No, anonymity by itself won't save you, though can sharply decreases the odds of getting caught if you are careful. What anonymity does instead is probably the

No, anonymity by itself won't save you, though can sharply decreases the odds of getting caught if you are careful. What anonymity does instead is probably the most important part of starting any movement that is mutually exclusive with "acceptable" political views. When a political situation starts to work against the interested of the common person, most people tend to notice, at least in some small way. If nothing else, they notice some of the harmful effects that are starting to affect them. As they (greatly) outnumber the people "in charge", they only need to use their strength in numbers (either politely with the vote/etc or violently with the pitchfork and molotov. Unfortunately, this can be prevented by creating a situation where people fear retribution and fear that any action they take will not be successful. When you believe that not enough people would join you or that there is no way you to achieve that critical mass of people, learned helplessness sets in. It becomes "obvious" that "fighting corruption is futile", when it really is as simple as everybody simply trying. This is why the 1st Amendment has a right to assembly, and why "free speech zones" and other obvious abridgements of that right were important to fight. It's also why a lot of people in power got very, very scared at the "Occupy" movement. People assembling so they can see first-hand that they are not alone in their views is one of the only ways to undo the learned helplessness. It is hard to argue with empirical evidence; seeing that you view is actually popular can start a revolution. So what does this have to do with anonymity? It's one of the best ways (and one of the only long-term successful ways, historically) to solve the "first mover" problem. A single anonymous statement that bluntly points out how everybody knows that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes gives permission[1] to everybody else to also acknowledge this fact. Without the anonymity, it is extremely difficult to find people willing to fall on their sword. Worse, lack of anonymity can be restated as the people in power knowing who is talking to each other (you can follow the flow of memes). This map of social organization allows for the targeting of people that might become such a focal point that rallies the masses. Cut off a few potential whistleblowers or potential leaders when they are inexperienced and "testing the waters" keeps the real problems from happening. The FBI used to call this "COINTELPRO". I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide if such tactics are still being used. Your fundamental problem is that you're assuming anonymity is some sort of shield against a government, while the real utility of anonymity is how it lets you acquire strength in numbers to fight that same government. [1] For an interesting discussion on how language allows multiple levels of knowledge ("(I think) she knows" vs "I know that she knows that I know that she knows"), try this RSA Animate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU