For instance, quoting from the recent post on list of lethalities:

restricting yourself to doing X will not prevent Facebook AI Research from destroying the world six months later

Compare this to:

restricting yourself to doing X will not prevent another AI lab from destroying the world six months later

One problem with your suggested reformulation is that they do not mean the same thing. Naming FAIR conveys information above and beyond 'another AI lab', which additional information would be hard to sum up, much less put into an equally short phrase: there's reasons it's 'FAIR' which is used in that sentence about catch-up competitors & unilateralist curse, and why various other AI lab names which one might think could be dropped in like 'DeepMind' or 'Sberbank' or 'MILA' or 'BAIR' or 'OpenAI' or 'Nvidia' or 'MSR' would all be wrong in various ways*, but it's hard to even explain. Similarly, there are things like the Google Brain vs DeepMind rivalry which affect how scaling research has been playing out, for the worse, and are relevant to safety, but it would be absurd to try to talk about it in a generic sense or use pseudonyms.

(To try to explain anyway: basically, they're kind of a perpetual second-mover second-best player with a bit of a chip on their shoulder from poaching and scooping - consider Darkforest - with little commitment to AI safety either in the real AI risk sense or AI bias sense and mostly in denial that there is any problem (eg. LeCun: "There is no such thing as Artificial General Intelligence because there is no such thing as General Intelligence."), and get looked down on for being part of Facebook with overly-applied focus, seen as the most ethically-compromised and amoral part of FANG eager to ship tech because of Zuckerberg's conviction that more tech & transparency is always better (at least as long as it increases FB growth), and a historical backstory where FB struggled to hire DL people to begin with despite Zuckerberg strongly believing in DL potential from almost AlexNet, being spurned by the likes of Hassabis, settling for LeCun/Pesenti/etc, because despite access to huge resources & data & industrial application FB/Zuckerberg were already widely hated. This description takes up a whole paragraph, and you probably still don't know a good chunk of what I'm referring to with Darkforest or Zuckerberg NIPS shopping, and if you disagreed, asking why this doesn't characterize OA or GB or Baidu equally well, that would be another set of paragraphs, and so on. But if you already know this, as you should if you are going to discuss these things, then use of 'FAIR' immediately conjures the family of plausible complex-failure disaster scenarios where eg. DM or another top player succeeds in not-instantly-failed AGI, it gets controlled by the DM safety board overruling any commercial pressures, only to trigger Zuck into ordering a replication effort to leapfrog the over-cautious 'dumb fucks' at DM, about which there is zero internal mechanism or oversight to oppose the CEO/controlling shareholder himself nor anyone who cares, which succeeds because the mere fact of AGI success will tend to indicate what the solution is, but then fails.)

* This is one reason I invested so much effort in link-icons on gwern.net, incidentally. Research papers are not published in isolation, and there are lots of 'flavors' and long-standing projects and interests. Much like an expert in a field can often predict who wrote a paper despite blinding (ex ungue leonem), you can often tell which lab wrote a paper even with all affiliation information scrubbed, because they bring with them so much infrastructure, approaches, preferences, and interests. I can predict a remarkable amount of, say, the Gato paper simply from following Decision Transformer research + the title + 'DeepMind' rather than 'Google' or 'OpenAI' or 'BAIR'. (For a natural experiment demonstrating lab flavor, simply compare Gato to its fraternal twin paper, GB's Multi-Game Transformer.) So I find it very useful to have a super-quick icon denoting a Facebook vs OpenAI vs DM vs Nvidia etc paper. You the ordinary reader may not find such annotations that useful, yet, but you will if you git gud.

I think it's good that someone is bringing this up. I think as a community we want to be deliberate and thoughtful with this class of things.

That being said, my read is that the main failure mode with advocacy at the moment isn't "capabilities researchers are having emotional responses to being called out which is making it hard for them to engage seriously with x-risk."
It's "they literally have no idea that anyone thinks what they are doing is bad."

Consider FAIR trying their hardest to open-source capabilities work with OPT. The tone and content of the responses shows overwhelming support for doing something that is, in my worldview, really, really bad.

I would feel much better if these people at least glanced their eyeballs over arguments for not open-source capabilities. Using the names of specific labs surely makes it more likely that the relevant writing ends up in front of them?

Facebook AI labs: I wonder what people are saying about us on the internet? Hopefully nothing, obviously. But lets look, because we can.

Facebook AI Labs: *inundated with randomly ordered yudkowsky paragraphs with no context whatsoever*

Facebook AI Labs: Well, at least the problem is contained to a single set of internet forums, and it looks crazy to us, but stranger things have spread to tens of millions of people. We'd better go ask someone if they think these people should be taken care of.

Alternatively:

Facebook AI labs: Wait, these are actuals NGOs? And they're saying bad things about AI and Facebook AI Labs? Well, that's clearly a problem to bring to management.

This seems like a case of making a rule to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Are people harassing individual AI labs or researchers? The tendency for reasonable people who are worried about AI safety should be to not do so, since it predictably won't help the cause and can hurt. So far there does not seem to be any such problem of harassment discernible from background noise.

Naming individual labs and / or researchers is interesting, useful, and keeps things "real." 

Less antagonist.

Should be "less antagonistic", unless you're talking about the bad guy in a story.