Their Transparency vs. Anonymity infographic provides the following two rationales:
For Transparency, Mark Zuckerberg says:
You have one identity... Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.For Anonymity, Moot says:
The cost of failure is really high when you're contributing as yourself.What the...? No. Here, let me contradict the statements of experts and billion-dollar company founders with anecdotes from a nobody.
I fall solidly into the Transparency camp. The only reason I don't come up on the front page when you search for me on Google is because another David Blume used SEO practices.
But don't lump me in with Mark Zuckerberg. I have dozens of identities. I'm a coder, a rock climber, a father, a husband, a son, a video game player, a web surfer, a comic book reader, an artist, an employee, etc. Online, each of those facets of my life belong to different domains. There's no reason those online identities need to be the same one. Some of them are, but only because I want to be discoverable. I've chosen that my username from some domains is the same at some others.
OK. So Moot says anonymity is useful because "the cost of failure is really high when you're contributing as yourself." What the what? That's like the least important reason to be anonymous. Let's look at where the content creators are: Mobile phone apps, youtube, deviantart, flickr, nanowrimo, etsy, the internet. I really don't think their big concern is that one of their apps or illustrations being unpopular is going to hurt their real-life identity.
But, I haven't allowed my children to choose transparency yet. They don't know the costs, and their online skin isn't thick yet. Their online gaming IDs are anonymous, and that's mostly because of John Gabriel's Greater Internet Dickwad Theory.