“Not to oppose erroneous doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true doctrine is to suppress it.”
Anyway, sometimes when you see a person talk and you see how they handle themselves, you realize they are creeps. Or a little bit effeminate with low testosterone. Or a soy boy. But in any case, they don't tell the truth. They are slimy.
You wouldn't think for a second of taking advice from them.
Yet, in the case of Internet commentators, and even more concerning, "Internet discipleship," you are getting Spiritual advice from people you probably would never take advice from if you actually met them face-to-face.
I think this goes back to the concept of "skin in the game" and Nassim Taleb's general position of never giving advice, because the person giving the advice doesn't have to face the negative consequences.
In my case, and those who don't hide behind anonymity, we have a little more credibility because if what we recommend or type are lies, then our reputation is shot. There is SOME skin in the game, but still not a lot, and thus still a lot of skepticism must be maintained.
For anonymous users who hide behind anonymity, their "skin in the game" is basically nothing, in which case anything they say requires an extra level of scrutiny. Also, I would say there is a certain amount of lack of courage behind the purposes of their anonymity.
I do not see "anonymous" being anywhere compatible with Christian ethics, or at least for anyone who can speak with some kind of authority. Christians have had to face death for professing their beliefs, and here we are today of having people afraid to say they support Trump because they might get fired from their jobs. Certainly, they have their tactical reasons which I can respect, but to state they have any sort of moral authority in their anonymity, is a more dubious.
The office of Elders and Deacons requires you to know their reputation, and how their children behave.
You can't do that through anonymous profiles on the Internet.