That doesn’t invalidate what I said. Anonymity protects both “good” and “bad” people. My argument was just that it doesn’t seem fair to use this case to justify anonymity, when removing anonymity would also probably have solved it.

It’s not the conclusion I’m disagreeing with, just the logic. (Perhaps I undermined this aspect by indulging in the thought experiment where accountability was actually held. Do I think such a scheme would actually work well? Not at all. People are involved.)