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.