I somewhat agree, but suggesting anyone who prefers to be anonymous lacks integrity is pretty insulting. A lack of integrity is certainly a motivation for secrecy, but to generalize from that is a fallacy and makes Zuckerberg look foolish:
All criminals crave anonymity
Socrates craves anonymity
Therefore Socrates is a criminal
I think the point Zuckerberg is attempting to make is that in an ideal society, Socrates would have nothing to fear and thus no reason to crave anonymity. But fear is only one among several legitimate reasons to speak without identity.
One might wish others to evaluate facts or arguments on their own merits, rather than by the reputation of the speaker - this is one reason the Economist newspaper does not print the names of its writers. One might wish to get frank opinions uncolored by social norms - hence the many stories about gods and monarchs who disguise themselves to learn what people really think of them. One might wish the simple freedom to be wrong when exploring a new concept.
Zuckerberg has fallen into a common pitfall of the well intentioned (and one I've spent time in myself) which we might call a militant consequentialism. His conception of Facebook is essentially a 21st century version of Bentham's panopticon. It's not so much that the idea is inherently bad or unworkable, as that for it to work everyone has to adopt the same ethical standard as the person advocating the idea. It might well be a better world if we all had the same ethical standards as Zuckerberg currently happens to hold - no joke or sarcasm intended. The problem is that if your vision of a better world depends on everyone adopting a new pattern of behavior before the rewards appear, then it won't happen. It's like communism; it might actually be a great system if everyone were honest and unselfish, and once we could see the benefits people would want to empower each other as fully as possible because of the potential gains. But in reality everyone is inclined to hedge their bets, and attempts to implement communism across whole societies quickly end up in failure or repression.
Consequentialism itself has its place; without it, leadership or personal morality aren't possible, and one is just an obedient automaton, mindlessly enforcing some religious or legal or social code. On the other hand, the reason codes exist in the first place is because we tend to have extremely limited foresight in most regards, perhaps especially in ethical matters. If the people who don't share your consequentialist vision can only be brought into compliance by inflexible rules, then you tend to end up with a nonlinear feedback system. These tend to lurch to abrupt extremes, or else display periodic or chaotic behavior.
tl;dr attempts to legislate morality fail, usually ignominiously.
All criminals crave anonymity Socrates craves anonymity Therefore Socrates is a criminal
I think the point Zuckerberg is attempting to make is that in an ideal society, Socrates would have nothing to fear and thus no reason to crave anonymity. But fear is only one among several legitimate reasons to speak without identity.
One might wish others to evaluate facts or arguments on their own merits, rather than by the reputation of the speaker - this is one reason the Economist newspaper does not print the names of its writers. One might wish to get frank opinions uncolored by social norms - hence the many stories about gods and monarchs who disguise themselves to learn what people really think of them. One might wish the simple freedom to be wrong when exploring a new concept.
Zuckerberg has fallen into a common pitfall of the well intentioned (and one I've spent time in myself) which we might call a militant consequentialism. His conception of Facebook is essentially a 21st century version of Bentham's panopticon. It's not so much that the idea is inherently bad or unworkable, as that for it to work everyone has to adopt the same ethical standard as the person advocating the idea. It might well be a better world if we all had the same ethical standards as Zuckerberg currently happens to hold - no joke or sarcasm intended. The problem is that if your vision of a better world depends on everyone adopting a new pattern of behavior before the rewards appear, then it won't happen. It's like communism; it might actually be a great system if everyone were honest and unselfish, and once we could see the benefits people would want to empower each other as fully as possible because of the potential gains. But in reality everyone is inclined to hedge their bets, and attempts to implement communism across whole societies quickly end up in failure or repression.
Consequentialism itself has its place; without it, leadership or personal morality aren't possible, and one is just an obedient automaton, mindlessly enforcing some religious or legal or social code. On the other hand, the reason codes exist in the first place is because we tend to have extremely limited foresight in most regards, perhaps especially in ethical matters. If the people who don't share your consequentialist vision can only be brought into compliance by inflexible rules, then you tend to end up with a nonlinear feedback system. These tend to lurch to abrupt extremes, or else display periodic or chaotic behavior.
tl;dr attempts to legislate morality fail, usually ignominiously.