1) Your argument is whataboutism at its finest.
2) I'm not taking a side in favor of establishment journalism.
3) I'm showing that leaders of the anti-cancel-culture movement are themselves more than willing to intimidate, suppress and cancel the free speech of anyone who criticizes them.
4) Either you're in favor of unrestricted free speech for everyone, or you're not.
From all I have seen, which I confess is not everything, The blogger was asking for basic courtesy to not be named such that their practice could stay easily separate.
For my part, I care more for unpersecuted speech. I don't like the active screaming culture, but I can't bring myself to feel that someone should be able to have consequence free speech, either. Such that most of this debate is around gotcha moments that are people yelling at someone to reach the crowd.
It gets muddy, because I absolutely believe we have to allow people to be wrong. But I don't think we should tolerate active lying and gas lighting with deceptive rhetorical tricks that punish courage in openly exploring the boundaries of your knowledge.
- you oppose "cancel culture";
- you're okay with white supremacists having access to audiences via platforms, if someone is willing to provide them with that.
Intimidation and suppression cannot be avoided; they go hand in hand with having any sort of rules.
For instance, the law against stealing uses intimidation and suppression: people are intimidated against stealing with the threat of jail sentences, and offenders are suppressed with actual imprisonment.
You can't have guarantees of freedom of speech written in law without the intimidation and suppression being written into the same law: there have to be negative consequences for a law breaker infringing on someone else's constitutionally granted freedom of speech, which are written and enforced, in order for the law to have meaning.
You've built a strawman model of a free speech advocate and are focusing on that. There may be some real life personalities who call themselves free speech advocates who resemble that strawman, but it's still a strawman.
The crowd is constantly crying foul. And often shouting noise for the sake of being noisy. As such, it is all too easy for any supposed side to claim that the crowd is intrinsically party of the other sides.
To that end, did this person make particular claims that others have to reveal who they are? If not, I'm not clear on how this was hypocritical. Are there inconsistencies in the crowd? Absolutely. But, they could be easily ascribed to the side you appear to be taking up, as well.