Hahahahahaha, I'm sorry. This is a ridiculous take. It sounds as if you are justifying handing over your entire digital identity, which includes given someone so much information about yourself that you could be easily impersonated, is justifiable because it will cut down on online trolling? Not to mention, you are giving all of this information to a regime that regularly "disappears" people for dissenting stances, and is actually running literal concentration camps.

Nothing in the post you replied to was a justification, and in fact starts with "As privacy-invading as it is".

> As privacy invading it is, I can easily see how this would be effective means to curb bad behavior online, such as trolling or spamming—or worse.

I'm not so sure about that, reading Facebook comment threads on news articles clearly shows that a real name policy isn't really stopping people from misbehaving online.

If Facebook isn't able to make money from moderating such content, then there's no reason to think they would do it.

Might a real name policy have toned down the communication that lead to case Tenacity https://github.com/tenacityteam/tenacity/issues/99 , though?

As human rights invading as it is, I can easily see how forced sterilization would be an effective means to curb bad genetics, such as being short or fat - or worse.

I hope there are very few people with your mentality

What mentality? I did not say it would be worth the price, just that there are things to gain from it.

I did notice nobody outright challenged the actual claim (except for the Facebook comment that touched the topic).

That can already be done through paid accounts and moderation. There is zero excuse for this level of privacy invasion.