If you are a notable public figure that calls out election fraud without much to back it up you might face removal from professional organizations or other loss of opportunity but your fame will be enough to crowd fund your continued comfortable lifestyle. If you're a pleb that does the same thing, and gets caught, you'll feel the full force of the law and while some doors in life might open to you out of shared sympathy a lot more doors are going to be closed either over an opposing view point or simply not wanting to pull someone who may be volatile again into close proximity of your company. So I think if anonymity was withdrawn from the internet a lot of these small fry folks would be a lot more cautious about throwing hate speech out so casually since it could significantly impact their lives - and hateful organizations would have a harder time recruiting and growing since people would be a lot more motivated to keep a pleasant outward appearance up. I think there's a fair amount of proof in this from how much more extreme the elderly tend to get as keeping up appearances to maintain your income gets removed from consideration.
And, as mentioned above, there are a whole lot of negatives that come along with removing anonymity - again, I don't know what the right answer here is, I just see that there are obviously problems on each end.
This is empirically falsified. Look at the stuff people write on Facebook - lack of anonymity is no barrier. There are of course people who are expected to "keep up appearances", but they're a rare and self-selected bunch.
Plus, part of her hate is from her "broader work". The comic that the Proud Boy guy targeted.
Meanwhile, lots of people (especially women and minorities) in non-authoritarian countries on the Internet are being threatened, harmed, or killed (for example, by SWATting) by anonymous people in the Internet.
What arguments exist that support non-accountable anonymity online in today’s world, now that we’ve seen the outcomes of endorsing those argument three decades ago and the resulting harm to societies?
Deleted comment
I’m arguing that it makes no difference whether the admins and law enforcement are working for an authoritarian regime; either way, the regime will just as readily be able to identify its citizens, voiding the theoretical protection that Internet anonymity supposedly offers their citizens.
So, then: Setting aside the theoretical value of “protecting citizens of authoritarian regimes”, what other reasons underpin the continuing support for prioritizing anonymity over the accountability of legally-protected privacy of identity, as I propose upthread?