Is Internet anonymity a problem? Germany's Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich thinks so. In comments to the German magazine Spiegel, he argued that the recent attacks in Norway illustrate the need to force political commentators to identify themselves online. The shooter, Anders Breivik, cited a pseudonymous anti-Muslim blogger in his manifesto.
Meanwhile, Google has decided to adopt a policy for Google+ modeled on Facebook's "real names" rule. This has sparked a fierce debate, with some arguing that the shift to using real names improves the quality of public discussion, while others insist that forcing people to use their real names represents an abuse of power.
There's been a tendency to conflate these two issues, but they're actually quite separate. There are good reasons for some websites to require their users to use their real names, but this policy won't make sense for all websites, and it's foolish and counterproductive for governments to mandate it. The right to free speech includes the right to speak anonymously, and fears of terrorism or other crimes shouldn't be used as a pretext for abridging those rights. Most importantly, there's no reason to think that banning anonymous speech online will deter terrorism or other crimes.
Korea's futile experiment
The best argument against laws requiring websites to use "real name" policies is South Korea's disastrous experiment with requiring websites to collect the real names of users who post content. Freedom House told the story in a recent report:
In 2007, the internet real-name registration system was expanded to apply to any website with more than 100,000 visitors per day. Users are required to verify their identities by submitting their Resident Registration Numbers (RRNs) when they wish to join and contribute to web portals and other major sites. As RRNs are assigned only to Korean citizens at birth, foreign nationals must individually contact webmasters to confirm their identities. This included the video-sharing website YouTube, but the site's U.S.-based parent company, Google, refused to ask its Korean customers for their RRNs. Instead, it has blocked users from uploading content onto YouTube Korea. Users are able to bypass the restriction by changing their location setting to "worldwide." Even the Korean presidential office maintains its YouTube channel in this way.
Trying to quell extremist views by preventing them from being expressed anonymously simply isn't going to work. The Web is a big place; no government on Earth has the reach to completely eliminate anonymous forums from the Internet. Trying to suppress anonymous posting of extremist views just forces them underground, reinforcing extremists' persecution complex and making them even more disconnected from mainstream political debates.
Freedom House argues that prohibiting anonymity infringes free speech rights. UN free speech watchdog Frank La Rue agrees, and has called for the system to be abolished.
After a barrage of criticism, the South Korean government has finally announced plans to abandon the system. This recent decision came in the wake of a major security breach in which information about 35 million users was reportedly stolen from two popular websites. Forcing websites to collect more identifying information about their users doesn't make sites more vulnerable to security breaches, but it increases the damage that such breaches can do (and makes the sites more attractive targets).
The case for anonymity
Even if it were technically feasible, ending online anonymity wouldn't be a good idea. True, anonymity is sometimes used for nefarious purposes. Internet users may be more offensive and belligerent online if they know their statements will never be traced back to their offline identities.
But not everyone seeks anonymity to behave boorishly. Some online speakers want anonymity because they fear their legitimate online speech could trigger real-life retaliation. That could mean a citizen of a repressive regime wanting to criticize the government. It could mean a whistleblower wanting to expose the wrongdoing of her employer. It could be a woman trying to avoid discovery by her abusive ex-husband. The list of reasons people want to speak anonymously is almost endless.
And of course anonymity isn't just important to anonymous speakers. The rest of us also benefit from a public discussion that includes a broader range of voices.
The Korean model wouldn't fly in the United States, where it would be flatly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that Americans have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously, and there's every reason to think that applies to the Internet.
But few countries enjoy the United States's robust free speech protections. In those countries, such laws might be constitutional, but at least they face strong resistance. In Germany, for example, a member of an opposition party called Friedrich's proposal "incredibly naive."
One size doesn't fit all
There's a difference between a nationwide ban on anonymous postings and an individual website choosing not to allow them. People who want to express themselves anonymously have a right to do so, but they don't have a right to do it on every site on the Web.
A growing number of blogs have adopted Facebook-based comment systems that disclose commenters' real names. Sometimes this really does improve the quality of comment sections. People tend to be more polite when their names are attached to their comments, though certain kinds of comments (from industry insiders, for instance) may never be made at all on such sites.
But there's no general answer to the anonymity question. Facebook had its origins as a "facebook" on college campuses; requiring real names was an obvious choice for that application, and the site has retained the requirement as it grew. Twitter, in contrast, began as a service for broadcasting text messages to anyone who wanted to follow them. Real names didn't make as much sense for that application, so Twitter doesn't require them. The sites are used by different people for different purposes, and users can choose which model works best for them.
Google's problem seems to be that, in typical Google fashion, it's trying to have Google+ be all things to all people. Google didn't seem to have had a coherent vision of what Google+ was for (other than competing with Facebook), and the site has grown so fast that Google hasn't had time to experiment with a small user base before entering the big leagues.
But there's nothing essentially nefarious about Google's real names policy. Facebook's own real names policy seems to have served the company and its users well, and it makes sense that Google would mimic it. If Google+ and Facebook were the only websites where people could air their thoughts, then real name policies would cause more concern; in a world saturated with anonymous blogs and social networks like Twitter, it's a less crucial issue—so long as real names aren't mandated by government.
But Google could do more to address critics' concerns. For example, Facebook offers search privacy settings that limit who can find your profile in search results. As far as we can tell, Google+ doesn't offer a similar feature. Users who want to use Google+ but don't want their employer, abusive ex-husband, or others to find them online would likely appreciate the ability to make themselves invisible in search results.
Update: A reader points out that Google does offer search privacy options. We missed it because we were expecting it to be under "Google+ settings" rather than being an editable field in the profile itself.
Listing image by Photograph by Howard Jefferson
reader comments
64