In general, I think the solution lies in unbundling users' public facing information and their acceptance of the terms of use of the site. In that way, a site can decide whether or not public facing "real identities" are are a requirement.

There are varying degrees of trust required to make different sites and social networks successful. I don't think it's fair to say that Google has done something wrong by wanting to create a social network where the use of real names is a requirement just like I don't think it is fair to say that Twitter has done something wrong by NOT requiring real names. I see it as a feature that differentiates the two.

The common problem that they both have is the agreement between themselves and their users. If a user does harm to the site owner or other users through the site, how do we (as a caring society) deal with that situation if the person or corporation who agreed to the terms of use is anonymous?

In the examples you gave of people who are risk of persecution if they have to share their real identities should have the option of participating in social networks where the users are free to use pseudonyms in their interactions with each other while still having the trust that the site owner can identify each of the users. In that scenario, bullies, stalkers, serial killers, and would-be persecutors can be made accountable.

Full disclosure, I am a majority owner of Inkdit.com, a start-up that is working to provide tools for sharing and signing of contracts (including things like Terms of Use for web sites). Identity is threaded through everything we do.

the body of work i have online as Ener Hax far eclipses what i have as my "real" name

[...]Who is Harmed by a “Real Names” Policy?, NSTIC NOI Appendix 10 – Identity Woman[...]...

[...]Keen attacks the “identity dog’s” right to exist. – Identity Woman[...]...

It feels dehumanizing and unjust. I expect better from a company like Google.

That may be the primary mistake

ps. What is your real name?

Nice postscript. They insist that the “community” obey their unilateral rules, but “Bennett” can choose not to reveal identifying information.

"I feel violated by this experience with you....because I do not what to use my soon to be ex-husband have been separated for 3 years last name (Hamlin) as the headline on MY profile. I am fine listing it in the "other name" field - it is an "other name" to me."

aside from typing "what" for "want", punctuation is direly needed and the whole "...because" to "(Hamlin)" needs to be re-written for its thought process.

Second .. you're not alone and the more you learn about GGL+ the less you may want to be a part of it. Today I just found the following: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-google-transformed-picasa-web.html.

Key in that read, is that Name Tagging a photo shares that album with the person you tagged them as. That person can then see the full album, share it with anyone they want, regardless of privacy settings.

Add to this that you can not comment on photos unless you're a GGL+ user.

This is a net loss of features and usability all for "not" wanting to join Google+. That's in addition to removing anonymity that you may have had for using a pseudonym, and that you can hide everything about your profile but for that "name" they define as the holier than thou requirement. How many John Smiths can there really be in the world? And why should you be made into a liar to use their service just because you don't want to use your real name.. and that doesn't even move into the whole "Metta World Peace" issue.. nor to how "Prince" would have been addressed with his fancied Ankh symbol for name.

In any case ... your pain is noted, and GGL+ is not for many of us due to name and other issues behind the unification of GGL+ .... of all that which is GGL ... "your GGL are belong to us"

I think Google should allow pseudonyms because I think people should have a right to control how they present themselves. But this whole focus on how Google is so ignorant of privilege is disingenuous and sloppy. All of you tech bloggers writing about the Nymwars must be aware that the overwhelmingly young and male demographic you're criticizing as ignorant of privilege includes many non-white people--among them immigrants and first-generation Americans. Moreover, Google's a multinational company.

These critiques are performing a form of erasure in themselves by asserting that Google employees can't possibly understand the problems inherent in difficult to pronounce names or minority issues or political dissidence (have you all forgotten about Wael Ghonim already?). I agree that Google came to the wrong conclusion on this issue, but let's recognize that this isn't because they all have easy-to-pronounce names and are part of the ethnic majority.

Are you going to become as said by Botgirl in her video about Google ? ( as gods, knowing everything, but "not evil, not at all evil" ... ) come on, now, please, if you plead for no names and identity freedom, why you ask users email addresses ?

Thank you on behalf of all your naive readers... btw, I share your position in regard of G+ policy (being against it).

[We bomb poor people so that they too can experience this Freedom, after all, we are the Civilized World.]