Seriously. Twitter gets crucified for a lack of accountability, now Facebook gets criticized for having too much. You can't embrace online anonymity only when it benefits you.
Accountability and de-anonymisation (which with enough information turns into "doxxing") are not the same thing.
For twitter, people don't need to know who the persistent abusers are on their government ID, only that there are rules and they will be effectively banned if the rules are broken. De-anonymisation enables random mobs to apply "accountability" through death threats offline. For some people this is a serious risk.
(Or in CS101: authentication and authorisation are not the same thing)
I suppose it could be in a capability-based security scheme. In such a scheme, authorization is based upon tokens that are passed around and could be owned by any user or process, making authorization separate from identification.
You allow people to block anyone with account younger them a year. And in general, you allow people to mute everyone from purple they did not approved, mute threads etc.
For twitter, people don't need to know who the persistent abusers are on their government ID, only that there are rules and they will be effectively banned if the rules are broken. De-anonymisation enables random mobs to apply "accountability" through death threats offline. For some people this is a serious risk.
(Or in CS101: authentication and authorisation are not the same thing)