>In my mind that information would be shown only if the site was being reported for questionable behavior, not displayed for everyone to look at.
Ah. That explains the confusion.
In the real world, things are very different. In the real world, that information is inappropriately installed by bureaucrats or employees on their own computers ("for company use"), which computers are then lost.
Or stolen by hackers who broke into the server.
Not to mention the little fact that, in large parts of that real world, things like, say, quoting the words of that Jesus dude go beyond "questionable" into the territory of "capital crime".
That is why in, say, U.S. constitutional tradition, there's such a strong presupposition in favor of anonymous publishing. You have to _prove_ that there's a case to answer, before you can even begin to discuss breaching anonymity.
I'm surprised that point even has to be made in this forum, where so many members even do business anonymously (which is, and ought to be, given much less protection than _publishing_ anonymously.(