That's an awfully cute straw man, but not really what's being discussed here. My calling for some basic human decency is no more "oppressive" than my remarking that hey, people who kick puppies or don't say thank you to waiters are pricks.

> by providing a forum for people to speak out anonymously.

That doesn't address the issue.

The value of large companies with large social graphs is one of networking. Having a soapbox to talk shout into silence doesn't do anything to improve the cause of someone who can't be safe with their own identity online.

Cramming people who are unable, for their own safety and well-being, into a ghetto cut off from the larger world is hardly a kind thing to do. For one, it deprives them of the ability to open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help or resources to begin flowing.

At a certain scale, the privilege of network effects comes with social responsibility. People have the right, and often the need, to define their identity along specific parameters. Refusing to acknowledge that does not respect users – and it's entirely valid to condemn that.

Lots of people actually, voluntarily, want to participate in social networks based on people's real names. You don't want to let them do that.

Cramming people who are unable, for their own safety and well-being, into a ghetto cut off from the larger world is hardly a kind thing to do. For one, it deprives them of the ability to open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help or resources to begin flowing.

No, it doesn't, because there are lots of places online for people to "open communications with allies whose circumstances allow for help". In fact, most of the web is accepting of pseudonymous or anonymous socialization. (You're on one of many such sites right now.)

Facebook (and now Google+) are an exception, and Facebook, at the very least, is popular. That doesn't make it a public utility--it's still a private service that people are free to use or ignore. No one's obligated to use Facebook and no one on Facebook is obligated to truthfully divulge any more information than they want.

I certainly don't want a bunch of privileged western jagoffs to enjoy a marginally better online experience at the expense of anyone else not similarly privileged. Ya got me there. I'm just not impressed by the tradeoff.

I'm reminded of a favorite book:

"Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop. Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good."

I think when we optimize around what the group wants at the expense of the individual, we're on our way to misery. Let each person do what is best for their own needs, so long as it doesn't come at the cost of any other individual. That's a good rule for any human community, including one built on the internet.

And that includes companies. If these guys want a completely homogenous platform where everyone is perfectly marketable to advertisers, that's ultimately their decision and their right. But it's a damn waste of a lot of power.

Outside of 4chan, people are figuring out that online communities, just like communities in real life, work better when there's a social contract. You can get downvoted into oblivion, flagged to death, or hellbanned from Hacker News, but you accept these infringements on your freedom of expression because it keeps the trolls out. Social networks (which, if you've forgotten, are designed to enable communication between people who already know each other, largely in real life) enforce a social norm (or in some cases an actual policy) of using real names. This makes people you know in real life (presumably by their real names) easier to find, and makes your behavior accountable to your real-life reputation.

Now, maybe some of these social contracts are wiser than others. But unlike the social contract that governs a physical community[1], online communities are trivial to join, trivial to leave, and not that difficult to form in comparison. This is a freedom of association that's unprecedented in world history, and really gives us the best of both worlds.

Finally, if you're all that angry about "privileged western jagoffs" forming their own exclusionary communities, you'd be better served railing against e.g. the Freemasons, rather than Google+.

[1] It's worth pointing out that most countries have very strict laws mandating that people are known to the government, their employers, etc. not only by a "real name" that requires legal action to change, but by some sort of identification number. Anonymously earning income, using banks, and getting health care are much bigger problems, and there's much more potential benefit in solving those problems than in bickering about whatever website people are using to share pictures of cats.

Because of fraud of course, not because legal names are somehow holy. Did you know for example that passports are a recent invention? Did you know that even names where at some point invented? They are now though widely used and conventional.

Honestly however, throughout all your replies here, I have not to be very honest heard of one reason why the choice of people should be limited by such a gigantic organisation which in many ways defines the internet and for a number of people is the interent.

The excuse that your mother might be apprehensive about commenting because djjd has commented is frankly ridiculous. Firstly, you can simply educate her that this is how the internet works. Anyway, I do not think your mother would comment if that person was using a real name either because that person would probably be a friend or a number or friends or coworkers and frankly, I would rather my mother did not so engage in commenting in such spheres. My mother is some distant figure they get to meet when they come home and she makes them a very nice dinner.

Your second point was basically you like it and therefore I do not care that other people do not like it. You are saying google has the choice to make such policy and you disagreeing with it does not matter at all because if you do not like it you can go somewhere else. That is what those in power say to those that challenge them. Not saying you are in power at all, but when someone criticises something, you can not simply say well you do not like it, then leave. If I am challenging the government because of a policy, my government can not simply say, well leave. Nor indeed is it an excuse that the rich may leave if we tax them.

We are talking about millions of people. Google+ is hardly a niche. When we talk about Facebook, we are talking about billions of people. You see, that is how social networks work. Though you can have a network for those that use nicknames and those that do not, what if these people want to share the same network?

Finally, Facebook has been very vocal about its antagonism against anonymity. Google is very high profile too so they enforcing a real name policy is not a small deal. Soon, they will want us to use real names everywhere. These are not small fish. They are giants, really, in some ways, the governments of the internet. So it is not about G+ or Facebook. I think, it is about a principle. The principle to be anonymous. The principle to not be judged by colour, ethnicity, gender, nationality, orientation, disability, etc. Names convey a lot of information. Indeed they convey all of these informations.

The internet is a level playing field where people are judged based on content, unlike, in many instances, in the real life. The internet is so awesome because in many ways it is not like real life. It is, in many ways, completely different from real life. That is what has made it such a powerful engine of our society and if you wish the power structures in the real world to be transported to this world, then you must be mad.

We're talking about what websites people visit in their spare time here, not the government or Comcast. It's the equivalent of saying, "If you don't like Chicken McNuggets, don't go to McDonalds and order them."

So it is not about G+ or Facebook. I think, it is about a principle. The principle to be anonymous. The principle to not be judged by colour, ethnicity, gender, nationality, orientation, disability, etc. Names convey a lot of information. Indeed they convey all of these informations.

The internet is a level playing field where people are judged based on content, unlike, in many instances, in the real life. The internet is so awesome because in many ways it is not like real life. It is, in many ways, completely different from real life. That is what has made it such a powerful engine of our society and if you wish the power structures in the real world to be transported to this world, then you must be mad.

That's not an argument against G+ or Facebook not allowing pseudonyms, it's an argument against people using G+ or Facebook in the first place.

If you're looking for some type of utopian metaverse where everyone takes on androgynous identities and interact with strangers, there's plenty of that to be found. Social networking sites were specifically created to provide something different, and they got popular because a lot of people want that.

It turns out most people use the internet as a tool to interact with the real world. If the internet was just some sort of metaverse, it wouldn't be a powerful engine of society at all--it's useful specifically because it's connected to the real world. Google and Wikipedia help people find information about the real world. Amazon helps people select and purchase physical goods to be shipped to them in the real world. Your bank's website helps you pay your bills, including the mortgage or rent for whatever physical chunk of the real world your flesh and bones sleep in at night. Countless websites exist to help people meet up and physically pleasure each other's (potentially) gendered, colored, disabled bodies in whatever orientation they want in real life. Likewise, Facebook and Google+ help people keep in touch with other people in the real world.

People who want pseudonymous conversations with strangers still have no shortage of choices. (You might notice that we're having one right now, or we would be if not for our choice of usernames.)

Before I'm finished, I have another point to make. All that Facebook and Google+ did was set up a web application that millions of people voluntarily used, and millions of people voluntarily chose not to use, for free. There's no force or natural monopoly here, just a diversion, a leisure activity if you will. I honestly cannot understand the sense of entitlement here. It's not like people don't have choices, it's that for the people who use Facebook, Facebook is what they want, and for the people who use Google+, Google+ is what they want.

If you (or indeed anyone) feels strongly enough that some type of anonymous social network would be a great idea, and that the current plethora of news sites and web forums are missing something, why don't you back up your words and set it up yourself? If that's what people want, then it'll be a success. Hey, it might be a lot to ask, but it's no more than the people who built Facebook and Google+ have done. If your principles are so important that you're personally insulted that Facebook and Google+ don't follow them, they're strong enough that you should consider doing something about the situation yourself.

People that are for this rule want _other_ people to use a profile name according to some weird (and inconsistent, not fully understood) rules.

People that are against this rule just want to define their _own_ profile name as they like.

Erm.. Seriously? Who's the one oppressing (if that even applies here, but you brought it up)?

Let us stick with the site in question, G+. You can block persons very, very easily. It's just 2(?) clicks away. Someone posts in your (extended) circles using a pseudonym and you don't like it? You can _easily_ make sure you'll never be disturbed in that perfect world of 'valid' names.

I see no freedom issues here?

The _real_ issue is, that you want your personal believe, which in this case might align with what Google arbitrary enforces or not, forced upon everyone. To save you those 2 clicks. And maybe (I'm not trying to make this a personal attack, but this is more or less the only reason I can actually imagine as being 'pro real names' among users) you just don't want to end up in the dilemma that your mum is listed as KnittingGoddess and your girlfriend as PinkUnicorn, because that would mean that you'd either have to block them or - cope with other people's choice of a name.

Again, your argument is really, really backwards. I was suspended on G+ because of a name that didn't conform to the rule (intentionally, I set it to "short-version-of-firstname .", as a protest. It was my real name before) Now - did you see me somewhere? To help you out: I'd be "Ben .". Have you seen me in your circles? In your incoming stream? No? So... Why do you bother?

YOU are in charge of your personal network. Here, like in any other social network. Over at FB you'd just not befriend me. Here you'd just not put me in a circle. If I'd do that though you'd notice that a creepy person with no real name is in your incoming stream and you'd block me easily. Done.

You _have_ your environment. You still fail to understand the difference between rules about one's own profile ("I'd like to be darklajid") and some weird filtering that is going to happen anyway, names or not ("I'd like to see nothing but realnames").

Listen - you can choose what you see on the network. I want to choose what represents me. You have to use the controls I talked about (i.e. blocking users) _anyway_, because you'll encounter people that you don't care about/that annoy you. I cannot imagine a reason for not being able to use these same mechanisms to build yourself the illusion of a world without pseudonyms. What stops you? Where's the danger for your use case?

Now, it's possible that Henry Jones doesn't want to be found, but you can set your profile to be non-searchable.

I know enough people online that I'd consider friends and yet I don't know their full legal name.

Likewise? This is not helpful.

Some people want their pseudonym as 'main' handle, optionally adding their real name _if they please_. That would solve the usecase further above. Other people want to use their real name and _keep other people out unless they comply_. I really don't get it how you can try to put it different while keeping a straight face.

Um, one of the primary use cases of a social network is to search for people you know in real life by their real names. Making that entire thing "optional" hinders that. If your primary use case is to use a pseudonym, the entire rest of the web is more or less set up for you that way already.

For you (and maybe a lot of people, granted) the primary use case seems to be "Hey, let's search for that guy I know". For me it's not. I _still_ like to use these networks.

Along the whole thread you failed to provide a single decent argument why other people need to use their real name except for "_I_ want to find them like that". Great. But this attitude is not what I'd consider social in the first place.

If I'm darklajid on G+ or not, you don't see it. If your own friends in real life _want_ to connect with you in a social network, they better make sure that you can find them or write 'Puffy1982' on a napkin in that bar you meet and tell you to look them up using that pseudonym.

Do you only meet people that give you their full name? You go out, and everyone in a pub introduces himself as 'Hi, my name is John Smith' so that you're able to find them on Facebook? Or is it rather like 'Hey, I'm Ben. Nice to meet you'. And - y'know what? I'm Benjamin according to my passport and you still don't have my last name. No way to find me with only that bits of information.

So your use case falls apart for casual encounters, unless you already exchange explicit details. "Hey, can you add me on Facebook? You find me as ..." works with pseudonyms just that well. Don't say real names are easier to remember, write or pronounce or I have a huge pile of counter examples.

Countering the last open point: If you want to (for example) find your old class mates from primary school by their real name, there are sites for that. They specialize on this particular need of yours. That is not a primary function of a social network in my personal opinion.

Bottom line: Your use case is not universal, you can do whatever you like. Consider returning the favor to others.

Well, those sites are obviously designed around that use case.

So your use case falls apart for casual encounters, unless you already exchange explicit details. "Hey, can you add me on Facebook? You find me as ..." works with pseudonyms just that well.

Personally, if I meet someone only once or twice and don't know their full name yet, I'm not going to add them as a friend on Facebook.

That said, you can use contact information, partial names, your friends' friends lists, and recognizing someone's face in their profile picture as ways of narrowing someone down. If I meet you in real life, you're not going to introduce yourself as darkajid, you're going to introduce yourself as Ben. If you're listed on a social network as Benjamin Foo and you're already a couple degrees away from me, I can search for "Ben" and the search algorithm will most likely pop up "Benjamin Foo" with a recognizable photo of you.

Outside of social networking sites, it's the predominant social norm to use a handle. Without pressuring or requiring people to use their real names, people by and large wouldn't use their real names and the sites wouldn't be usable.

Countering the last open point: If you want to (for example) find your old class mates from primary school by their real name, there are sites for that.

And they're slowly dying because no one wants to sign up for a single purpose site just to do that. They've been replaced by Facebook.

- No, I don't agree that those sites are designed around your use case. You argue that way because you use it that way and it works. I use it differently and - it works. It's a social network, not a stalker heaven.

- I don't even have a profile picture on Facebook. Your use case breaks again, although I do use my real name there, for now. Or should there be a rule for mandatory 'real images'? Maybe with some criteria about the exposed part of the face, the expression? Like on a passport in a variety of countries..? Oh, oh.. I know: I'm again breaking the usage here. Because the use of a profile picture (and a public one at that) is inherently important for social networks.

- If people, as you say, use pseudonyms everywhere outside of social networks, why can't you find them based on those? You still failed to list _one_ sensible use case that is broken when people use whatever name they want for their account. Except for 'Hey, I remember this dude from college'. If someone wants to connect with you on Facebook they'll make sure that it's possible or give you the right handle. It's no 'right' on your side to find them by information you deem sufficient. And it certainly doesn't break the sites: They are about social circles, not phone books. The latter needs full names so that you can look up my number (if I want to be listed). The former is about a collection of people that connect and exchange over the internet. Those probably already call themselves 'Timmy', 'Bobby', 'Tom' whenever they hang out even if the names are 'Timothy', 'Bob' and 'Thomas' - and they don't need their last name. I cannot even comprehend (ignoring any agreement here..) your view of this issue.

- If those sites have been replaced by Facebook, please - feel joy and glory because Facebook wants the same as you want and I couldn't care less about that site. Why exactly do you care about G+ doing the very same thing? You have your real name network on Facebook. Why don't you enjoy the place over there and let the more open minded among us try to talk some sense into Google?

Profile pictures are obviously sufficient as a social norm. Some people don't follow it and that's fine; though it makes them harder to find, they can also turn on the explicit "you can't find me" feature).

If I know you in real life, I know you by your real name, not your reddit handle.

G+ is obviously intended to he a better Facebook.

I'm not really sure how to make my points more clear. If you'd like, I will sportingly let you have the last word.

We're actually arguing if that design decision (that certainly took place and yes, supports your use case. That's the reason why you defend it here, let's not forget that)

- Makes sense

- Is necessary

Both points have arguments pro and contra, but the real kicker for me is that no one, including you as one of the strongest proponent here on HN, has brought up a reason for this. It boils down to this:

- You cannot find people that you learned about years ago

Well.. Bad luck. They certainly are free to add their real name or whatever they gave you to their profile. If they don't - you don't need to find them.

- Pseudonyms lead to arguments, name calling and bad behavior

This site, as lots of other people said already, is a nice example to the contrary. I said it elsewhere and I still believe it: The quality of the comments is a function of the quality of the visitors/users. Not bound to the names they use.

If you know me in real life, you'd certainly _not_ know my real name for a long time and it's a chore to spell it to others. But IF we'd be real life friends (in contrast to FB 'friends' - I decline most offers there and don't see how they came up with that name..) I'd certainly make sure that you can contact me in every way that helps you. If I'm 'Some Dude' on Facebook, I'd tell you about it. If not - well - why is it more important that you can locate me than my desire to pick a name?

G+ is intented to be a better Facebook? We agree on this one. But 'better' is unfortunately the keyword here. For me, better is

- no name convention/rule (no surprise here)

- everything hidden by default

- no spam platform (aka: Let me opt out of _all_ games please. Before they even are developed)