7 comments

[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 37.2 ms ] thread
Usernames are still better than the Orwellian Google "All your personal information are belong to us" real name policies.
This guy can't tell the difference between a username and a displayed name. He's not qualified to give advice. Username is indeed just a string for machines which happens to be displayed occasionally.
"The solution—and the key to Facebook’s success—is surprisingly simple: Identity online should take a cue from the physical world. You are more than your name; your face, your birthday, your location, and the company you keep all help others figure out who you are."

So, I guess the "solution" is an end to anonymity? The cure seems worse than the disease, in my opinion.

I was amused to see this at the bottom: "Commenting has been disabled for this article".

Either Wired decided they didn't want to deal with opposing viewpoints, or they couldn't get this wonderful proposed solution in place in time.

> The cure seems worse than the disease, in my opinion.

Totally agree with you on that.

Given that the idea of usernames (originally called handles) predates the internet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_band_radio), I seriously doubt the practice is going away anytime soon.

Exactly. This article is just another surveillance state propaganda piece.
So, Facebook has it figured out because it uses displayed names? If only I didn't have to log in using my email, which suffers the same problems of usernames.
(comment deleted)