Totally agree with your sarcastic comment, but you shouldn't fall into the fallacy of condemning his ideas just because he doesn't follow through with them. let's answer critically.

Do we a have such a right? Some comments in this thread answered it already.

Does anonymity do more harm? How did they measure that? What are the metrics and the data. Or what is the hunch leading them to this conclusion?

>Does anonymity do more harm? How did they measure that? What are the metrics and the data

Not everything has to be a metrics based, data collected thing, but if you insist. Lets do a thought experiment.

I'm an individual with a radical hot take on something I want to exercise it in the market place of ideas... But then you've got that thing that led to Larry getting his face pulped by those guys last week...

Lets do a count.

Larry had a hot take last week: Larry exercised it. +1 Beaten to a pulp. -1 It got out there, the the marketplace was enriched, Larry's face wasn't. As a person with a brain, and knowing I have my name attached to my hot take, I am not at all incentivized to contribute to the marketplace of ideas. -1

If it was a really disgusting hot take, then I just go on with that hidden and never have it challenged or the edges filed off. Incalculable loss +1-1-1=-1 in the short term. Long term losses are incalculable.

Throw anonymity into the mix. Anon X has this hot take.+1 Nother Anon responds: That's daft and here's why... +1 Nother Anon pulls an ad hominem adding nothing to the conversation +0 Another Anon goes "Hey, I see your hot take, but what if..." +1

Up to +3 already.

Now you have a plurality of viewpoints coming together in a mixing pot, some good, some bad, lots of garbage, but dome diamonds in the rough as well. And no one gets their face pulped!

And even in the case of garbage getting challenged, you can't fight disinfo, or horrid viewpoints without challenging them. They'll never get challenged if no one is willing to air that crap. Every now and again, someone comes around from an absolutely terrible way of looking at things. All it takes is time.

All things being equal, take the route of least perverse incentive. Anonymity wins just about everytime.

People underestimate the value of knowing the level of horrible people one is surrounded by. Seriously.

> Not everything has to be a metrics based, data collected thing

Very true, that's why my very next sentence prompted for a hunch, or some sort of reasoning.

Nevertheless, when data are absent, you need theories, and then you try to apply those theories to reallity, see if they actually apply, fix wrong aspects of the theory and reitterate.

Here is my theory:

Anonymity is vital in a society where different classes of people have conflicting vital interests, such as our society. It is a tool to allow you to criticise without being beaten for it.

Backing this up with a thought: Would you beat up a guy who went out publicly and said "We should all plant red roses, red roses are the best!" when you fancy yellow roses? No, noone gives an F for that. People care when these opinions affect their lives and well being, and crucially, they care when they have something to lose from what the other person proposes. That is the true incentive to retaliate. That's where the "conflicting interests" condition is coming from in the theory I proposed.

Now, did we not have conflicting interests, anonymity should still be nice to have, but not as important, because you wouldn't have people hunting your head for lack of it.