Why do you think they're hiding these "deeper insights," do they think we're too stupid to understand?

Hiding one's deeper insights into a market's dynamics is frequently a competitive advantage.

If these Google insights into the undesirability of anonymity are so hidden, can they even be said to exist? As the poster asserts?

Asking if a hidden insight can exist is a peculiar phrasing, but anyway, one example I can think of is some study that demonstrated people using their real names were 50% more likely to remain active users two years after registration. Or "abuse", however defined, was reduced by 40%. Whatever. The point is that if Google keeps such knowledge secret, other networks that allow anonymous users will be at a competitive disadvantage.

I have no idea what such effects may be, I only allow for the possibility they exist.

Seems like pretty thin reasoning to hang the (great-) grandparent's assertion.

What I got out of the article is "Google isn't offering a product I want." Yeah, there's an element of "this is the product I do want" involved in that. I think Google's criticized because people who are dissatisfied with Facebook hoped Google would challenge Facebooks flaws, not duplicate them.

Google may well have put all sorts of deep thought into it--but if they're just going to duplicate unliked features of a product that users merely tollerate without offering any real incremental value, why should they deserve to succeed?

This.

Thoughtful analysis is far more useful than these sensationalist rants.

Sober, thoughtful analysis doesn't get as many pageviews though.