I think there's a chance that there's some amount of intrinsic tension here; i.e. that if you want to hold people to account for spreading lies; then you'll be

I think there's a chance that there's some amount of intrinsic tension here; i.e. that if you want to hold people to account for spreading lies; then you'll be similarly enabling dunking on minorities. But dis+misinformation are so problematic that I don't think we should immediately disregard an idea merely because it has some potential collateral damage - especially if a pragmatic approach might exist that at least tries to minimize that collateral damage. However, while accountability might have worked 50 years ago it sure looks like it wouldn't anymore - it's not as if people, including prominent people actually go to the effort to hide their identity before spouting nonsense - some of it fairly vile, some of it so idiotic it surely would have caused reputational harm a few decades ago. Real names won't work where there's no sense of shared reproach; no sense by the speaker that their friends will be disappointed or even outraged. Worse, they revel in it; being crazy is a point of pride; as is harassing others (made even easier should a real-name policy be adopted). So whether or not anonymity for the oppressed is worthy enough aim to accept also supporting yet more disinformation campaigns is probably a moot point; real names will no longer discourage extremists from spreading their special brand of insanity.