That's not been my experience. One of the local papers recently changed their site to have FB comments. I can't believe the bigoted garbage and trolling I've seen people post on there with their name and picture attached to it.
> Now the downsides, which are probably determinative for us. First, quite simply a lot of people don’t trust Facebook for reasons that range from quite reasonable to totally paranoid. Second, and more significant in my mind, is that many people don’t want to bring their true identities into the comments section of a political site. [...]
> For those two reasons, especially the second, we’re probably never going to do this.
It's like "yeah we know people probably won't like it, but fuck them."
+1 gdilla, I completely agree with you. It also gives context behind who the commenter so I can make judgement whether to trust the author or not. This is one of the primary reasons I like use Quora (over Yahoo Answers w/ fake avatars) and read the replies to questions because I feel like that it's a real person with a real identity who is talking. Sites that use FB create effective barriers that bridges the gap between the offline and online world.
I think it stops interesting conversations because everybody goes into the "i agree!" politically correct mode when they have their real name on the signature.
Would you post an "At my job we use technology X..." comment with your real name? You could easily get fired for breaking NDA even if you don't expose anything critical at all.
In my experience, since they don't have the barrier to create and manage a separate account, and since they're not posting on their "friends" page, they're more likely to post stupid arguments and flamebait.
