Yes, I would agree that privacy is important, that anonymity is valuable to the freedom of speech, and that OP is also right about the health of the web.

Which means we have a big problem.

OP may be right about the health of the web, but for the wrong reasons. Anonymous website ownership has absolutely nothing to do with anything causing the biggest problems on the internet.

I think scams are bad actually.

Without limits? If you walk into a store or office the name of the business owner is a matter of public record. I don't want to extrapolate too much from your comment, but it seems like we're moving toward a web where only law enforcement are able to find out who runs a particular website, which is not great for the public but massively concentrates power in the hands of the state.

For individuals, yes. For service providers, no.

Why not? Nobody forces anybody to hire an anonymous provider. If they still do, they are probably fine with it?

There are indeed potentials for annonymous service providers, or ad-hoc services outside governmental control.

However for anything consumer protection related, they must not be only transparent, but I'd argue, clearly obvious who is behind the service.

In the context of the previous comment there was an implied equivalence between individual and corporation rights to privacy.

Large corporations already get lenient passes for breaking the laws and regulations. Let us not propagate ideas that champion for even more things that benefit corporations.

The people working in the company are anonymous from design. There are forms of LLC that hide the owners as well. Trade name is already a form of pseudoanonymity, and it's the highest level of anonymity that can be achieved. The company itself must be publicly known, at least for contract and tax reasons.

Buying stuff from truly anonymous provider isn't possible. From a legal standpoint you basically transfer money to them for fun. Since, you know, can't enter any agreement with unknown entity.

If that were actually true the tech industry would not have minted trillions building a global digital panopticon.

Much of it in the ultimate service of selling very targeted advertising.

I think it's the utter banality of the end goal that offends me as much as anything else. The idea that we as a society will sell ourselves this cheaply beggars belief.

Anonymity == Privacy is such a huge misconception in our industry it borders on deliberate.

Anonymity is the ability to interact with other human beings while maintaining your privacy. In other words, it is the ability to use privacy. Privacy alone only gives you the ability to keep a journal of your political opinions without someone reading it. Anonymity gives you the ability to publish those political opinions in public without being persecuted for it by the current or any future group in power.

There is no misconception. I would suggest the inverse, that it seems deliberate to try to draw a line between the two and suggest that it makes any sense to have one without the other.

^ case in point

I'd argue anonymity is a component of privacy.