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 "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.