Short of the extreme edge cases where a person is attempting to hide from someone because they fear for their life, the main argument against using real names always seems to boil down to someone waiting to share something radical and controversial but not having it tied to their physical persona.
May I point out that those extreme edge cases, while rare, are also extremely important? That person fleeing an abusive relationship is probably far more in need of a swift effective communications medium to get social support, practical advice and even to just plain tell their story than most people are.
And you are forgetting other cases that are just a touch less extreme but still relevant. The young adult struggling with their orientation may be desperate to avoid having certain people discover this fact while equally desperate to find others in a similar situation for that support and advice.
I am the first to say that Google and Facebook are private businesses and how they handle their business is up to them, but if we are going to have a real discussion of the reprecussions of their decisions then we need to remember that these edge cases are real and they are important.
Personally, I'm not convinced that if you add up all the very valid reasons people have for wanting to be anonymous, that you have a percentage of people which could be described as "extreme edge cases."
You are right. I didn't mean to downplay these edge cases as much as I did.
Is the concern that Facebook and Google's decisions are going to permeate so far it will become common place or that because these two social networks are the big dogs that it is unfair (for lack of a better word) for the edges cases to not be able to participate?
I think some of both. Many sites that accept comments now encourage commenters to log in with their facebook accounts, so that can be a major factor. I hve not seen it yet, but I suspect something similar will happen as G+ leaves beta and becomes more established with it.
Also, as I have read in other commenters, a social network is only valuable if your friends are on it, so while alternatives exist it may be hard to find the people you need to find on them.
I agree that Google+ will probably get in on some sort of "Login with Google+" thing.
I guess someone could see this as this real name policy then "infecting" the Internet. It would really come down to why are these sites implementing this service. If they are doing it for ease of use, so the user doesn't have to create another account, and there are no alternatives that don't require you to use your real name then that could be bad.
But if these sites also want people to use their real names because they feel it would foster a greater sense of community then that is their prerogative.
There is no one service yet that rules over the Internet and so there will always be alternatives. If a service requires you to use your real name then you can just choose not to use it.
I'd grow more concerned if governments and ISPs attempted to implement a "driver's license" for the Internet. Personally I wouldn't mind this but a lot of people obviously would.
May I point out that those extreme edge cases, while rare, are also extremely important? That person fleeing an abusive relationship is probably far more in need of a swift effective communications medium to get social support, practical advice and even to just plain tell their story than most people are.
And you are forgetting other cases that are just a touch less extreme but still relevant. The young adult struggling with their orientation may be desperate to avoid having certain people discover this fact while equally desperate to find others in a similar situation for that support and advice.
I am the first to say that Google and Facebook are private businesses and how they handle their business is up to them, but if we are going to have a real discussion of the reprecussions of their decisions then we need to remember that these edge cases are real and they are important.