedly from every online database I could find.

    Some of us have problems with exes, and other issues, and we’d really like to keep a low profile.

    People like you and Zuckerberg don’t think we should have that option.

    I object.

    Reply
  31. There are people for whom being able to manage identity is important to their survival. They are places in the world where people can be executed for being gay or transgender, and even in America, in most states it is legal to fire someone for being gay or transgender. Is he suggesting that people in such circumstances must choose between their being alive and being able to express and explore their identity with their trusted friends?

    Reply
  32. Posting under a psuedonym. Most of the people in my profession maintain multiple Internet identities for our safety and the safety of our loved ones. I have passed numerous background checks, protected everything from high-net-worth individuals to millions of dollars to unique intellectual property of Fortune 500 corporations, been stalked, sued and last but not least, received credible death threats from some dangerous people. (Refusing bribes can be serious business.)

    I may not choose to take all of this home or expose my friends or family to it. So Zuckerberg would prefer that I simply not “have” any online identity other than that connected with my employment? Fortunately we still have 1st Amendment rights in this country, free speech is still alive, and Zuckerberg’s preferences are merely those of another rich man going for an intellectual land grab of property that is not his.

    Reply
  33. Yes, tell us about integrity, Zuck.

    Reply
  34. MONEY HAS GONE TO HIS HEAD AND COMPASSION FOR ALL SHOT OUT HIS ASS !

    Reply
  35. As an author who publishes under pseudonyms in order to keep my private life private (and to keep family whose panties easily twist from becoming uncomfortable), I’ll say that Z has his head firmly jammed up his tight little arse.

    The last thing I need are family and neighbors know what I write and publish. It’s not “mainstream” in the least, and would definitely affect my day job. As I can’t currently afford to subsist solely on my income as a writer, this is how things must continue to play out in my life.

    Z’s missing more than a few marbles. He’s missing the bag, too. Perhaps he’ll find them while he’s got his head so firmly shoved elsewhere.

    Reply
    • Trouble with Leaving Facebook is you lose your real friends. No Birthday announcements no personal contacts, no events.In a day when everybody has a phone and nobody answers, and even text replies are hard to get, Facebook responses are lightning fast. I gave it up for six months and got tired of living in a bubble of zero contact. I hate it but present society leaves little choice.

      Reply
  36. Considering the ABSOLUTE REFUSAL to run Facebook by their OWN STATED STANDARDS (as in, removing abusive content, as opposed to what they actually remove), I think we know just who has the real “lack of integrity”…

    Reply
  37. If we are to take Zuck at his word, then his entire life is an open book. And he shares every intimate detail of his life. Because being afraid to do so, as a logical extension of his position of privacy (or the lack thereof), would reveal a lack of integrity. That’s right … he DOESN’T share every intimate detail of his life (thank goodness); and he’s proven time and time again that integrity is one thing he has never possessed.

    Reply
  38. I started out my facebook journey with my ‘real’ name, and after being stalked, not just on the internet but in my real life, by someone that found me on facebook, I changed my name. I really don’t want to change it back to one that can be tracked down in any real way.

    Reply
  39. For a company that acknowledges the Transgender Community by adding over 50 different variations to the gender option, Facebook has just slapped the Transgender Community in the face.

    A huge majority of my fans have 2 Facebook pages: A page for those who know the person on the outside, and a page for those who know the person on the inside. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has his own opinion about that very issue stating, “Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”

    Well Mark, is it a lack of integrity to be confused by who you truly are? Perhaps I am lacking integrity by not sharing my true self to my family due to fear of being disowned. I bet your narrow minded views will one day get you kicked out of the business that you once have started, loved, and mastered . Until then, I will just say, “Screw You Mark Zuckerberg!”

    Now a part of me knows that his comments might somewhat be geared towards a work profile and a personal profile. But this is far from a lack of integrity. The lack of integrity comes from Mark Zuckerberg saying he supports the LGBT community and then turns around and slaps us in the face. We have welcomed you to San Francisco’s Gay Pride Parade where you took thousands of publicity pictures and you turn around and say having two identities proves a lack of integrity.

    Mark, I seriously hope you are just ignorant about the Transgender Community and what it means to fully come out as who you know you are when others refuse to believe your change. When depression forces you to be the person you see in the mirror, and everyone around you refuses to accept it or will disown you from the family if you ever made the announcement. There are reasons we have to have two identities. Trust me!

    I did not choose to be Transgender. I would not wish it on anyone. It has some serious down sides to it. But I have learned to accept it. I have learned to love it. And I am Proud To Be Transgender! But even though I am proud, I cannot let go of who I was until my friends, family, and coworkers are ready to accept me for who I am. Until then, I will be me. And slowly transition from my outside identity to my inner identity. I may physically look male, but I know I am female. So Mark, it isn’t my lack of integrity that forces me to have two identities, it is having the courage to be myself, and the heart to allow others the time it takes to accept my real identity.

    #Facebook
    #MarkZuckerberg
    @Mark Zuckerberg

    Reply
  40. In your original post, you largely blew up your argument when you wrote: “the world’s most popular website for sharing information about oneself.”

    Given that, why would Zuckerberg & Co. want to make a significant change to its user policies, given Facebook’s wild success to date?

    Reply
  41. And why should anyone give a shit what a young punk has to say about anything just because he’s a billionaire? Wait until he loses a friend somewhere because all anonymity was destroyed. Either he’s paid off by the CIA/NSA or he’s just an idiot. He needs to read Solzhenitsyn. Then say the shit he says. Integrity? Puh-leeze…

    Reply
  42. I suppose one could use their real name for their main profile and then set up a Facebook page for their alternate ID (which is directly linked to the main profile for management purposes, but remains secret at your discretion)

    Reply
  43. Data mine scumbag complains about integrity.

    Reply
  44. Not giving your real data to facebook, or any other internet network is simply a proof that one is aware of what data mining, and what it is for, and one does not want their personal data to be sold and bought for whatever purposes. My friends, the ones who ARE friends, already know which is my real name, and do not mind if my facebook name is “Hulk Hogan of Green Gables” or “Jack the Piper”, or both.

    Reply
  45. Mark, you are a brilliant programmer, and I admire you for that. But you have taken your creature too seriously. Most of people uses facebook to stay in touch with their mates and share thoughts, memes jokes, pics of themselves, and funny pics of cats, and it is great that way. The moment you start making up rules and nobody is allowed to have a fb. profile in which one’s name is Jolly Mangina, living in the city of Batman (Turkey), it will start being boring, and replaced by any other social network who allows you have some laughs.

    Reply
  46. My legal name was changed to address issues of abuse in my past: who I was is not who I am. Does that mean those two identities show a lack of integrity?

    I write under three different pseudonyms: I have one for mainstream fiction, one for very much off of the mainstream fiction, and one for everything else. Does that mean I have a lack of integrity in who I am and what I do?

    I’ve lost friends to abusive partners and exes, and I know some who are living under an assumed name, even though it’s different from that on their license or birth certificate. Zuckerberg implying that the ‘integrity’ of using their own name should supersede their concern about being found and targeted by their former abusers is, at best, a hollow argument.

    I’ve friends and former lovers who are and were transgender, and some of them have lost their lives once those around them learned of their past. Does wanting to avoid being killed mean they lack integrity?

    And really, when his company is known for data mining, manipulating users’ information, changing privacy settings without notice, and conducting social experiments without permission, why is he quibbling about assumed names? Does he simply not like others affecting his ability to play puppet master and sell their data?

    At the root of the argument lies one simple fact: Zuckerberg is a mendacious lout, and his only concern is increasing ad revenue and his own bottom line. Privacy — to him — is an ideal to whom only those in his rarified circle are entitled, whilst we — the sans-culottes — must accept his decision as to what our privacy is worth to him, as we obviously don’t value it enough should we use his products.

    My secondary concern is that — once he forces the ‘legal name’ rule — he’s going to force those who use their accounts to prove their legal name via some form of verified, government-issued ID. To be fair, I don’t recall that he’s pushed for this in the past for general users, and I may be starting at shadows; however, with this drive to force users to rely on their legal names for their profiles, it’s a step I can quite easily see him taking.

    I’ve used Facebook for years, and I’ve enjoyed its social structure; however, much like LiveJournal after its buyout, Facebook has become a Narcissistic reflection of its owner’s personality, and a means whereby he can sell its users’ personal data to the highest bidders.

    Perhaps MySpace might make a resurgence, Tribe come into its own, or Google+ rocket forward with new innovations and true privacy. Until then, we’re left with a very real dearth of social media outlets that will allow us to share selected elements of ourselves with those we choose — in other words, who we truly are — without forcing us to present a false face to the world by relying solely on legal identification.

    Reply
    • Persnickety: “My secondary concern is that — once he forces the ‘legal name’ rule — he’s going to force those who use their accounts to prove their legal name via some form of verified, government-issued ID.”

      It’s already happening. I had my FB account suspended on Sept. 5th for “not using [my] real name”. (I had been using an Internet nickname I’ve been using online since 1990 since I joined FB in 2007 or 2008.)

      When you click through their “Get Started” link to “fix” it, they demand that you scan and send in a copy of your Government-issued i.d.

      The fact that they would demand this, given that anyone can set up a new FB account and NOT be asked of that (plus use any old fake Gmail account with it) is hysterical – and hypocritical in the extreme.

      Reply
  47. Well, let’s see….A woman is brutally assaulted by her sadistic stalker. She picks up the shattered pieces of her life (and skull) from the puddle of blood and terror he left her in. Terrified that he will return to finish the job, she moves far away. Torn from everyone and everything she’s ever known, she wants to keep in touch with friends and relatives. She is frantic that he not find her, so she sets up a Facebook account in a different name so that her loved ones back home can connect with her and he will be none the wiser.
    Go ahead and say I have a lack of integrity, Zucker-whatsis.
    I call it being prudent, and if need be I’ll go to MySpace, or some other social media site someone needs to set up so everyone can get away from YOU.

    Reply
  48. It is not always to present a separate public identity for co-workers. Sometimes it is for organization. One is for art. Another for science or, one for family and another for friends or a second to hide from a violent person. Having two identities, sometimes is a gain in integrity rather than a lack thereof. Have an open mind. The world is not so narrow…

    Reply
  49. So. I myself am transgender. I have been threatened and I’ve been stalked. I’ve had a gun pulled on me. Sophia is not the name on my drivers license but it is the name I go be both in my personal and my life at work. I work for amazon. They gave me a badge with Sophia on ot when I told them I was going to start transitioning. Forcing someone to use they’re legal name can and will force them into a violent situation. When something happens, their blood will be on your hands also. So come and bite Z. You’re just a power hungry zombie to me.

    Reply
    • Absolutely correct. I’ve seen people targeted because they are using a pen name, using a nickname, or using a name to protect themselves. It’s none of Z’s business why someone uses an alias. As long as that person isn’t breaking laws doing it, he needs to leave people alone. Like you, I use a nickname at work. I’ve done so for almost 30 years. Even my high school buddies now call me by the nickname, rather than using the name on my birth certificate.

      Reply
      • Which is allowed by authors of any published media, such as FB, specifically for privacy. A clear violation of federal law.

        Reply
  50. I do not use my legal name on facebook, I use my nickname which is what all my friends have always called me, I go by my nickname at work and all areas of my life except when I have to talk to the cops or show ID at the airport or when opening a new bank account etc.

    Using my nickname does not mean I do not have integrity.

    Zuckerberg has some issues….

    Reply
  51. Actually, no, sweetheart. In fact, pen names for creative personalities have legal precedence. They are, by definition, a legal alias taken not for nefarious means. Authors, musicians, and artists are allowed to register copyright to their pen names, and if they have the proper paperwork, they are allowed to have PO boxes and bank accounts in the pen name…legally. You can have mail delivered to your home address or work address in the pen name with no paperwork filed at all. Nefarious means/purposes (fraud, libel, etc.) are what lack integrity. Using a pen name for your art doesn’t, AT ALL. Apparently, Zuckerberg has some “interesting” definitions of what actions lack integrity. Unfortunately, his position allows him to be a bully about his opinions.

    Reply
  52. We love in a country where classes of people who are (in part) defined by immutable inborn traits are not protected in many regions. Even in places where they are, well funded organizations demonize people, like myself. Sometimes, family listens. Sometimes, it leaves us vulnerable to loosing out jobs and destroying our careers.

    The day where the closet is not needed, at least in part of our lives, is far off.

    I’m not just speaking of being gay. I am also speaking of bisexuals, like myself. We do not enjoy the support that the gay community offers and the full results of the activism that has changed the face of being queer.

    The need for the closet will someday go away. But, that day is not today.

    Reply
  53. I would like to see him move from his billion dollar home and from behind the millions of dollars of security, and into the regular world. Then we’ll see if he feels the same about different ways of securing the safety and privacy of himself and his family.

    Reply
  54. Hey Zuckerberg, remember when you weren’t a corporate sellout? Oh, that’s right, you were never not one: you just had to blow some people and cut some throats to get there first.

    Reply
  55. Not he has any integrity either, considering that he can’t be bother educate himself on the subject. SMH…

    Reply
  56. Ignorant much?!
    You must separate your personal from your professional behaviors. You just do not say certain things or act in certain ways at work, but these are perfectly acceptable in the privacy of your home and close friends. It is beyond ignorant to say that one must be the same way at home and at work. I do not think sitting in my boss’s lap would be as acceptable as my sitting in my husband’s when at home or saying I love you to my family versus going around saying so at work to random coworkers. By the same token, my personal mores, values, and beliefs are my own and not to be forced upon my patients at work, no matter how rabidly I might believe myself to be right. When with my patients, my personal life, beliefs, etc. are left at the door and it becomes all about my patients. Once I leave, I leave work at work and prefer my two lives to remain separate.

    Reply
  57. Would he also delete the profile of Freddie Mercury? If not, this is discrimination!

    Reply
  58. Reason I didn’t use my last name is that I write a lot of things against the Conservatives, and I know they’re evil. Such as knowing the journalists they hired hacked phones and other spying techniques. I know they would try to harm people against them.

    Reply
  59. Here, we use a Mozilla browser with AdBlocker Plus running, so I haven’t seen ads on websites in years. Facebook can advertise itself into the ground for all I care…I won’t be witness to it.

    As for Zburg’s comment: Considering the origins of “The Facebook”, how can anyone take him seriously when he says anything regarding the topic of ‘integrity’?

    Reply
  60. This ‘Real Name’ policy is literally the nail in a coffin for Facebook.

    98% of people I have there as friends are guilty of modifying their legal names so as to keep it as a “friends only” club. The biggest reason for modifying their names is to be able to freely share and socialize with people at any time, any place, without risking being tracked down by coworkers, bosses, or crazy ex-significant others. That was Facebook’s main draw 9 years ago when I joined (/old). Not to mention, it required a .edu email address back then, so it was great while in college.

    With all these absurd Privacy modifications, intrusional ads, other poor user experience modifications, and now this ‘Real Name’ requirement. Facebook has become the complete opposite of what made it a multimillion dollar company.

    I used to think there would be another competitor to take it off the map. But it’s not too surprising to see Facebook slowly dig their own grave.

    The internet is the one place everyone can be whomever they want to voice their opinions. I’m not gay, a victim of domestic violence, or in need of hiding my identity. But I strongly support those that do and ready to jump ship.

    #anotherreasontoquitfacebook

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× eight = 16

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>