My big issue with anon is exactly what happened to /pol/, /b/, wizardchan, and a number of other anonymous boards.
I got a few autistic ratings for my previous description, so I will make it very clear what I meant. In the 3 examples I stated above, the boards devolved into competitions to see who could be the biggest political edgelord, the biggest trolling edgelord, or the biggest edgiest wizard loser. When new thought was introduced into these boards the thoughts were labeled and dismissed as coming from "newfags" , trolls, or normies. You had exactly the same type of phenomeneon on these anonymous image boards as you had with our favorite subforum here on the farms the Mr Enter subforum. Except I would argue that the Enter Subforum had one saving grace. Because thought was not judged by its content rather than its originator - regular respected posters could come in and introduce it without the thought being labeled as "heresy" based on its differing nature alone. People who were known and respected like Alan Pardew could say things to the posters and it would sink in to a degree. Yeah, the board collapsed anyway, but a number of its posters were able to learn something in the process. When /b/ collapsed, I am not sure if any of the "oldfags" involved ever learned why it was doomed to fail in the first place. Other boards and groups have spawned from them in time, but many have made the same mistakes already.
New thought is always needed in any discussion especially ones that are anonymous. Otherwise they become cesspools that are completely separated from rational thought. Those 3 examples are what anonymous discussion devolves into when it is not exposed to a constant stream of newer competing thought on a constant basis. If differing thought alone can become the enemy of discussion, then you wind up with cesspools.