People love to bring up 4chan as an example to this discussion every time, and yet there is no one on 4chan who has not freely chosen to be there.
All this "know who you are talking to in order to have a friendly community" stuff is nonsense. We know why Google and Facebook and the Obama administration want this. Control and tracking. End of story.
It's not about what 4chan does to its members—I couldn't give less of a fuck. It's about what they do to the rest of society. Things like Anonymous and LulzSec, which end up on the NYTimes frontpage, are is a direct result of places like 4chan.
Additionally, as a member of the Google+ community, I'm glad to see Google cares for its quality.
Things like Anonymous and LulzSec, which end up on the NYTimes frontpage, are is a direct result of places like 4chan.
I must disagree with this statement. If you believe that anonymous boards like 4chan provide a gathering place for the already antisocial, getting rid of 4chan doesn't get rid of the antisocial. They'll find some other way to gather and/or express their frustrations with society. I'd argue that it's possible that sites like 4chan provide an outlet for some people, preventing them from expressing their frustration "in real life."
For the record, I consider the real-name-only position you've advocated on this article to be a bit extreme (I believe I also replied to another of your comments). Feel free to desire a place, web site, etc. that satisfies every one of your whims and expectations, but don't do so in a way that forces others to conform. Maybe they see value to themselves and to society in the things you personally dislike.
All this "know who you are talking to in order to have a friendly community" stuff is nonsense. We know why Google and Facebook and the Obama administration want this. Control and tracking. End of story.