It is frustrating, to have this argument, when the current state of the art to mould speech, has already found ways around this defensive line.

Currently speech is shaped by producing a glut of speech, and then having the most useful narratives platformed by trusted personalities. Simultaneously, any counter views which do not support the goals of the media-party, do not get aired. Education, science, evidence and journalistic standards are eschewed and authoritarian techniques of loyalty and trust are used to take advantage of whatever story is currently most engaging.

The churn in anonymous forums is used to identify narratives that are the best evolved to spread and gain engagement.

Don’t mistake me for saying anonymity must be given up. Do recognize that worrying about anonymity today, is very much like people talking about the way things were back in their time.

If it helps - from a utilitarian perspective, free speech enables the free exchange of ideas in the service of debates to understand reality. The marketplace of ideas.

Currently the marketplace is captured, and it is not a fair fight between state actors, media teams, troll farms, A/B tested algorithms, and regular folk on the other side.

The invisible hand of the market IS working, ensuring the optimum outcome given the current constraints, or lack thereof.

If we want to defend speech for individuals, if we want a fair fight, we need to address the asymmetry of powers, and lack of recourse.