In my view, the ethical consent funnel is like the process I go through when I'm interviewing people -- I send a participant information sheet explaining the research and the protections involved, get their consent, and continue. But again this is one of those ethical questions that's ongoing even in offline research: when you're doing participant-observation, you're not going to be running around the city with a sign taped to your back saying I'M AN ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCHER. But when you're doing an interview with someone where you could be getting information that, should they be identifiable, could potentially harm them, your ethical commitments are different. More explicit disclosure is necessary.
Most of the time, the ethical procedures required by the university are both too stringent and not stringent enough. Better to have a more robust ethical code that you can assess case by case rather than blanket DO THIS/DON'T DO THAT rules --- it's relatively easy to know when something might be harmful, whether it's out on an online forum or said over a drink. Use your human being common sense, and err on the side of protection. The point is that you as a researcher have ethical commitments, in my view, and those commitments shouldn't be hidden. They should be easily discoverable (whether in post form, through an ethical consent funnel, whatever). And above all you shouldn't be using deception unless you have an extremely compelling reason to do so (not just, 'people are more likely to talk to me if they don't know I'm a researcher').
The trick here, I think, is to a) realise that there is no contribution free of 'bias' (e.g. there is no view from nowhere-- every intervention you make comes from a place). The goal is to be as reflexive as possible about what that place is. And part of the goal of social research is to tease out things that are of interest to the researcher (whether that researcher is doing, say, an independent project on smart cities, or is doing a H2020 project on populism). For example, it seems clearly beneficial to the research to stop the conversation from becoming about daisy-growing --- but where the skill comes in is being trained enough to know when the conversation about daisy-growing actually IS about populism.
F/e, in Open Care we'd get some really generic posts about happiness. A CM like Noemi might step in and say-- hey, could you tell us specifically what you do? Who you do it with? What kinds of futures you'd like to see? In this way she's acting like an ethnographer--- teasing out the specifics and asking people to think more deeply. She's guiding the conversation, but she's still asking for this person's thoughts and opinions from their own perspective. She's not saying "We think care is X, do you agree?" for example, because that really restricts the person's ability to respond freely. There are a lot of nuances to it.
Later on in the research, though, it might actually be useful to test the social theory you've come up with (this is the part of ethnography that stresses not just theorising about people up in your tower, publishing it, and moving on to the next project). So in Open Care, I might ask everyone in the community: hey, I think from what you all have been collectively articulating in various forms, care is more about bringing people together than inventing a technological fix: I think you're saying that people are the best technology. Is this accurate or am I coming out of left field? And then people can engage in meaningful conversation around that theory before you run off and publish it.