Abuse of power? What power? You don't have to use Google+ or Facebook. They're convenient, sure, but you'll do just fine without them.
They only have as much power over you as you think they do.
They only have as much power over you as you think they do.
You get a lot of jobs and other opportunities through social networks. Additionally, it is widely shown (and known) that non white named people are discriminated against widely when hiring.
Precluding someone from using a name they go by that's not their given name is literally hurting the careers and lives of many people. If Fardool Zarkari wants to go by Frank Zach, that's something that he should be able to do.
The idea that white men of usual middle class or higher background know that they're right when mandating real identities is an exercise in hubris, inadvertent exclusion, accessory to domestic abuse, and accessory to discrimination.
I get this makes your job harder with respect to making people not be tools. Doesn't mean you shouldn't still accommodate it.
It's not difficult to change your legal name. My ancestor had a foreign-sounding surname which got Anglicized upon arrival to America. If that's all it took to make his descendants (including me) "privileged", getting your name changed seems like a no brainer!
2> It's incredibly parent based (i.e. the people who gave you the sometimes crippling name) while you're under 18. By that time, you've been on social networks for years as the "bad" name. You then have to convince everyone to not call you by the old name. As a person who has been plagued by a nickname to my first name that my parents like, that I do not nor have ever used, I can attest changing what people call you is really hard. About 10% of people still call me the nickname, which forwards the nickname to contexts they see me in.
3> I'd like to quote you the state of Washinton's feelings on the common law precedent for name changes:
>Common Law Name Change: Common law name change results by simply using the new name consistently and exclusively for all purposes. This is legal because a person has a common law right to use any name he or she chooses. No legal proceedings or attorneys fees are involved in this type of name change. The common law method has disadvantages because many governmental institutions may require documentation proving that a valid name change has been made. Since you have not gone to court and acquired a court order for your name change, you will need some other document to satisfy this requirement.
I find the complications of #2 above yet the rights implied by #3 mean if a person signs an affidavit that their name is X the social networking site should get the hell over itself and let them be named X on the site, whether they have completed the name change yet or not.
(Although we're really talking about "English" sounding names here, since Polish people are hardly "nonwhite".)
2> Parents have a lot of control over our lives - sad but true. For example someone with crazy cult-following parents is more likely to end up in a crazy cult. Or for a more mundane example, someone with rich parents is less likely to be saddled with student loans. (The European approach to this inequality is to make education free, but try do that in the USA!)
I don't think you're forced to use a nickname that isn't your legal name though.
3> Sure, a signed affidavit should be just as valid as a court order - I can't imagine a social networking site would actually bother to check either. The numbers are just too big.
Non-European names are shown to face continual discrimination (unconsciously or no).
Yes, you can change your name by a mere notification to everyone that you have, but it pisses off your family, and is pretty hard to do if you're under 18, which is when people join social networks.
She's today's critic and tomorrow's cheerleader wrapped in the guise of unaccountable academia, whose success rises and falls with the whims of those who manipulate her data for their own purposes, to include herself.
Truth be told, social networks have existed since the beginning of time, mostly in the meatspace, but also many in print or via other methods of communication. Some of those networks required their membership to provide bona fides while others went to the other extreme and forbade any form of real identification. A person could then choose which network to associated with, or not, depending on their personal preferences and the same could be argued for the network facilitators.
There will always be a contrarian reaction to any established rules, so while some social networks will only allow you to participate using your true credentials, others will be present to allow just the opposite, just like Hacker News.
The clearcut assumption that those who express this particular ideal are immature and inexperienced is ridiculous.
Having to use your own name while negotiating the tricky waters of social relationships is not abuse, it's the first-world problem of a petulant, spoiled child.