Think about this: without any proof or name to back the claim, the only purpose the post serves is to (possibly) slander a person.
As a bystander you have no way of knowing who is right. There is a huge disparity between the person being slandered and the person trying to post slander.
The person being slandered can't defend themselves due to either volume of it or just impossibility of proving you haven't done something.
On the other hand person posting slander can quickly create multiple usernames and crate a lot of "content" looking like a discussion.
An exception could be a criminal case (when it might be ok to both stay anonymous and not have a proof, because of an important reason like public safety). But even in such case Police or whatever other official will try to confirm the claim in some way.
---
emodendroket: I can't respond because I am being throttled by HN (for apparently posting low value content).
Again: how do you know these are actually separate people? Without any real name on it there is no way for you to know.
It doesn't really matter who you are, you could still be a paid shill.
Or do you have some way to definitively prove that you are not on pc's payroll?
Paranoia goes both ways, and I think it's sufficient to just have the reader use their best judgement...otherwise we'll just always be in an endless spiral of "no puppet no puppet you're the puppet."
Well, for starters, what if I wanted to discredit any negative opinions, so I paid a team to work on that for me? Wouldn't that team want people to also post arguments like you are, where in principle it sounds reasonable (because your position is) but the source and scale were not?
Like, I could see some merit in convincing people that they aren't "allowed" to post anonymous criticism as a means of quieting bad press.
Well, I am not saying you are, but it's not really that hard to imagine that someone would pay a "troll farm" to write facially reasonable concerns that cast doubt on what are actually true allegations of misconduct. It's no less plausible than a competitors paying a troll farm to post false allegations.
As a bystander you have no way of knowing who is right. There is a huge disparity between the person being slandered and the person trying to post slander.
The person being slandered can't defend themselves due to either volume of it or just impossibility of proving you haven't done something.
On the other hand person posting slander can quickly create multiple usernames and crate a lot of "content" looking like a discussion.
An exception could be a criminal case (when it might be ok to both stay anonymous and not have a proof, because of an important reason like public safety). But even in such case Police or whatever other official will try to confirm the claim in some way.
---
emodendroket: I can't respond because I am being throttled by HN (for apparently posting low value content).
Again: how do you know these are actually separate people? Without any real name on it there is no way for you to know.
Do you think trolls haven't thought about it?