Political polarization toned down through anonymous online chats

> And the Ars moderators can confirm that anonymity, while central to the one-on-one results, doesn't really make much of a difference in the free-for-all of mass discussions.

I disagree here. There is a large purpose to it. One obvious mechanism why people change opinions is peer pressure. This valve is more or less removed with anonymity and people are more honest. There are additional requirements, but that is one of the main effects and I believe that we have a lot of problems with peer pressure and its effects are impacting the news too.

> The issues under discussion here are also notable because they involve policy choices.

A single study justifying policy choices is probably always bad science created to support the policy in the first place. Perhaps to make it more digestible for a certain audience.

> The striking thing is that most of the change came from Republican participants

Why is that striking? It can only be striking if the author has previous assumptions. Which one would that be? I would have some ideas why that is to be expected on online platforms in particular.