If you want to change behaviour, change the incentives and close the loopholes. A site can claim it is merely hosting discussion while it quietly profits from harassment, because the cost of that harm is paid by the targets, not the operator. A large damages award changes the cost function, and the unmasking removes the easiest escape hatch: plausible deniability behind a pseudonym. Reports around this case also describe asset freezing and cross border enforcement steps, which tells you the court expected evasion and planned for it. That part matters as much as the headline name, because trolls and operators move money and identity the way pickpockets move hands. If this becomes a pattern, build a toxic platform and you risk losing both anonymity and cash, then the market for cruelty shrinks. If it stays a one off spectacle, the next forum will simply price the risk into its ad revenue and carry on.