There’s no case for ending online anonymity
Banning disguised accounts on social media platforms would be at best a fruitless gesture
The brutal killing of Sir David Amess MP at a constituency surgery was a tragic and senseless event. Coming five years after the assassination of my friend Jo Cox, it has sent horribly familiar shockwaves through our political establishment. And understandably, in the days since, the reflections on Sir David’s life of service from MPS, ministers, commentators, his constituents and loved ones have been accompanied by a discussion on how we can prevent another terrible tragedy in the future.
As a former MP, I am saddened and shaken by Sir David’s death, and I understand the fear all MPS feel in the wake of these events. And as a prominent Jewish woman, I am all too familiar with the hateful abuse that is common on social media from the trolls and disguised accounts who feel no remorse or shame in spreading hate on the internet. But as chief executive of Index on Censorship – an organisation founded to protect the right to freedom of expression – I am troubled by the speed with which online anonymity has become the dominant topic in discussions about what our response to this tragedy should be.
It is clear more action needs to be taken to protect our legislators. But thus far, there is no evidence to suggest that there was any link between Sir David’s death and online anonymity. It is a sad fact that the abuse we see on social media often comes from named accounts – unfortunately, mine tends to. Some 99 cent of the Twitter accounts suspended for racism during the Euro 2020 championships, for example, were not anonymous. Many of those people who use social media to abuse are proud to do it from a named profile.
Even where abuse is posted anonymously, there are already models to deal with it. Most “anonymous” content is not truly anonymous, but provisionally so. In almost all cases, if there is a need to identify an individual, this can be achieved with the details held by platforms and internet service providers. A number of policy and legal options already exist to tackle criminal uses of online anonymity, and the police can and do work with online platforms which are used to send abusive messages. Given that these powers already exist, the real question is why more is not being done to tackle online hate, and how can we change the toxic culture not just the law.
Ending online anonymity isn’t just a fruitless gesture – it would actively destroy what is so valuable about the internet for so many. The ability to be anonymous online is often vital for safety. This is not just true for whistleblowers and dissidents, but also in much more common experiences. Anonymity on the internet gives young people questioning their sexuality or gender the space to connect with other members of the LGBTQ+ community without forcing them to come out. It allows victims of domestic abuse to share their experiences and access resources without having to speak publicly about their trauma. It allows millions to seek help everyday with issues that they don’t feel comfortable sharing with friends and family offline.
Ending anonymity would also exclude millions of Britain’s most marginalised people from the internet. Demands for identity verification tend to propose linking online access to formal documentation, such as a passport or driving licence. At least 3.5 million people in the UK do not own any form of photo ID, according to Electoral Commission figures. This would lead to already socially excluded people being shut off from vital services.
It is understandable that, in the wake of such a horrifying tragedy, our instinct is to grasp wildly for an instantaneous tool or trick that will mean we can say “never again”. And, given the torrent of threats and abuse to which many MPS and their staff are subject on a daily basis on social media, it is all too easy to conflate two separate issues, and look for a catch-all solution.
Sadly, it’s just not that simple. These issues throw up massive and difficult questions about how we balance freedom of expression against online safety, and how we protect our politicians from abuse and violence while allowing them to be accessible to their constituents. These questions require thoughtful consideration, and I can’t pretend I have all the right answers – but I do know that ending anonymity online is the wrong one.