I swore I wouldn't post about this, it was too stupid. The Nymwars people were freaking out over nothing, I thought. Just don't use Google+, it's not hard, right? But even within Google there were fights over it. Then the EFF chimed in and I think they're right, and so does JWZ. So I'm pro-pseudonym I guess, because people I like are too.
But that's not really it, is it? At The City we don't have a "real name policy" as such, but the system makes the assumption that people are going to put their real name and picture on their profile because everyone they interact with using the service is presumably someone they could meet any given Sunday. We have a "nickname" field but that's only to accomodate Dave/David preferences and doesn't hide their real name in a meaningful way. So as a product we have a real name assumption and have steadily resisted hiding real names because the scale is small, and users are naturally bucketed into churches.
As a church grows, that scale gets bigger, and the probability of someone meeting someone they don't like any given Sunday gets bigger. But on when you put everyone in the church in a flat, searchable namespace on The City, that probability becomes 1 as soon as that someone joins. So we get requests from churches to allow hidden profiles or other privacy measures to make it less obvious that someone with a certain name has an online presence
We've long dismissed this as a "human sin problem" and simply added ways to limit who can contact them rather than hide their existence. Because The City doesn't do anything for a bad person except show you someone's name, something they could already see anyway using a phone book. But we haven't taken it far enough and I think this debate opens up how. While pseudonymity doesn't really work in the Church, for us, and I think other social sites of appreciable scale, you can choose to require real names if you like. But there had better be complete security controls around displaying presence, and affordance for anonymous interaction where it makes sense.
The exemplar is credit card billing records in a small business. They need to know your real name and billing info and may know your purchase history. Groups of customers may know each other if they choose to announce their patronage, but may choose not to. The business doesn't get to go announcing exactly who purchased from them without raising the ire of their customers, who didn't ask that.
Real names have power, and we should not expect users to trust us with theirs unless we handle them responsibly. In our case the user may be required to use The City to engage in their church community, and that's a lot to ask in any case. Reducing the fear about engaging in close community online only happens if that community and the people in it are carefully protected.