Posted at the request of someone even more tired than I am... :-)

[elke_tanzer]

Kee Hinkley talks about what some people can and cannot share under legal names (g+ only): https://plus.google.com/#117903011098040166012/posts/RS7ZRt17SUf
Another reason people may not want to use a social network under a real name: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/10/0438252/Facebook-Helps-Israel-Blacklist-Air-Travellers
Google+'s "No-Pseudonyms" Policy is Homophobic, Not Just Anti-Social: http://blog.duh.org/2011/07/googles-no-pseudonyms-policy-is.html
Google+'s "Identity" Controversy: No Easy Answers: http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000880.html
NY Times, No Pseudonyms Allowed: Is Google Plus's Real Name Policy a Good Idea?: http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2011/07/12/12readwriteweb-no-pseudonyms-allowed-is-google-pluss-real-na-316.html
Goldkin Drake, an open letter to Google+: https://plus.google.com/114929190273737402078/posts/hYxTaik1iYs
CNET, Google+ faces thorny online identity issues: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20078671-264/google-faces-thorny-online-identity-issues/

Comments

[falena]

Once more, thanks for all the invaluable work you've been putting in, collecting all the links. <3

[weaverbird]

Thank you for these links - and for all you're doing on this issue!

[rainbow]

from the 4th link: "Addressing specifically the latter point, Google says that -- at this time -- they do not consider Google+ to be an appropriate discussion platform for persons in situations where not being anonymous might put them at risk of harm." (bolded emphasis mine)

:( feh.

thank you for collecting all these links.

[elf]

MOar fun: G+'s TOSing people for pseudonyms might be grounds for lawsuits: http://cityofnidus.blogspot.com/2011/07/google-and-future-of-avatar-identity.html

I think it's a questionable point (because G+ and FB must have "we can revoke your account for any reason at any time" bits in their TOS), but if they *are* telling people they're removing accounts for fake-namery, that may be illegal--they're not allowed to decide what someone' "real" name is. It's possible they're not allowed to decide what names they will or will not do business with. (I dunno; is it legal to declare "I will not have any clients whose names begin with Q?" I'm pretty sure it's not legal to say "I will not accept married female clients using their maiden names; they must use their husbands' surnames.")