Online Anonymity Under Attack as The Times Scraps Pseudonyms

Anonymity online at risk

The early days of the Internet were something of a haven for anonymity. People relished in this new platform where they could choose a pseudonym or create an entirely new identity. They could talk to strangers, express opinions freely, share secrets, or be their true selves without fear. Because all the while, their online identity couldn't be connected to their real-life identity. No one knew who they were.

For some this was a mere novelty to be enjoyed, for others it was liberating.

Of course, it wasn't without its dangers. Dangers that still exist today. Growing up in the 90s, young Internet users were constantly given the warning: “You never know who you're talking to”. It was very true. And still is today.

Which is interesting. The dangers still exist, but anonymity is considerably less.

It's almost as if stopping anonymity online doesn't work. Huh. Funny that.

The rise of social media and the slow death of anonymity online

In the '00s, social media platforms began to spring up and grow in popularity. At the same time, there was a shift towards a “real name” Internet system. A real name system requires anyone signing up for an online account to do so using their official legal name, or a name that they are known by in everyday life.

It all started with Facebook...

Since its beginning as a college-based website, Facebook has always had a real-name policy. At the time, it made sense— the app was merely an extension of college life, where everybody knew everybody else. As its user base widened, it was suggested that new adopters simply copied the practices of existing users, using real names.

But it was more than a case of “do as they do”. Facebook actually had (and still has) a real-name policy in place and they had their reasons for it too.

In the Jeff Kosseff book entitled “The United States of Anonymous,” Kosseff describes a 2009 interview with Zuckerberg in which he is quoted as saying,

“...maintaining dual identities “is an example of a lack of integrity,” and “the level of transparency the world has now won't support having two identities for a person.” He said that transparency enables people to be more accountable for their behavior.”

Talk of integrity and transparency from Zuckerberg? That hasn't aged well!

On the surface, the reason for the real-name policy is to promote trust and safety. While they are understandable and acceptable motivations, we can't ignore the problems that a real-name policy presents.

Firstly, the way these policies are enforced is unjust. Secondly, the effectiveness of achieving online safety and reducing online harassment is highly questionable. Thirdly, and perhaps, most importantly, a real name policy can actually be more harmful to those it means to protect.

Let's look at these issues in more detail...

Don't judge an account by its name

In 2011, Google, wanting to cash in on the social media networking game, launched Google+. The platform followed Facebook's example, asking for the same credentials from users when setting up an account.

But where Facebook relies mostly on community reports to investigate potential fake accounts, Google+ relied purely on an algorithm to purge its user database of names that didn't look quite “normal”. What resulted, sparked the “nymwars”.

The name, derived from the words (pseudo)nym and wars, referred to the online “conflict” between bloggers and journalists, and those who saw anonymity as the shield, and those who saw it as the sword.

With its algorithm, Google+ had suspended accounts for countless users with non-standard and non-Western-sounding names, such as Violet Blue, a well-known tech reporter and columnist at the time. Some people also found that they were locked out of other Google services, including Gmail and G-docs which impacted their jobs.

The process of reinstating such accounts required the user to send a copy of their ID to Google. Even when/if the account was recovered, the user could face the whole ordeal time and time again, should their name be re-flagged by the same algorithm.

Facebook didn't escape unscathed in the controversy either.

In 2015, Facebook made changes to its real name policy after it came under fire from multiple civil liberties groups, including those representing Native Americans, domestic abuse survivors, political activists, the drag community, and trans people.

But the only changes made were to expand the policy to include a person's “authentic name” as opposed to their legal name. BUT, the reality is, if you're locked out of your account and need to prove your real or authentic name, you still need to provide a form of ID with that name.

That's not so useful for the drag performer, or the woman hiding from an abusive partner who has chosen a different name for her online profile.

Real-name policies don't reduce online harassment

In 2007, South Korea issued a mandate requiring every website (with over 100,000 subscribers) to have a real name policy. The intended outcome was to “clean up” the internet with the same idealistic notion that it would make people more accountable for their comments online and less likely to post nastiness.

Fast-forward to 2011, the mandate was scrapped thanks to a study by the Korean Communications Commission. It found that the policy had reduced abusive and malicious comments by just 0.09%. Not only had it been entirely ineffective, but the amount of personal data stored meant an increased risk of cyber hacking.

The South Korean experience shows that removing anonymity online doesn't remove toxic comments that make up much of online harassment. It's exactly what sociologists have been saying all along... anonymity online doesn't encourage toxicity; it's the lack of accountability that does.

The fact that there are still countless examples of nasty online behavior on sites that DO require real names, just proves that requiring real names doesn't automatically provide accountability.

The sad fact is, that people have no fear of saying vile things online because they can get away with it. In the majority of cases, there is little or no punishment for doing so.

The other reason is that despite the increased merging of our online and offline lives, there is still a disconnect between what is “real” (offline) and what is “unreal” (online). People will say awful things without even a thought of the very real person reading their comment because, for them, they do not exist.

As sociologist Katherine Cross has said, "If we get rid of anonymity from the internet tomorrow -- just waved a magic wand - the toxicity problems would remain."

Let's not forget too that real name policies themselves have also been used as a form of online harassment.

Facebook's real name policy that requires users to report fake profiles has been abused so much that they had to make amendments to the reporting process. Now, users must add context and reasoning for why the user believes the account to be fake.

But, it still gets abused. And as long as Facebook has the function (and the real name policy), chances are it will continue to be.

Real-name policy puts lives in danger

There are many reasons why someone may choose not to use their real name online. It doesn't necessarily mean they are up to no good or wish to cause people harm. In fact, it can be to protect themselves. For some, it can be a matter of life or death, freedom or imprisonment.

For example, political dissidents often use pseudonyms to hide their identities. The anonymity online allows them to voice opinions or share facts that don't conform to the narrative of the ruling (and possibly hostile) government.

For example, in Bangladesh, environmental activist Shahnewaz Chowdhury faces 10 years in prison for a Facebook post expressing concerns about a coal power project.

In Vietnam, a former high-school chemistry teacher was sentenced to eight years in jail for a Facebook post criticizing how the government handled the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sunil Bajilakeri, a social activist, was arrested in India for a satirical post on Facebook. In the United States, Black activist Rakem Balogun spoke out against police brutality on his Facebook page and was subsequently arrested by the FBI.

These are not isolated events.

Of course, governments do have plenty of other ways to track and monitor internet users. It's just that Facebook's real name policy just makes it much easier!

We can't help but wonder, had these activists not been forced to use their real names for their Facebook accounts, perhaps they could have avoided their fates.

And the political activist group is not the only one at risk.

The damage of a real name policy can go far beyond online harassment and cause real-life harm to domestic violence survivors, drag performers, trans people, and any vulnerable user who doesn't want to use their real name for safety or privacy reasons. Considering that between 2017 and 2021, homicides of trans people increased by 93%, it's clear that forcing trans people to use their legal birth names could have fatal consequences.

The last bastions of anonymity online

There are still some websites that allow pseudonyms, where users can still enjoy a degree of online anonymity online.

Reddit's content policy states that people don't have to use their real name, but prohibits anyone from impersonating “individuals or entities in a misleading or deceptive manner.”

Twitter (now X) also allows pseudonym accounts, however, users do have to provide an email address and/or phone number. These details can be enough to identify someone, which was cause for concern when Twitter experienced a data breach in 2021.

The database that made its way onto the dark web, allowed bad actors to input an email address or phone number and find out if it was associated with a Twitter account. They could then see the person's Twitter username, as well as follower counts, screen name, login name, and even their location.

Mastodon is another social media platform that allows pseudonyms. It's also been hailed as a refuge for those deleting their Twitter accounts since Elon Musk's takeover.

The Times' decision raises more questions

In a follow-up post explaining the new rules, The Times added that they believe the real name policy would create a better environment for their readers to comment. However, the platform already had a content moderation system in place. Wasn't that working? Is it being replaced? They don't say.

The funny thing is that anonymity on The Times was only user-facing anyway. It's a subscription service and as such accounts are tied to billing details. The Times could easily have used these details to ban hostile users.

So, the question remains, why introduce a real name policy at all?

The move has also left its users in confusion.

Some users expressed that they had only been able to participate on the website because they could do so safely using a pseudonym. Users with unique names have now unsubscribed as they believe they will be unable to comment without risk to themselves and their family members.

You can see more user responses on this Twitter thread.

So, the controversial conversation continues.

On one hand, you have the platforms that maintain anonymity online is the one thing that allows online harassment, and on the other, the users cry out that anonymity online is the one thing that can keep them safe on and offline.

When all the facts suggest that anonymity is not the cure for online harassment, what is the real purpose of a real-name policy?

It's no secret that social media platforms collect user data, and that data is worth billions of dollars when it's connected to real identities.

In the United States of America, anonymity is protected as a human right under the First Amendment. The EU has no specific anonymity rules but it is protected under the wing of freedom of speech. But generally, in the “free” world, governments don't dictate to private companies how they limit or enable anonymity.

But why would they?

Online websites and social media platforms are valuable resources for governments and law enforcement. Earlier in 2022, Facebook received backlash for handing over to the police private chat messages between a mother and daughter accused of an illegal abortion.

Google, which collects more data on users than any other big tech company, received almost 50,000 warrants for user data in the six months between July and December 2021. And in 84% of the cases, data was handed over.

Real-name policies have been shown to make no difference to online harassment. It's time to call out real-name policies for what they really are: surveillance, control, and a money-making scheme under the guise of user protection.

Want to learn more about anonymity online? Check out our Hoody article: Online Anonymity is Important. Here's How to Protect it.