My question is Why are we trying to emulate real life on the web? Yes, anonymous comments have no personal touch. But how about meeting up for a beer for some real conversations as opposed to writing on each other's wall ?
I didn't see any name badges in Tahrir Square.
Similarly, if I hear someone shout something that interests me, I can begin a conversation with them which may lead to getting details of their identity, unless they're actively concealing those details. Or follow them home, and so forth, as you start moving to less and less ethical options.
Attaching real names to statements online does make the process ridiculously easy, though, and it would probably be useful if social networks had a "do not expose my identity (in comments, etc.) to people who are not already my friends (or friends of friends)." That seems (to me, at least) to be rather more similar to how the real world works.
You'll even get all sorts of different angles, lighting conditions, age variations, and just about anything else you might want.
I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but there's something about it that makes me at least a little uneasy.
The author's real point is that argument made by google and facebook ("there's nothing wrong with more-or-less eliminating anonymity online for the same reasons that we do just fine in meatspace without much anonymity") doesn't go through, because of the differing levels of permanence between digital and real-life interactions. Therefore, if you want to argue one side or the other, you have to do it with those differences in mind.