What’s in a name? A whole lot. And when your surname is Kills The Enemy, you’re swiftly reminded of that when Facebook swiftly deactivates your account. 28-year-old Parmelee Kills The Enemy had to send Facebook scanned copies of a government identification document to prove her real last name after the social networking site deactivated her profile, according to KX Net.
A Native American, Parmelee’s name is a hot topic for Facebook, social networking users and advocates. Nebraska journalism student Nancy Kelsey wrote a news story about Parmelee’s issue with Facebook, even going so far as to create a Facebook group called “Facebook: don’t discriminate against Native surnames!!” The group already has 1,000 users, and highlights ongoing issues automated systems have for individual scenarios.
While Parmelee’s particular case could be fodder for racial and cultural discussion, Native American names don’t appear to be the only ones receiving discriminatory practices. A friend of mine has a name that could be considered to be associated with a middle eastern religion and came to me for help when he was unable to even register for an account because his name was repeatedly rejected. I eventually advised him to use a ‘common” first name and drop a few letters from his last name in order to create an account, as well as sending a letter of complaint to Facebook.
Unfortunately most issues that arise from this particular action of denying a user’s name will appear to be discriminatory and racially or culturally driven. And maybe they are, considering an actual human or team of humans need to determine what words/terms/phrases can and cannot be accepted by an automated system.
But perhaps the real issue boils down to Facebook’s automated system and how it handles individuals on a case-by-case basis. With Facebook growing at a reported 600,000 new users a day, it’s impossible to manually approve all username requests, especially upon registration. But there’s certainly room for improvement, and it may be a worthwhile investment for Facebook, in order to avoid anyone thinking that Facebook itself is insensitive to other cultures and races.
How about people named "Gay," like my mother? She wanted to join facebook but they wouldn't let her use her first name. So, to the world of facebook, my mother is "Ga Stodder." Needless to say, she's insulted.
Comment by John Stodder — February 10, 2009 @ 10:48 am
yes, this is another very poignant example
Comment by Kristen Nicole — February 10, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
That’s not surprising at all. I have a friend whose last name is Money. That is his honest-to-goodness real name, but when he tried to register for Facebook, he was blocked. He’s since got on, since he sent them proof that it is his name, but needless to say, he was perturbed.
The discrimination was obviously not racially or culturally motivated. He just has a weird name. A name with the word “Kill” in it also sounds like a fake name, so Facebook blocked it. It’s no big deal, just annoying.
So why don’t we stop looking for the black helicopters, huh?
Comment by Dan Jones — February 10, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
I got a threat to be deactivated because I had posted pics from a trip to the Amazon Rainforest: indigenous Amazon peoples in traditional dress, which consists of a grass skirt and nothing else besides jewelry. I mean, come on, is that really SO offensive?
Comment by Karen — February 11, 2009 @ 11:26 am
Dan, I disagree… I’m certainly not the PC police, but I do think that any policy that disproportionately excludes a certain segment of people is inherently reprehensible. I don’t think onomastic bigotry is going to displace gay marriage on the social justice calendar anytime soon, but I don’t hear about them blocking the accounts of every “John Doe” or “John Smith” because those are common pseudonyms. How is my “weird name” any more or less likely to be fake than your normal one? If I was trying to make up a fake name, I’d certainly go for one that was a little less noticeable.
As far as FB, I don’t think they’ve learned anything —I discovered my account had been summarily deactivated thursday (April 16), and so far have been unable to get it reinstated, despite sending 5 messages so far to their various contact emails and getting a number of my erstwhile friends to email in protests as well. The aspect that is most aggravating is that they could quite simply contact the “suspected offender” before taking any action against them, and request verification of their verisimility. And generally, “fake” accounts would not be actively connected with a variety of people, members of assorted affiliated groups, or have a dozen relatives mapped out on the “we’re related” FB application. Despite the fact that my name is indeed my birthname (how many people signed up as Tom, Dick, or Harry can actually make that claim?), I think that a policy that excludes the reality that people can evolve into names other than those they were gifted with at birth is also culturally bigoted —I know people who have come to new names through visionquests, or who were renamed by their elders or teachers so powerfully that nobody knows them by any other appellation. We are who we choose to be, and it should be our right to project the name that most powerfully represents who we are.
At least have a modicum of courtesy, FB!
Comment by Starfinder Stanley — April 20, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
I don’t think facebook is worth having to go through some process of identifying yourself. Get a myspace or something. Myspace doesn’t require all this garbage. I mean, it’s not weeding out fake accounts or bad people, because fake accounts and bad people can just as easily use real names as well as fake names.
Comment by Skye — May 19, 2009 @ 8:24 am
nothing changes does it closed minded ones also time to move on
Comment by standsalonewolf — July 4, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
My FB acct got deleted because I had a picture of my daughter in the bath tub with NO genitalia showing etc. NOTHING. It was all because someone found it offensive and reported it as pornography
Comment by Rose — August 6, 2010 @ 4:37 am
oh, and she's a baby… she was 7 months old in the picture.. up until the age 18mth – target, walmart, etc are allowed to take pictures of babies in no diaper – bare butt naked… so how is my photo considered porn??
Comment by Rose — August 6, 2010 @ 4:38 am