There's an interesting post on ZDnet today about whether social networks should demand users sign up using their real name or whether an alias is acceptable.  The article is a response to suggestions that users could be forced by law to sign up to social networks using their real name, a measure that is both inpractical to track and akin to using a hammer to smash a nut.

Is it really a problem on social networks in the first place?  Obviously it is in their best interest to have as much information about users as possible, including of course their real name.  The more information they have the better they can sell targeted advertising to companies.  That's the commercial reality of the situation regardless of any ethical concerns.

This is in stark contrast to the earlier generation of 'social networks' that consisted of newsgroups, discussion forums and blogs.  On these tools by far the standard is to post using a username that provides a degree of anonymity to your postings.  The clear implication of this is that you can be a bit looser with what you post online, be that for good or ill.  As any forum owner will tell you however, monetising a discussion forum is incredibly difficult, and a big part of that is the lack of good data on the community.

Is it as simplistic as saying that Facebook et al have crossed the chasm to become a viable business as opposed to an interesting hobby site because they have managed to monetise their userbase?  The vast majority of discussion forums are pure hobby efforts, or they are bolt ons to a business that makes money from other things.

It's an interesting discussion though.  If you run an online community, do you want real names or do you permit pseudonyms?