This is getting silly and borderline paranoid.
I think this whole pseudonym thing is an overreaction, and an unfair criticism to an incomplete project.
As for the this 'gag' stuff she offers no proof and seems like she is just conveniently picking narrative to complement her disapproval.
Well, the pseudonym thing was a valid complaint, and it is a genuine issue for some people.
Though I don't think it's an issue that deserves the sort of day-after-day-after-day-after-day-after-day-after-day nonstop coverage it's getting. It's a minor-ish problem some people have with a new product or service, though, and for some reason the tech press loves to latch onto those and make them into OMG ONLY THE BIGGEST PROBLEM EVAR (see: "antennagate").
Though even there, the difference between this and "antennagate" was that Apple shipped a finished product. Google+ is decidedly in field test beta (and did not cost $200-$600).
I agree, most people use their real names (see: Facebook), and a new service should focus on the majoring or its users first get that right then address the statistically less significant (but evidently very loud) segment.
1. When a project is incomplete is _exactly_ the time to raise a fuss about something being wrong. Acting like we should excuse Google because it's incomplete is completely missing the point.
2. The gag stuff sounds pretty well confirmed by Skud's contacts at Google, a company she was until very recently employed at and knows a lot more about the internal machinations of. Where do you work, exactly? (And by the way, why are you posting under a pseudonym?)
There are no valid reasons for this policy, and after weeks of criticism, Google ought to realize it. This would not be an "immediate fix", this would be a "month or more in coming" fix.
As for "proof", either you haven't read Skud's entire post, or you're just calling her a liar. Oddly enough, I trust her up-front statements more than your vague intimations.
You using a pseudonym has a lot to do with the present issue. The entire issue revolves around pseudonyms. You apparently have no objection to forcing people not to use pseudonyms, but use one yourself. I think that's needs to be explored if you're to have any credibility in a debate about Google's policy on pseudonyms.
You still haven't said where you work.
The headline isn't at all misleading. It is slightly vague, but the vagueness is resolved simply by clicking the link. Vague headlines are nothing new.
Of course there are valid reasons for the policy, Facebook's growth is proof enough. Real names carry more weight and I doubt it's more than a handful of self-described activists who are whining about nyms.
I'm saying that she is on a crusade and she might be interpreting things from that prospective.
I use pseudonyms where they are allowed and don't go on a crusade when they aren't.
I don't work for Google if that is what you're asking.
As for the this 'gag' stuff she offers no proof and seems like she is just conveniently picking narrative to complement her disapproval.
Just let it go already.