You can, they say, still make public posts anonymously. You have to remember to set that. With them storing your name, there's no protection from future changes that either accidentally or intentionally reveal it on your past contributions.
The whole point was to allow people to post reviews safely. Of course this allows fake reviews (I've seen some that are too good to have been written by anybody but HR or marketing), and I guess that's the problem they're trying to combat. If they wanted to change the rules from now on, that would be fine -- people could decide whether to continue, and contributions that earlier could even be marked "unverified" or something if they want. But that's not what they did.
no subject
You can, they say, still make public posts anonymously. You have to remember to set that. With them storing your name, there's no protection from future changes that either accidentally or intentionally reveal it on your past contributions.
The whole point was to allow people to post reviews safely. Of course this allows fake reviews (I've seen some that are too good to have been written by anybody but HR or marketing), and I guess that's the problem they're trying to combat. If they wanted to change the rules from now on, that would be fine -- people could decide whether to continue, and contributions that earlier could even be marked "unverified" or something if they want. But that's not what they did.