Making people use their real identities in discussion groups prevents 'Trolls' from posting nonsense or content designed simply to anger other users. So putting an end to anonymity and pseudonyms would seem to be a good thing. But I've got mixed feelings about the new role of Facebook as a major provider of discussion host for online firms.

Outsourcing the handling of comments in this way obliges users to log into Facebook, which hosts the posts. (Though users can also use AOL, Yahoo! and other accounts if they prefer). Since the new service was introduced at the start of March, almost 20,000 websites have started to use it. Early results suggest the volume of comments goes down significantly, but the quality goes up.

That's no bad thing, but it also means the websites are losing control of their communities and Facebook (already described by the satirical website The Onion as a "massive online survillance program run by the CIA") gaining even more of an insight into the lives and thoughts of its 500m+ members.

Is it better to allow anonymity and pseudonyms amongst social media participants? Or if the answer to that is 'no', then is it better for businesses to keep control 'in-house', rather than outsourcing to Facebook?