You do not have to look far as to why one might want to remain anonymous. I submit The Federalist Papers[0] as exhibit A. If the Founding Fathers deemed it necessary to publish under a pseudonym then who are the likes of Facebook and Google to say otherwise? Yes, you may say that FB and Google are private entities and as such we must play by their rules. But I would retort that FB and Google are the default market places of the day for connecting with people and spreading ones ideas. I submit they have an obligation to maintain anonymity for those that choose to remain anonymous. The Federalist Papers were not self published. They were published by The Independent Journal[1], a journal of the day. That journal saw fit to publish those works anonymously under a pseudonym.
Anonymous publication must remain a viable avenue in the digital future if we are to maintain our character as a free nation. There can be no two ways about it.
>But I would retort that FB and Google are the default market places for connecting with people and spreading ones ideas.
"Default marketplace" != only marketplace. Was The Independent Journal, which published the Federalist Papers, the largest publication around at the time? Did it matter, as long as the Federalist Papers got published somewhere?
It's often not said enough, but the goal of Facebook during its history has always been to connect <i>real</i> people -- places like Twitter offer the opportunity to create humorous pseudonyms and fake identities, but Facebook (and Google+ for that matter) are about connecting people and fleshing out those connections.
A point that's overlooked: MySpace allowed pseudonyms to run free and wild, but that's what made the connections on the site all-the-more shallow.
Anonymous publication must remain a viable avenue in the digital future if we are to maintain our character as a free nation. There can be no two ways about it.
[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent_Journal