The article critiques the notion that a real name requirement for online discourse is a solution to the issues of hate, threats, and insults prevalent on the internet. It argues that it's not the anonymity that threatens democracy, but rather the implementation of such a requirement, which demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the priorities at hand. The analogy used suggests that in trying to resolve one issue, such as outrage and harmful comments, society overlooks the bigger problem at hand, just like ignoring a fire because of the potential damage caused by water used to extinguish it.

The author vehemently opposes the idea that anonymity on the internet is the main adversary of free speech, implying that it allows for a level of freedom that could actually foster healthy discourse. The argument is presented that removing this anonymity could lead to a less open environment where individuals might hesitate to express their opinions out of fear of repercussions. This could stymie civic engagement and discourage the healthy exchange of ideas that is essential for a functioning democracy.

Additionally, the author draws a provocative comparison to driving regulations, questioning why similar logic regarding anonymity shouldn’t apply. This indicates a deeper concern regarding how society balances the need for accountability against the benefits of freedom of expression. The article ultimately calls into question the legislative approach to online conduct and emphasizes the need to prioritize understanding the complexities of free speech in a digital world.