Facebook Forced to Allow Pseudonyms in Germany -- But Will That Change FB's "Real Names Only" Policy Everywhere?

German regulators ordered Facebook to allow pseudonyms last week, a ruling against the social network's "real names only" policy within Western Europe's largest and wealthiest country:

A woman had complained to the Hamburg watchdog after Facebook blocked her account for using a pseudonym, requested a copy of her ID and unilaterally changed her username into her real name.

The Hamburg Data Protection Authority said the woman did not want to use her real name to avoid being contacted through it for business matters. Forcing users to stick to their real names violated their privacy rights, it said.

Question is, will this ruling change Facebook's policies against pseudonyms beyond Germany? I asked that of Vaki Zenovka, a longtime Second Life user and IRL lawyer, who gave me a very lawyerly answer. Very short version: Not directly, but Facebook may use this Germany ruling as an excuse to change its anti-pseudonym policies anyway.

Let me pass the mic to Mz. Zenovka:

"On its face," she tells me, "this has absolutely no bearing on Facebook in the US. The German DPA was able to rule this way for a few reasons: first, because pseudonymous speech is permitted by German law; because Facebook was requiring copies of users' ID, which violates German privacy laws protecting passports and ID cards; and because Facebook was actually changing pseudonymous account names to real names, which violates German laws of informational self-determination. The US doesn't have the same laws, so this ruling doesn't have any impact in the US. In fact, this ruling doesn't have any impact outside of Germany, because German laws are unique."

However, she adds, the ruling may change Facebook's policy anyway:

"Facebook has had to change its internal policies globally in the past as a result of European privacy rulings," Vaki notes, "even though those rulings didn't actually affect Facebook's business outside Europe. Facebook's one company, and it's very hard to have business practices that only take effect in one country."

Beyond that, Facebook has been having ongoing problems with its "real names only" policies for years, and thanks to people like Sister Roma (pictured), they've been quietly bending their rules. That's where it could get interesting:

"Facebook has already been dealing with a huge amount of controversy in the US over its real names policy," as Vaki puts it. "Facebook has historically had a large presence in the SF Gay Pride parade, but the company was very nearly banned from the parade this year because of the disproportionate effect the real names policy has on the LGBT community...and though they were allowed to march, there were protests along the route. The Native American community has also accused Facebook of discrimination due to the negative effect the policy has on it. In the meantime, Facebook's competitors, including Google, have distanced themselves from their real name policies." (I'd personally argue that Twitter and even Facebook's Instagram, which both allow pseudonyms, are exerting even more competitive pressure.)

"So we'll see," Vaki concludes. "This ruling does not affect the US, but it could be the excuse Facebook needs."

Please share this post:

Tweet

 

Comments

[Melissa Yeuxdoux]

If Facebook were serious about real names, they'd get rid of all the accounts made in the name of people's pets so the pets can "play" (and thus give goodies to their owners) games.

[Sjöfn Stoneshield]

Anonymity online is guaranteed in the Swedish constitution. Thus, it is also the EU Constitution.

[irihapeti]

the story is wrong as reported

FB has been told they cant unilaterally change the persons account to their real name

the person must consent for this to happen

the issue is that the person never consented to the unilateral change

+

FB should have continued to block the person from the account until the person either a) consented or b) chose to delete the account

sending your RL details when demanded is not consent. Is not consent by the legislation, bc the person was not informed that FB would change their account name on receipt of their details

the authorities are ordering that the previous situation be restored. That the persons real name be removed from the account

and then the person can then decide what to do, should FB insist that the account will remain blocked in accordance with their real name policy. Choose a) or b)

[irihapeti]

@ Sjöfn

seems you misunderstanding your Personal Data Act

you not guaranteed anonymity. What you guaranteed is that another person (or company) cannot share your personal details with others without your consent

+
a owner of a privated-owned online service can ask you to consent as a condition of accessing their service. If you choose not to consent then the online provider has no obligation to let you use their service

the only services that do have a obligation to let you use their service are government agencies. Orgs like FB are not government agencies