Imposing a blanket ban on online anonymity will only exacerbate problems for the vulnerable individuals and communities the law itself is seeking to protect.

Whenever there are calls for tighter regulation on the internet, it always comes with pushback and hesitation from all parties concerned. This is for good reason— as well-intentioned and overdue as any proposed rules for the internet are, the costs it would come with has a plethora of unintended consequences. But with the recent tragedy of MP David Amess’s untimely death, ending online anonymity has been urged as is a necessary step to combat online threats against public figures. 

This is far from the first call for the UK to make verification mandatory before entering the online space. Earlier this year, media personality Katie Price launched a petition alongside MP Andrew Griffith, calling for the removal of anonymity on social media platforms such as Twitter, by requiring people to verify their identification, as an action to curb abusive comments. 

What does ending online anonymity entail?

The idea behind banning online anonymity is to have every social media user be required to have their real name and their face attached to everything they decide to share and post online. This would mean if someone decided to one day share harmful speech, they would not be able to hide behind a pseudonym: everyone would know what has been said and who was behind it. By eliminating anonymity, it is believed it would create a sense of accountability for what anyone decides to share on the internet.

On the surface, it is an attractive proposition. However, it would be extremely difficult to balance on a wider realistic level.

Image Credit: Adem AY, Unsplash

Banning anonymity harms the people we need to protect

Being able to have one’s real name on the internet is a privilege not everyone can afford. For one, given in the UK when a formal identification document is needed, a passport or a driving licence would be used. For those who have neither, does it mean they would no longer be allowed to use the internet?

Proposing to ban anonymity in the service of “public interest” is unconstructive. Many on the internet who need anonymity are marginalised individuals or members of vulnerable groups. For them, anonymity brings them support through online communities they would not have access to in the physical world.

If anonymity was abolished, it would silence those who used social media as their form of escapism. Victims of domestic abuse or stalking or those who may have to hide their sexuality from their friends and family would be exposed to all the harms this proposed law is purporting to protect them from. 

Requirements for real names would curtail the access and sharing of much-needed information— whistle-blowers and people who want to share insider stories would no longer have any protection if they choose to disclose information which may affect their real-world lives. Politicians offer off-the-record quotes to the media frequently in fear of any harmful consequences to their careers and livelihood. If anything, MPs are expected to have more empathy on why having some anonymity is important in the wider social space.

Anonymity will not stop Vitriol

Following the Euro 2020 Final, Twitter was actively trying to take down tweets and suspend accounts that targeted players from the England football team with racist abuse. From Twitter’s report, it found 99 per cent of accounts suspended were not anonymous. Banning anonymous individuals from commenting does nothing to discourage people from making the comments. Many people who disseminate hate speech and threaten others online, already do this under their real name. The issue here is not in identifying the people, but to stop the spread of hate speech.

What other solutions could we have instead?

Instead of imposing an umbrella ban across all users, some other measures could be taken. For example, a better way forward could be when a user has been found to have breached the platform’s rules, only then would they be required to identify themselves if they wanted to continue to use the platform. This way, those who require anonymity can keep their day-to-day, while those spouting undesirable and harmful rhetoric would have to face consequences.

A much better move forward would be for laws to be imposed onto social media companies directly rather than onto individuals. Since social media platforms are self-regulated, holding them accountable in their moderating of social spaces would better ensure hateful and threatening speech would be stopped at the source. For example, suspending bigger verified personalities who stoke the flame of malice targeting marginalised groups, and encouraging more people to spread hateful messaging would be a start.

It has to be noted: so far there has been no correlation of Amess’ death being connected to anonymous online accounts attacking him. It, unfortunately, can be seen some are using his death to bring in a law which had nothing to do with either him or his death. If the law was brought and was named “David’s Law”, it would be a disrespectful way to honour his memory and his service as an MP.

A balance needs to be struck between trying to avoid hate speech and trying to protect vulnerable people who deserve access to communities online. Policing in Social Media should work harder to keep all discourse civil and address the abuse, rather than addressing anonymity.