In what way does it do that?

Or in other words, what makes that sentence more true than sentences replacing the word Bitcoin with the words phone/email/pigeon carrier/etc?

Genuine question, not rhetorical - I don't really follow bitcoin.

Those alternatives require a durable namespace for 'targeting' your communications: a phone number, email address, physical location the pigeon arrives, etc.

Bitcoin can be used with novel targets (receiving addresses) for each uniquely received transaction: i.e. instead of having one bank account with all your transactions, each transaction is in its own anonymous bank account. By doing this, outsiders cannot know that two transactions are owned by the same person without that owner otherwise revealing the association via co-mingling funds or revealing ownership off-network (ex. sending to exchange that does KYC+AML).

You can be careful to not comingle funds or participate in KYC, but you have no forward security --- the person you paid (or their successor payees) can always comingle funds or participate in KYC. At which point, they may recall you paid them.

Also, I can't imagine it's very convenient to manage a large number of separate keys.

> Also, I can't imagine it's very convenient to manage a large number of separate keys.

You can have one secret master key and then derive many keys from that [1]. Without the master key you cannot tell that they are linked. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_derivation_function

> Also, I can't imagine it's very convenient to manage a large number of separate keys.

A computer can do that for you.

I find the more things I do with a computer, the more there are to manage, not less.

...what is a "system administrator" anyway, and why is my computer telling me to ask them for help?