And real names have some advantages (e.g. much harder time for trolls); sure, they have disadvantages as well...
...but I don't like the idea of a country saying about features a certain product needs to have (or even - thinking that they can say, because AFAIK in the current state Germany can make usage of FB illegal for their citizens, as it is no located in Germany).
Facebook is used as the exclusive sign-on system for various services besides Facebook itself. For instance, Spotify uses it, and last I checked it is not possible to use Spotify at all without using Facebook.
If Facebook continues to grow, the consequences of not using Facebook could be more severe than at present. It's a classic example of network effects.
Once something becomes a necessity, such as telephone or internet, I think you have a strong case to say that even though using it is technically voluntary, the price of not using it is so high that most people have no choice.
Is Facebook at that level of necessity today? Not for me, but maybe it is for some people.
For example, Spotify should not exclusively rely on Facebook, as a non-anonymous access provider.
EDIT: People assuming that I'm against all kinds of such regulations: cut that out, I never claimed that.
That might be a moral problem for libertarians. But there are lots of (not only German) laws along these lines.
Not participating in a transaction is a personal issue, which doesn't need justification. Not letting others participate in it should need to be very well justified, at least in a State that is supposed to be democratic and just.
Personally, and in this particular case, I find the justification lacking.
The law is there to protect individual citizens against the ruthless exploitation by major corporations like Facebook.
Especially when those corporations hold the key to either social isolation or abandoning your civil rights. The laws are there to prevent companies from abusing their power from effectively undermining individual people's rights and freedoms.
Anonymous idiots spouting off, oh my...
Company proceeds to only hire men, despite women with similar or better qualifications applying. Company then sued for obvious gender discrimination, illegal in the US.
I'm not in favor of Germany on this one but sometimes the law/government should interfere to ensure people freedom. Just because it's a private company doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with our data even if we were the ones providing the data.
Some of my personal experience says that (usually, not always) people under names don't troll that much.
Of course, the situation is different for small communities, or skill-driven communities, but (usually) not for open ones. (E.g. on HN anonymity works well.)
I don't say that I agree with FB's rules (personally I prefer "real names encouraged, but not required" policy on such "for everyone" sites). I'm just saying that there are pros and cons, both for FB and for its users.
That's what the German government is saying. They're not outlawing the use of real names.
Alternatively, "you want to do business in our country, you must follow our rules".
Not that I agree.
However, for me there is a strong difference whether a monopoly chances rules (or as time goes by, the world changes - see move/music distributors) or people accepted it before it was a monopoly.
E.g. imagine that Germany say that HN needs to have pictures or, at very least, thumbnails. ;)
This is a weak slippery slope argument. Germany is not making arbitrary requests on web sites. Rather it is protecting the right of its citizens to anonymity, according to pre-existing laws.
How about if Facebook required users to submit a form detailing all sources and amounts of income for the previous year? Strictly confidential, of course.
Germany would certainly have a double standard barring those practices, but they should.
Facebook have an office in Germany.
Here's some job postings: https://www.facebook.com/careers/locations/hamburg and their Facebook page for the office https://www.facebook.com/FacebookHamburg