They're just changing the enforcement mechanisms. So while the changes seem positive (Lil Miss Hot Mess says some good things about them), they're just around the edges, not getting rid of the actual harmful policy.
Even without a person's "authentic" name, Facebook has so much information that most people willingly part with that it could still sell a lot of well targeted ads.
It seems like there's something else sinister that has not been revealed all this while as to why Facebook continues to "stand by" this names policy. Or the people making the decisions are incompetent to understand and uncaring to do something positive. Or both.
I see it as a smart product decision where the benefits outweigh the concerns of a vocal minority that project having to use your real name as this ludicrous sin, while at the same time saying that if you don't like a product you can just NOT use it.
Why? I actually enjoy using FB infinitely more than Twitter/Myspace (years ago) because I see it as a network of people - not company profiles or shit like that. While they might layer on things like company pages or video content or other shit, the fundamental foundation of their product is the social graph, with people centered as the nodes. I don't give a shit about your screen name, and I don't want to have to try to remember it.
Regardless if you agree/disagree, brand image does matter in the real world, and I think Facebook product folks know this.
And it's nice that you see it as a network of people (with company pages all over the place, but whatevs), but as has been pointed out over and over and over and over, some people can't use their actual names. Maybe they're not out, maybe they have stalkers, maybe they're stuck in a country where they face violence for their political choices (hell, maybe they're muslim in America.)
Being able to not give a shit about real names means you're one of the people privileged enough and from the right background such that you don't have people trying to hurt you for being yourself.
[1] https://www.facebook.com/chris.cox/posts/10101301777354543
Things like checking what name most people call you on your birthday seem quite reasonable though.
Not reasonable once you realize there are people who have well-used nicknames they might not want to go by on facebook, and just regular old ineffective if they have their birthday hidden in their profile.
Facebook has made a deliberately choice to be a social network for digitally mirroring your real life friendships, not establishing an independent "online" identity.
If you don't like that, don't use Facebook.
For me, the fact that Facebook is filled with my real friends, using their real identities, is essential to its utility.
If the response is "no popular social network I want to use allows me to use a pseudonym to my liking," I again refer to one of my original points that there's probably a reason why it doesn't last, and why networks that try to allow it like Ello eventually don't grow/survive -- people put trust in a social network that feels like a network of real people.
If you want citation for the last point, I'd point to the fast success of NextDoor, but I concede it's mostly a hypothesis, as I don't regularly use that product and haven't seen it since the beta.
I would also suggest so few social networks succeed that it's nearly impossible to draw conclusions about them. As a counterpoint, tumblr is within an order of magnitude of the size of fb and they allow complete anonymity.
I wouldn't want to drown or be electrocuted.
This doesn't require a hypothesis that water or electricity are "evil", it just requires an understanding that sometimes you don't want to suffer harm from something that otherwise might be a good thing.
And, as you say, brand image does matter. That's why doubling down on a policy that leads to outing victims of violence, telling first nations people they don't have "real names", making it so you can't find anyone who has built their career under a stage or pen name, etc. wouldn't be the best move.
Additionally, pretty much everyone I interact with knows me by my "fake" name. Forcing me to switch to that would result in a lot of friends not being able to find me. Yes, if you grew up in a "typical" family you don't have these issues, but there are a lot of people who have damn good reason for not wanting to have another outlet for people to continue abusing us.
I had been good friends with someone for about three years before discovering his real surname when I booked flights for a group. I doubt more than two or three of the people he spends time with most weekend know this; I've not told anyone.
(On the other hand, I shared a hotel room with someone I was sure used a fake surname, since it sounded ridiculous, but it was on his driving license.)
It sounds like most of your friends know you by your "fake" name. That should absolutely be the name you're allowed to use on Facebook and I think their policy supports that. (In fact, this announcement is allowing for alternative forms of "proof" like what people wish you happy birthday with.)
While they haven't done the best job of finding ways of enforcing it in the past, Facebook has frequently stated that they want your offline and online names to be the same (not that you must go by your legal name).
Ok, we changed the title to say that.