Early this morning I browsed across an update from Marshall Kirkpatrick sharing that Google doesn't allow anonymous identities on it's social service Google+.
Marshall Kirkpatrick - So Google Plus is a place of public discourse, with gradations of privacy, but with no anonymity or pseudonyms (allowed)? How Google-like; I'm not so sure that's a good thing.
I can understand why social web utilities want to attach an account to an identity to promote responsible usage and reputation, but I feel like these goals can be achieved while still allowing pseudonyms for progressive discussions. Two comments struck me as influential and characterizing why I value anonymity with digital identity. I've included them below.
Oscar Fröberg - One thing that would be great would be if you could choose a pseudonym for each circle. That way you could for example interact with "internet-people" anonymously but still be available in search to interact with friends under your real name. There are subjects I'd like to be able to discuss which I don't necessarily want perpetuated on the internet under my real name, even if I want it to be a public discussion! </p></blockquote>
Joshua Jeffryes - Sacrificing anonymity sacrifices honesty, risk taking, and entertainment.</p>
You won't get whistle blowers, people fighting oppressive regimes, or FakeSteveJobs or DeathstarPR here. I think g+ is lessened by that.
</blockquote>Some of my favorite social networks condone pseudonyms and various levels of anonymity. Both Twitter and Disqus enable accounts to exist without forcing them to be exposed as belonging to a specific individual.