I've been thinking what sounds wrong to me, in your original post metaphor. (apart from the consequences discussed here and elsewhere). I think that it's the reasoning behind their requirement, that "any restaurant requires fancy clothes, otherwise you're suspicious, clearly you're [insert here malicious intent]".
No, it's not any restaurant. It's a choice that each restaurant makes. They're free to make it, however be honest about it. If I don't wear a tie, don't let me in, it's your choice to make, but please don't tell me I'm clearly not there for eating or meeting with people. That's not about ties, you know.
If I understand correctly the history of online social networks (please correct me if wrong, I have never spent enough time with one to be sure), someone said at a point "this is what socialization is all about: your real person interacting online". Understood as: your full name and traceability to your ID papers.
This definition of "socialization" is incorrect. Even in "real life", there are many people in particular times of their lives, that are known by their first name or nickname, by a wider percentage of their acquaintances, not by full names. Take a teenager/young person - speaking for myself, I know for sure that during my youth, in the times when I was "socializing" (there was also years when I was a hermit), I went out and met a lot of people my age and we knew each other by first names or nicknames. Not because last name was any "secret", but it wasn't relevant for just about anyone.
Was that less of a "socialization"? Allow me to doubt it.
At that time of their lives, the more people "socialize", the higher the percentage of their acquaintances known by their first names or nicknames even, is. (way higher than their family and close friends)
(yes, as one gets into adulthood, they may introduce themselves more often with full name than first name, but that doesn't change the above)