So you're saying that the community has no place in attempting to guide and shape the social networking sites that they use?
Social networks are becoming a must and you can't just choose to use whichever fits your needs. You have to use the one that everyone else uses. Many people are forced to use these sites for business reasons. Often it's even required by a job, so suggesting that people have a choice is true to a point because they could find a new job. For many people it's probably about as true as saying that you don't have to have a bank account.
The community should probably spend less time complaining about how existing centralized social networks are abusive, and spend more time developing, using and promoting federated alternatives. The fact that you have to use the one that everyone else uses is not a universal truth but a regrettable state of affairs which should be fixed.
I agree. Unfortunately, I don't have any faith in the diaspora project. I'd be curious to hear what other solutions are out there that people are working on.
I don't think you should put words in his mouth, but since he's a new account made just for that comment, perhaps you're right and he's just trolling. I still don't have a Facebook account. I'd also wonder how often it is that one doesn't use one's real name when trying to network for business reasons. The fact is as long as we're not involving the government, Google/Facebook/et al. can do what they please, and I'd rather keep it that way. If this real names issue remains a big issue people just won't use Google's offering and Facebook/other will win. Let them decide it. If your boss is forcing you to get a G+ account with your real name, I think you've got bigger problems. (Not to mention you can hardly be said to be part of the 'community' if you just joined a minute ago at your boss' orders, but that's beside the point.)
Edit: curious about the downvotes. Did Google Buzz prevail despite making lots of people angry?
"I'd also wonder how often it is that one doesn't use one's real name when trying to network for business reasons."
Example at my company would be people who moderate and respond to customers using the various social networking sites on behalf of the company. On facebook they currently do this by setting up a secondary "company" facebook account separate from their personal account, and they use their first name only prefixed by the company name. This allows them an online identity, but not enough information for the customers to stalk them personally. Probably about 5% of my company's staff is forced to have a facebook profile along with various other online profiles for use within the company.
"If your boss is forcing you to get a G+ account with your real name, I think you've got bigger problems."
There's a lot of people in a company that are required to use their real identity and reputation for the company. I don't understand why this is a problem. It just depends on your job. Take for example, the PR people. They must give their real first and last name when they are interviewed.
"If this real names issue remains a big issue people just won't use Google's offering and Facebook/other will win. Let them decide it."
I guess it depends on what you mean by "big issue". I think the point of this whole campaign is that they are trying to raise awareness because for most people, your real name is fine, but for a small minority, it's very unfavorable.
Many PR people, and other very public people, like movie actors, use pseudonyms. For privacy, marketing, or sometimes even to get a unique key, as in Screen Actors Guild.
I think we have two different conceptions of "business reasons". I was thinking more along the lines of "I'm pimping myself out to get hired/sell a product/find investors, why wouldn't I want to use my real name?"
I still see a problem even in your PR example. Taking one of the concerns of some privacy people around, suppose you get a job in PR but you're also part of the small minority where your real name can cause problems for whatever reason(s). Maybe "you shouldn't be in PR", but I don't see why a company can't allow you to use a pseudonym instead. Of course they may want to hire someone who already has established a reputation with either their real name or their pseudonym, but if they wouldn't even give me that option I'd be concerned. I like your company's approach of "half a name", and I'd imagine if you asked "Can I make my account Company Bob instead of Company Frank [because of such and such]?" they'd let you. I don't see why a PR person being interviewed for a magazine or whatever couldn't use a pseudonym. Unless there's some law somewhere requiring a government-certified-name ("real name") be given in a journal interview for employees of big corps? I'd be surprised to see one.
I mean "big issue" in the sense of it continuously popping up on HN, Slashdot, etc. and people being outraged over it. If it's just to "raise awareness", fine, then the G+/Facebook/whatever membership that requires real names won't drop, and since doing nothing is easier than doing something nothing changes even if a PR person from Google says "we recognize the importance of hidden names." If it starts affecting their membership, they'll change or something better will come along.
Social networks are becoming a must and you can't just choose to use whichever fits your needs. You have to use the one that everyone else uses. Many people are forced to use these sites for business reasons. Often it's even required by a job, so suggesting that people have a choice is true to a point because they could find a new job. For many people it's probably about as true as saying that you don't have to have a bank account.