On the internet no one should know if you're a dog.

On the internet, if you run an influential and high impact publication that thousands of people regularly reference, there is a reasonable consideration that people should know who you are. It is not a must. But still.

More significantly: if you use your anonymity to create art, then that's a reasonable use and expectation for keeping it.

If you use your anonymity to heavily criticize swaths of society and large movements and even individuals and that anonymity gives you power to continue doing so without accountability, the bar for a reporter preserving your anonymity is higher.

This isn't a double standard. This is journalism at work. In reporting on a blog that publishes controversial content you amplify it. A good editorial process should require consideration of what maintaining anonymity of that author means while increasing their audience...

When a reporter makes the call to preserve anonymity of a subject or source it isn't a neutral decision. Anonymity is a deviation from baseline reporting, one that is granted often, but (when in a good process) only with consideration. Anonymity is neither bad or good by default.

Granting it shouldn't be automatic by any means and anyone could easily argue that anonymous sources have become significantly overused in the last five-ish years.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be thoughtful or considered.

The greatest tools and value a large publication can provide is amplification. To report on someone anonymously is to provide their opinions & voice amplification while placing their interests above the interests of transparency. A good editorial process balances those interests.

I think the q than becomes: do they use their position of anonymity as a lever to securely create criticism against the non-anonymous while fundamentally isolating themselves from feedback or consideration. Will amplifying them then accelerate that imbalance? What are the risks?

One of those risks might be danger to the subject. We should minimize harm. But what if that anonymity preserves power? What if that power is used to negatively impact society? What if they create danger for others? Where is the most harm?

There are some comparisons to specific criminal behavior that are overblown for the purpose of this thread, but do make that argument bluntly. We grant anonymity to victims but not abusers. Reasonable. When the power differential is less obvious, the question is more difficult.

If you were to take a... rational... view of this the q to ask is: why shouldn't someone be required to stand, personally, behind their views? Especially when so many of the groups they criticize are themselves backed by people who take the risks of being public figures?...