In terms of identity, we don't just have to look at the modern 21st century to see that singular identity is too narrow. How many great historical authors and

In terms of identity, we don't just have to look at the modern 21st century to see that singular identity is too narrow. How many great historical authors and politicians wrote under pseudonyms? The Supreme Court recognized this in 1995 when Justice Stevens wrote "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular." That said, the author is either intentionally misleading or hopelessly naive. The vast majority of big-money startups (venture funded and making a lot of noise, the kind we hear about) are only interested in money, and the fastest way to make a lot of money is to get people with extra money to spend it on your product or service. Business isn't charity. And as for Zuck, I'm confident he doesn't believe his "lack of integrity" line about identities. That's just a soundbite. What's almost certainly really in Zuck's head: "Having two identities for yourself is an example of decreasing your value to advertisers, our actual customers."