I wasn't implying that it was one or the other, just that they need to rethink the way they're doing it.
If they're going to insist on using G+, then at least make the site useable.
I guess I'm just not getting the thought process... if that's what anyone wants to call it. Seems to me that it was not well thought out at all. I won't pretend that I know the answer... but it seems to me that what they really ought to do is actually *fix* the comments, let people log in using whatever ID they want, and let G+ stand (or fail) on its own.
Makes you wonder what the real purpose here is. Would Google be willing to alienate so many people for the requirement that "real names" are used? Why? What (or who) is really behind that?
Choices like this kill small businesses. Just because Google is big, they get away with it? A bit like Microsoft, right? They choose to follow their own rules, ignoring standards wherever they want, because they can... just had a customer that wound up receiving appointments as plain email because Exchange had their addresses cached and thought they were Outlook clients. (They weren't.) The fix was to delete the addresses from the Exchange server and re-send the appointments fresh so that they went out in iCal format instead.
I don't know.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. It would be more interesting to really understand the thought process.