Many here are mistaking anonymity with unaccountability
No. you're the one making the mistake. The problem is precisely that Mr. Fossi was using anonymity to achieve unaccountability.
Now he has achieved accountability. And apparently Mr. Fossi doesn't like accountability.
Contrast Anton Wahlmann. You may note that Mr. Wahlman has spread FUD continuously under his *own name*, so that we can look up his track record (of settling a case admitting securities fraud) for ourselves. (He has also been scrupulous about his reporting of facts, I must say.) He can continue to spread his FUD. Probably will. That's his right in a free society.
The use of "anonymity" to spread libels and dishonest government propaganda in newspapers was a serious problem in the 1990s, which is why newspapers started the policy of explaining *why* they had granted anonymity whenever they did so. So now, you'll read "because the source feared that they would be attacked by death squads", or whatever.
The newspapers *stopped* granting anonymity willy-nilly *because* of the abuse of it to achieve unaccountability, including abuse *by government officials*.
Seeking Alpha, by contrast, granted anonymity to someone who was using it to achieve unaccountability.
The sort of criminal trolls who doxx and swat people *hide behind anonymity*.
The cops *do nothing* (there's a Jezebel article about it), and the recommendation for those with money is to track their names down yourself with PIs, file for restraining orders, file lawsuits, and contact the DA directly.
Putin loves the idea of having total anonymity for his *spies* like Maria Butina. We are under no obligation, in a free society, to grant anonymity to anyone and everyone while they make public claims. That's ridiculous.
