This kind of accountability might help even the odds between what is otherwise a named individual vs. an anonymous mob. I honestly don't know if it's a good idea or not, though.
> (the title of Amanda Marcotte’s hit-piece
> My photo was on the front page of Salon, {Arthur Chu}
> not once but twice on ‘Dr. Nerdlove,’ {Harris O'Malley}
See also XBOXLive, where people feel free to be thoroughly toxic even though their online identities are tied to an offline identity.
Or Facebook, where racists are happily racist under their real names. http://www.salon.com/2014/12/10/whats_up_with_the_rag_head_w...
Echoing my other comment about the totalitarian and most especially Stalinist nature of this arena, Brendan Eich was purged from Mozilla for holding the same position on gay marriage as Obama, "CEO" of the entire nation, officially did until May 9th, 2012, although in fairness to Obama, he said he changed his mind as opposed to always being at war with Eastasia.
The Left has captured a whole bunch of fields like science where "No Irish or (open) Conservatives" applies, so to still be able to engage in the public sphere anonymity is required.
And fortunately anonymity is enshrined in our lowercase and uppercase c/Constitutional order, e.g. The Federalist Papers. Compare to South Korea where they're still in a not quite hot but definitely not cold war with their northern Communist neighbor; I don't believe they can afford some of the civil liberties we enjoy.
Its also dyscivic. Much, much uglier things will happen if you cede to one faction the public sphere, the "soap box" in the sequence of "soap box, ballet box, bullet box".
