I agree that anonymous speech is an important right in free societies. A novel attack on such a right in the Internet Age is to allow so much speech, anonymous or otherwise, ensure that most of it of is of very low quality, that thoughtful criticisms are ignored or, more accurately, overlooked. A related attack is to "flood the zone with shit", low-quality but emotionally resonant criticisms of speech, generated by hired humans and/or software. (Anecdotally most readers will see any coherent pushback as a signal about the OP's veracity.)

"Censorship through free speech", in other words.

It’s just a special case of signal jamming.

If you add enough random energy to any channel, it becomes impossible to filter signal from noise

This is what Shannon disproved in the paper that founded information theory. It never becomes impossible, even at a fixed signal power; the noise reduces the channel capacity, but never to zero.

https://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shanno...

Ok, I’ll retract my statement from “impossible” to “what the layman would refer to as impossible when you take into account resource constraints”

The layman, almost by definition, would refer to most things as impossible until he sees them done; then he takes them for granted because he has no idea how difficult they were. His opinion about the difficulty or resource requirements of any feat is worthless.

I disagree

Yes. I'd be curious to know how resistance movements deal with this problem in other regimes. How do (did?) Navalny or İmamoğlu supporters organize, for example? Is it simply Telegram & Signal? How does one spread a message to the public under such a regime, via pamphlets? Does it work to share "anonymously" on a foreign-hosted platform? Asking for a friend.

Navalny died and İmamoğlu is in prison right? I feel like a lot of people’s hesitation with recognizing the new world is recognizing that it’s effective even if it’s distasteful.

If you(the royal you) disagree, then please point out the last pro democracy advocate who didn’t get demolished by their local authoritarian leader in the past 30 years

By not relevant, I mean that while you can use incentives to design a fair society that encourages other people to do right, that's not how you can decide what to do for yourself when the environment for the purposes of an individual choice has already been determined.