Glad you read the comment. I have a minute, so I'll clarify my point.

Your article criticizes the Facebook/Google+ policy requiring "real names." So far I'm on board with you, as I think the policy is absurd.

You cite three "broad" reasons the policy is misguided, which I read to be 1) inconvenience caused by incorrect removal of accounts, 2) a lack of seriousness regarding the policy, and 3) real names are functionally unnecessary for the internet to work.

Your first two reasons seem to defeat each other. If Facebook enforced its policy more seriously, more people would likely have their accounts incorrectly removed. On the other hand, more conservative enforcement seems to undermine the seriousness of the policy. Regarding reason #3- while telnet certainly doesn't need your real name to function properly, your ISP likely does for either legal or collections purposes.

When you're talking about the broad reasons why the policy is flawed, honing in on Shabaab Kamal or the sincerity of Facebook's is the wrong approach to take. The real problems with the policy are that 1) its unworkable, and 2) its an usurpation of control.

Its unworkable because there is no such thing as a standard name. Single-letter names are legitimate, as are painfully long ancestral names, and those with punction embedded (e.g. Alabama's linebacker Dont'a Hightower). There's no requirement for uniqueness. Or character set. Names change. Legal aliases are considered "real." The upshot is that the lack of good criteria renders the idea of a "real" name impractically vague.

Philosophically, control is the larger and more interesting issue. Facebook's policy presumes you've got a "real name," which is something outside of your control. If all your Facebook posts simply expose that name, good behavior and accountability are sure to follow, making social friction a thing of the past.

Pardon the straw man argument, but common experience shows why this is just silly. Ignorance and immaturity prove that identification alone does not yield accountability. But that's not my real point.

Your name and your identity is largely under your control, not the government's, not your family's, and certainly not Facebook's. Want to have multiple personas? Go for it. Think that's just the crazy talk of a 14y/o flamebaiter? Ask a doctor or a lawyer if they use a different persona when dealing with a client versus their family.

The way you present yourself is a choice you have substantial control over; The name you go by is one of those choices (American law actually supports this position). An unworkable corporate policy that undermines that control is doomed to failure. When you're talking broader reasons, talk about broader reasons.

Unfortunately, I'll never get back the time I just wasted RTFA. Rob Pegoraro's "analysis" is a little shallow for a 5th grader, but inexcusable for Georgetown-educated married man, or a "journalist" with over 10 years at the Washington Post. A decent programmer would see the criterion problem right off the bat, but someone with a degree in International Relations ought to recognize there's no international consensus on how parents name their children. Characterizing the task of finding "obviously fake" names among 100's of millions as "trivial" illustrates both ignorance and a lack of reflection. So what exactly is someone's "real" name? The law in the U.S. punts on that question, recognizing any name by which an individual is known in his community (*unless* your the artist "formerly known as Prince"). Its really a beautiful rule if you think about it, leaving a man to be the master of his own identity. Ahh...apathy is outweighing my interest in finishing this post.