So on the most practical level, if she obscured his name, there would be zero verifiable evidence for her identification. Providing a name means other people can check the work, and potentially build on it.
On the social level, attaching behavior to names is one of the principal ways investigations (journalistic and legal) work because legal identifiers let us trace connections.
Like, I'd argue that this is classic investigative journalism: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/05/stark-industries-solutions-an-iron-hammer-in-the-cloud/
…but without attaching behaviors to names, a story like that Krebs post would be nothing but an unverifiable conspiracy theory.
(If BI had also published his photo, phone number, and home address, that would strike me as an unjustified disclosure of private info and flip this from investigative journalism into doxxing.)
Not true
Both takeaway points of the article associating fiatjaf with Olavo de Carvalho are publicly available under the fiatjaf pseudonym
* the links to Carvalho's website are on https://fiatjaf.com/
* the attendance of Carvalho's philosophy course is on https://github.com/fiatjaf/life/blob/gh-pages/life.md
There is no justfication at all for doxing him
And revealing someone's name and place of work is considered doxing under standard definitions
"Doxing or doxxing is the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing
"any information about an individual maintained by an agency, including (1) any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, such as name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, or biometric records; and (2) any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial, and employment information"
