Not that it was "dissent", per se, but The Federalist Papers were published under the pseudonym "Publius", and I'd say there has been a long tradition of anonymous or pseudonymous dissent.

"Publius" [0] might have something to say about that.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

> society having anonymous dissent is quite a new concept.

Quite the opposite. Most dissent since the time of print has been anonymous, and plenty before then. Society feeling that every utterance or bit of expression has to be assigned to a specific identity is quite a new concept, especially because it's only begun to become technically feasible.

I'm not sure about that, I think the main difference is that in the past the concept of identity was not as rigid and well-documented as it is today. Additionally there were way fewer ways to identify someone, either in real life or through their writing. I don't quite want to say 'security through obscurity', though.

Are you sure about that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_graffiti

Not really. Publishing anonymously goes way back. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was published anonymously.

Depends on how you define new. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist were anonymous. Rosicrucianism And other such philosophies come from anonymous sources (they dissented to the religious norms of their time). Basically since the printing press Western societies have had anonymous dissent.

Anonymous pamphlets and the like were a tool in motivating support for the Revolutionary War.