Freedom of 'anonymous' expression?

By Jason Lim

Freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitutions of all democratic nations, but does that mean that there is also a freedom to express oneself anonymously? This is not a new question, but has taken on an enhanced salience due to the recent attack on the Capitol by Americans who were motivated by disinformation and radicalized by QAnon conspiracy theories. Some of the disinformation were propagated by known and verifiable personalities, but much has been fanned by anonymous voices. Exhibit 1 is the “Q” of the QAnon, who is still unknown.

Korea actually tried to legislate this problem away back in 2007 when there was a dawning appreciation that cyberbullying hidden behind the cloak of anonymity was becoming a serious social problem. The National Assembly passed a law that mandated that people's real identities be validated through their social registration number and actual names used in any posting or other online activities. The driving rationale behind the law was that online anonymity afforded a lack of transparency and accountability that gave rise to irresponsible behavior by the netizens.

It failed for a variety of reasons. However, the biggest finding was that such law, even when enforced, failed to curve online behavior, especially misinformation that was often sensational. According to a 2013 paper by David A. Caragliano, “real name registration policy did not deter wild and unfounded positions from being promoted online. According to one claim, which appeared to win wide credibility, Koreans were genetically predisposed to Mad Cow Disease.”

In 2012, the law was struck down as unconstitutional, with the court ruling that, “The system does not seem to have been beneficial to the public. Despite the enforcement of the system, the number of illegal or malicious postings online has not decreased. Instead, users moved to foreign Websites and the system became discriminatory against domestic operators. It also prevented foreigners who didn't have a resident registration number here from expressing their opinions online.”

In the meanwhile, cyberbullying continued, claiming one victim after another, including Sulli, a 25-year-old actress who killed herself in 2019 after being subjected to years of malicious and unfounded online attacks. Cyberbullying, however tragic and offensive, is one thing. However, what happens when violent rhetoric, misinformation and conspiracy theories attack at the very foundation of democracy itself?

Anonymity might have been acceptable prior to the internet. But we now have the scalability problem. The sheer ubiquity of select online platforms amplifies the efficacy of anonymity to become a powerful tool for authority and power without the corresponding responsibility and accountability. It makes it too easy for faceless voices to gain a large audience ― no longer bound by physical space ― for misinformation, othering, anger, conspiracies, and anything that might get them attention. Because anonymity protects them from having to be accountable, they use less restraint than they would in situations in which they have to actually own their words. The events of Jan. 6 have shown us that words have the power to create an alternate belief system that can proselytize millions and make the faithful immune to facts and can actually incite them to violence under certain conditions.

But eliminating anonymity on the internet, even if it can be done technically, carries the huge risk of turning the country into a totalitarian state like China that can censor any speech that doesn't tow the party line and dole out penalties to people who can no longer hide behind anonymity. Combine that with ubiquitous CCTV and passive facial recognition systems, you have a modern surveillance state with fearsome capabilities to stifle any speech and compel “correct” behavior. This would surely ring the death knell for democracy under the guise of accountability and responsible behavior. Defending democracy shouldn't result in killing it.

Perhaps I am not solving the right problem. Or, I am solving the right problem, but the solution is worse than the problem. If responsible and accountable speech is the desired end-state, and online anonymity is to be protected, then what other levers does the society have to drive a healthier engagement and public discussion behavior?

As with any difficult problem, the answer is not cut and dried, which makes it inherently unsatisfying. Human behavior is not something that can be directly legislated. However, what can be done is to create system of incentives ― carrots and sticks ― that targets the underlying logic of the click-bait marketplace, driving anonymous voices to outcompete one another with extremism one-upmanship in a race towards the bottom.

This is a logic that's focused and amplified by the ubiquity and monopolies of the few giant social media sites that determine which voices you get to see and share. On second thought, anonymity might not be the problem. Perhaps it's the sheer ubiquity and monopoly of the social media giants that calls for the Sherman Anti-Trust Laws for the digital age to break up the monopolies that are price-fixing people's motivations to behave ever more extremely to an ever-increasing group of similarly minded tribes. And incentivizing us to engage in an “uncivil” war.

Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture.