If something lists 100 arguments against a policy, it is a rhetorical fallacy to say that 99 of them don't apply and therefore the entire list is not appropriate. Even if only one argument is relevant, it's still an argument against the policy. Some of the reasons listed at that link include examples of why it "would it be advantageous to be pseudonymous on a social network that's for talking to people you actually know in the real world."
Here's one: "Survivors of domestic abuse (most often women and children) who need to not be found by their abusers."
If someone leaves an abusive relationship, moves to another state, severs all old ties, and perhaps even decides to use a new nickname, then why should that person be required to use a real name and therefore be easier to find? Especially if the new ties know the person better by the pseudonym than the original name? I'm not saying that that person can't be found, only that it shouldn't necessarily be easy to be found.
In any case, Facebook is more widely used than you summarized. It also has topic-oriented internet forums. I've used it to talk with people that I don't actually know in the real world. And some topic-oriented internet forums use Facebook as a commenting system.
By your logic, Facebook should therefore not have a real-name policy, no? At least, obviously not for those people who primarily use it for forum participation.
Someone who is hiding from an abusive ex would be best served by stringent privacy settings that make them invisible in search, etc. Unless they plan to delete and recreate their online presence every time someone accidentally reveals the connection.
I'm not saying you should be required to use your birth name, but Facebook/Google+ accounts ought to be the same as what you use in the real world. Anything else detracts from the quality of everyone else's UX. If that's not your legal name, then fine. It's still you real name, not a handle like superuser2 or dalke.
A good solution would be for Facebook to support pseudonyms for web comments and forum functionality, but display real names to your friends. Real names also make sense on Google+, but I don't support Google's actions wrt YouTube.
It's possible to be invisible in Facebook search? I had no idea. Do you think most do?
I emphasized the difference between "cannot be found" and "don't make it easy to be found." This is different than the extremist "delete and recreate their online presence every time someone accidentally reveals the connection." There's a difference between being found a year later vs being found two days later.
"Facebook/Google+ accounts ought to be the same as what you use in the real world."
Okay, then what's involved if one changes one's real world name?
One of the other points in that long list of objections to a real name policy concerns "those whose religious conversion involved taking a new name who have not legally changed their name."
If I become a Sikh and take on the real world name of Kaur Dalke Singh, how do I change my Facebook name? Do I have to get a legal name change first? Otherwise, Google+ allow accepts "proof of an established identity online with a significant following" (which assumes I have a significant following elsewhere) or "References to an established identity offline in print media, news articles, etc." (so, what, I announce something in the local paper?).
Why "ought" the modern versions of Yusuf Islam and Muhammad Ali wait for the law to acknowledge their name changes before making the change on Facebook? Why "ought" Malcom X wait upon the law before he can reject his slave name of "Little"? Would Google+ allow people to change their names for these situations? What if the local government bans me from using my new name as my official name?
Consider Blaer Bjarkardottir, a teenager in Iceland. Her given name was not allowed by the Icelandic Personal Names Register, so she has no legal name. She is referred to as 'Stulka' - 'girl' in legal documents. Ought she wait until the Icelandic government either allows her her name, or forces her to accept a new name, before she's allowed to use Facebook/Google+?
You said (of using a pseudonym) that "all it does is lower the quality of everyone else's interaction with Facebook by causing confusion, and give those people a false sense of security that their unsecured profiles will never be associated with them." Malcom X's reason for choosing a new name had nothing to do with the reason you assume is why people want to use a pseudonym. Malcom X was well known. If I had the same epiphany, and decide to no longer use my operating system name of 'dalke' but instead go by X ... would Google+ accept it? Or reject it because I'm not famous enough?
Look, you're right. Anonymity and even pseudonymity is part of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. But to say that no one is harmed by requiring a real name policy is to be oblivious to the real-world issues concerning what a "real name" actually is.
Here's one: "Survivors of domestic abuse (most often women and children) who need to not be found by their abusers."
If someone leaves an abusive relationship, moves to another state, severs all old ties, and perhaps even decides to use a new nickname, then why should that person be required to use a real name and therefore be easier to find? Especially if the new ties know the person better by the pseudonym than the original name? I'm not saying that that person can't be found, only that it shouldn't necessarily be easy to be found.
In any case, Facebook is more widely used than you summarized. It also has topic-oriented internet forums. I've used it to talk with people that I don't actually know in the real world. And some topic-oriented internet forums use Facebook as a commenting system.
By your logic, Facebook should therefore not have a real-name policy, no? At least, obviously not for those people who primarily use it for forum participation.