>This is one of the (probably positive) arguments for Google's "real-name" policy on G+
The key is having a community with behavioral standards - a persistent identifier that a reputation can be attached to is a prerequisite for enforcing said standards, but without the community to set and enforce those standards? the identifier doesn't help.
Also note, communities often contribute to this 'problem' as much as they help. Nearly all communities consider certain types of bullying of certain types of people acceptable, and with that community backing? people seem to be much worse than they would be on their own. Most of the time? most of the truly terrible things people do are done in a context where that terrible behavior is normal, or even accepted.)
I think the real problem with a 'real name' policy is that I may wish to participate in different communities with conflicting standards for behavior. A good reasonable example that most of us face is our professional selves vs. our sexual selves. Behavior that is completely acceptable in a nightclub is going to be completely unacceptable in an office, and vis-a-vis.
Google tries to address this with privacy settings, but really? I think that's the wrong approach. The context trumps the relationship; Even if I meet someone from work in a nightclub, that doesn't mean I can apply nightclub behavioral standards to my interactions with them in the office. (I would argue that I could apply nightclub standards to our interactions in the nightclub, but some would disagree.) - At least for me, (and I am told that this is very different for other people) the thing I am concerned about is not so much keeping my non-professional self secret, but in allowing people to choose a context in which to interact with me, and allowing them to be not made uncomfortable by personal issues. If they want to dig and find my personal issues? that's on them.
The key is having a community with behavioral standards - a persistent identifier that a reputation can be attached to is a prerequisite for enforcing said standards, but without the community to set and enforce those standards? the identifier doesn't help.
Also note, communities often contribute to this 'problem' as much as they help. Nearly all communities consider certain types of bullying of certain types of people acceptable, and with that community backing? people seem to be much worse than they would be on their own. Most of the time? most of the truly terrible things people do are done in a context where that terrible behavior is normal, or even accepted.)
I think the real problem with a 'real name' policy is that I may wish to participate in different communities with conflicting standards for behavior. A good reasonable example that most of us face is our professional selves vs. our sexual selves. Behavior that is completely acceptable in a nightclub is going to be completely unacceptable in an office, and vis-a-vis.
Google tries to address this with privacy settings, but really? I think that's the wrong approach. The context trumps the relationship; Even if I meet someone from work in a nightclub, that doesn't mean I can apply nightclub behavioral standards to my interactions with them in the office. (I would argue that I could apply nightclub standards to our interactions in the nightclub, but some would disagree.) - At least for me, (and I am told that this is very different for other people) the thing I am concerned about is not so much keeping my non-professional self secret, but in allowing people to choose a context in which to interact with me, and allowing them to be not made uncomfortable by personal issues. If they want to dig and find my personal issues? that's on them.