1 of 1

Write now Article Tools

Online anonymity is something that people have widely come to assume is a necessary component of freedom online. It is frequently argued that without the ability to speak one's mind online anonymously, or to browse the internet secretly, that freedom would be curtailed. Myself and a growing number of other people think this is only partly correct: unrestricted online anonymity curtails freedom.

When it comes to browsing online, an argument certainly can be made for maintaining total anonymity. One example of the need for it that I've heard is that of people searching for information on such dread diseases as AIDS. If one were not able to search for information about AIDS in secret, many people who suspect they may have the disease might avoid doing so for fear of being discovered by the public (or closer to home, their community); the same would be true of people who do know they have the disease but who need more information and wish to keep their HIV positive status secret.

Typically, people extend this reasoning to posting one's thoughts online. Many maintain that without the ability to speak one's mind anonymously, many will not out of fear of retribution from others. An example often cited is that of whistleblowers, people who report the wrongdoings of corporations, politicians, etc. This is a valid point, and good in practice. But then people extend this consideration too far to cover online speech in general. That's when things go awry with the argument.

Something of this sort has been going on locally where I live for some time, involving the website of a local newspaper, the Moscow-Pullman Daily News. Their site has for a long time featured a comments function that allows the public to respond directly to articles published in the paper. In short, this feature has become a perfect example of why anonymity online does not equate to freedom, but frequently to the opposite of freedom.

On a blog I frequent, Right-mind.us, an associate of mine, Tom Forbes (founder of Palousitics.com), wrote about this phenomenon:

Tom: "Anonymity on the Internet does not lead to more free speech in the community as some claim. It leads to less. How many voices did the DN's Town Crier III series lose out on because people did not want to subject themselves to nameless character assassins? How many refuse to write letters to the editor for the same reason? It allows the anonymous few to intimidate the many. That is not freedom. It is tyranny."

I posted to the thread an experience

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Online anonymity: Why it may or may not be desired?
We want to hear your view. Write now!