It's difficult to tell if you are for or against access to open weight models as a general rule, so I am curious to hear your opinion on this.
Personally, I think we will one day come to see access to open weight models as an inalienable right to defense against tyranny, the way the second amendment is framed today. Just as encryption has become, which we similarly had to fight for in the 90s. I also understand that some regulation is sensible, but that doesn't automatically mean mandatory restricted or supervised access; any such restriction has to be extremely well-justified as essential for protecting the liberty of the people.
And as far as supervised access, whether or not identification is "handled by a third party" or "data is deleted after verification is complete" is immaterial; a citizen must not be required to trust their government. Any trust can and will be abused given enough time. Our systems must be trustless, and any expansion of government must be matched by an expansion in citizens' ability to check said government, in order to stand the test of time.
So supervised access seems completely off the table. And this can't just stop at access to models. Because linguistic analysis is a thing, and LLMs are scarily good at it (and existing non-AI solutions are still quite good given enough data), even the possibility that a government or other entity can save your messages means you've opened yourself up to deanonymization and surveillance. The chilling effect this has is undeniable, and the Supreme Court has made it clear that we cannot authorize government policy which creates chilling effects against essential liberties. Not to mention the possibilities that each category of users may be served subtly different models designed to influence them or constrain their agency/capability.
We're left with a situation where distributed access to capable open models is the only defense against a government or NGO which has access to billions of dollars of surveillance infrastructure and compute.