This amounts to saying "You should not participate in society".

Yes, everyone is free to avoid using Google/Facebook/Popular Service X/. Now, which group are you advising to avoid using Google accounts? Members of marginalized groups are often those who must keep their identities private.

Your recommendation further marginalizes them.

I don't understand that argument. If I use Facebook, it's easy to see when I log on/off to profile my usage (and possibly employment / holiday trends). If many of the people I speak to are young or gay or work in finance, doesn't that imply something about me? I am not a fan of this Google policy (it leaves me very uncomfortable) and I support the protests. But, as far as I can see, I can opt out without being marginalized. That's the bit of your argument I cAnt understand. Your argument, to me, appears to be that Google shouldn't be allowed to link you and your opinions to your real name. I'd argue "why not?" I don't use Facebook, etc for this very reason - I don't want to be profiled with the depth that Facebook allows. Am I marginalized? Not that I'm aware.

I didn't say everyone who opts out is marginalized. I said that people who are marginalized are more likely to want to be anonymous.

Google and Facebook are infrastructure. We seem to be moving towards some version of "You can't be gay on google without telling THE WHOLE WORLD you're gay". Then your options are:

  1. Tell the whole world you're gay  
  2. Don't be gay on google, pretend you're straight  
  3. Don't use Google services

The way to not marginalize minority groups is to leave in the fourth option:

  4. Be gay on google, but without being forced to reveal it to the whole world.

Some people, for example, want to post on youtube in ways that reveal their sexual preferences without linking it to their real name. For instance, maybe they are commenting on videos related to gay rights, but their parents are homophobes and they haven't revealed their sexuality to them.

A person in that situation has to choose one of options 1-3 above. Whereas I, as a white, straight, male, can post publicly about most things without fear of anyone knowing. That's how this policy effectively marginalizes already certain already marginal groups.

Edit: To make things perfectly clear, I'm suggesting that access to Google services is about as important in our society as, say, banks.

There's a lot of stuff I don't mind Google knowing about me, but I do mind being publicly connected to my real name.

Has your life ever been repeatedly threatened by a very serious internet stalker behind his own well crafted anonymity?

There are reasons for wanting a mask that are legal, ethical and mandatory. My life is of more than middlin' importance to me.

I totally fail to understand the crass blindness of those who limit their reasoning to their own bland case.

Anonymity can be used to stalk but it can also be a necessity to be able to use the internet WITHOUT being stalked for a lot of people. That's not a bland case.

I seem to have accidentally inverted my real point. Anonymity will always be possible for a dedicated stalker no matter what these jokers do to eliminate it. My concern is removing it as a straight forward option for the stalkee (which I was.) We're on the same side.