Interesting. But the article headline is misleading. The article states that the biggest difference was between volatile anonymity where people could make arbitrarily many accounts, and stable pseudonyms, where a ban cannot easily be evaded. Stable pseudonyms are a lot better as the article states.
Between stable pseudonyms and real names, the difference is smaller, as stated in the article. Real names make it only slightly worse.
A persona allows people who otherwise wouldn't to experiment with being magnanimous and making/admitting mistakes(some more cautious IRL, others incapable of backing down).
OTOH, there's always people who play Paladins on tabletop, and the mitigating factor of the Block button - most who don't want to aren't forced to engage with the worst of us, and blocking someone who knows you IRL has a more complicated cost/benefit calculation. This is one thing I feel cancel culture and the younger generations get right; Screw the other consequences when not blocking that shitty uncle, boss, teacher, coworker, celebrity, whoever, is letting them monopolize some of your personal time and mental energy.
I was not sure where to share that "interesting blog post" so here is it on the main community.
Most of us care about anonymity, so always interesting to see that it's supported by evidences