At our company, we would not blur/obfuscate the actors' names for internal communications about technical errors.
The key is that humans make errors, errors of commission, errors of omission, errors of misplaced/almost brilliance, and errors of outright apparent stupidity. IMO, you should dive deeply to understand exactly what happened (which includes who did what and why), but you don't use that as ammunition against the individual humans.
Pretending that nameless, faceless committers did this thing isn't as useful as "even our CTO can make a stupid error [and not get fired for it]; here's how we seek to eliminate this entire category of error reaching production: <1> <2> <3>"
Internal communications are pretty different from a news article. A company can enforce a culture & policy for internally discussing mistakes. Publishing details in a popular outlet like Ars Technica opens up individual employees and the company in general to unproductive and unfair polemic, especially if the company in question is already unpopular for other reasons. It's no surprise that few companies open up their internal communication to public scrutiny.
The key is that humans make errors, errors of commission, errors of omission, errors of misplaced/almost brilliance, and errors of outright apparent stupidity. IMO, you should dive deeply to understand exactly what happened (which includes who did what and why), but you don't use that as ammunition against the individual humans.
Pretending that nameless, faceless committers did this thing isn't as useful as "even our CTO can make a stupid error [and not get fired for it]; here's how we seek to eliminate this entire category of error reaching production: <1> <2> <3>"