Those that can comprehend significant technical risks are obligated to recommend a low-risk strategy until people have enough relevant understanding to take informed risks for themselves.

I would for instance never let a minor use apps like TikTok known to granularly monitor and sell their location and behavior to keep them maximally addicted and maximally profitable. If the user is an adult tech worker that understands how such apps work and has the means to actually understand the privacy policy... then I will find their choice stupid but it is their life.

I think many people, if they find a comment really impactful, will take a look and see if this was said by someone using their real name and if there are obviously relevant major corporate biases they didn't disclose. Or maybe I am weird and am just trying to justify that I personally do this often.

Regardless, both anonymous and identified communication are very valuable depending on the particular goal, and it should always be a switch everyone is empowered to be able flip at any time.

Sometimes when I am testing out ideas to decide how I even feel about something myself, I may choose to be anonymous.

Most of the time, I am fine with most of my posts on HN being under my real name and tied to my reputation and that of the security and privacy consulting company I run.

I still reserve the right to change my mind and be wrong sometimes and trust most of my target customers to give me some room for that :)