Social networks are becoming a must and you can't just choose to use whichever fits your needs. You have to use the one that everyone else uses. Many people are forced to use these sites for business reasons. Often it's even required by a job, so suggesting that people have a choice is true to a point because they could find a new job. For many people it's probably about as true as saying that you don't have to have a bank account.
They want to be able to use 'fake' names.
Edit: curious about the downvotes. Did Google Buzz prevail despite making lots of people angry?
Example at my company would be people who moderate and respond to customers using the various social networking sites on behalf of the company. On facebook they currently do this by setting up a secondary "company" facebook account separate from their personal account, and they use their first name only prefixed by the company name. This allows them an online identity, but not enough information for the customers to stalk them personally. Probably about 5% of my company's staff is forced to have a facebook profile along with various other online profiles for use within the company.
"If your boss is forcing you to get a G+ account with your real name, I think you've got bigger problems."
There's a lot of people in a company that are required to use their real identity and reputation for the company. I don't understand why this is a problem. It just depends on your job. Take for example, the PR people. They must give their real first and last name when they are interviewed.
"If this real names issue remains a big issue people just won't use Google's offering and Facebook/other will win. Let them decide it."
I guess it depends on what you mean by "big issue". I think the point of this whole campaign is that they are trying to raise awareness because for most people, your real name is fine, but for a small minority, it's very unfavorable.
Natalie Portman is not really Natalie Portman.
I still see a problem even in your PR example. Taking one of the concerns of some privacy people around, suppose you get a job in PR but you're also part of the small minority where your real name can cause problems for whatever reason(s). Maybe "you shouldn't be in PR", but I don't see why a company can't allow you to use a pseudonym instead. Of course they may want to hire someone who already has established a reputation with either their real name or their pseudonym, but if they wouldn't even give me that option I'd be concerned. I like your company's approach of "half a name", and I'd imagine if you asked "Can I make my account Company Bob instead of Company Frank [because of such and such]?" they'd let you. I don't see why a PR person being interviewed for a magazine or whatever couldn't use a pseudonym. Unless there's some law somewhere requiring a government-certified-name ("real name") be given in a journal interview for employees of big corps? I'd be surprised to see one.
I mean "big issue" in the sense of it continuously popping up on HN, Slashdot, etc. and people being outraged over it. If it's just to "raise awareness", fine, then the G+/Facebook/whatever membership that requires real names won't drop, and since doing nothing is easier than doing something nothing changes even if a PR person from Google says "we recognize the importance of hidden names." If it starts affecting their membership, they'll change or something better will come along.
We, the people, eventually decide which policies, including policies created by private companies, are socially acceptable. If the policies of powerful companies like Google or Facebook have a negative impact on society as a whole, we can decide to stop them.
We are not just consumers.
Corporations are not allowed to set policy as they see fit. Never have been, and hopefully never will be.