> it's not fair to forever judge them by the same set if historical facts Disagree. The spots on the leopard don't simply change and there's no such thing as "

> it's not fair to forever judge them by the same set if historical facts Disagree. The spots on the leopard don't simply change and there's no such thing as "anonymous" to Facebook. That's antithesis to their business. This is purely a PR play. By the way, we learned from the AOL data breach in 2006 that "anonymous" doesn't actually exist on the internet[1]. So let's not pretend Facebook is trying to do us all a great favor. 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?page... "A Face Is Exposed for AOL Searcher No. 4417749"