Introduction
In this Internet age, many people feel fearless because of the “anonymity” provided by social media platforms, and make some controversial remarks on social media. They thought their identities would not be identified, but they eventually faced real-life punishments, such as academic sanctions, public condemnation, and even legal proceedings. But this is not a hypothesis, it is something that many people in this era have experienced personally.
This is the two sides of online anonymity. On the one hand, it can give people the right to express themselves freely, and on the other hand, it also provides shelter for trolls and bullies. As The Auburn Plainsman pointed out in a recent article, Internet anonymity is just a myth. In the article, an 18-year-old honors student at Florida International University was arrested for allegedly posting a bomb threat through an anonymous Instagram account (See Figure 1). For example, platforms like YikYak, which encourage college students to connect anonymously, have been involved in many such incidents. Many users on it have been severely punished or even prosecuted for the content they posted, but what they originally wanted was just some kind of recognition or online popularity. They thought that anonymity would protect them from being tracked, but their identities were pointed out directly.
As these things happen, we must start to think: Is online anonymity a shield for free expression, or a mask for irresponsible and harmful behavior? In fact, the real key is not anonymity itself, but how we manage and understand it.
In this article, I will explore the pros and cons of anonymity on social media, and analyze some cases of how we should strive to find a balance between them.
Why Online Anonymity Matters?
Anonymity in social media does play an important role in protecting freedom of speech, especially in situations where expressing opinions may bring real risks to oneself. For example, political dissidents, whistleblowers or vulnerable groups. For them, anonymity is an important protective “shield” that allows them to tell the truth without fear of retaliation.
In the Arab Spring uprisings in the early 2010s. Social media (especially Twitter and Facebook) became an important battlefield for revolutionaries to organize protests and the main platform for spreading information. Social media helped promote the uprising to a great extent. Revolutionaries in countries like Egypt and Tunisia relied on Facebook’s anonymity to avoid being located and tracked by hostile regimes when publishing about the uprising. Without anonymity, many revolutionary uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa may have been punished or even persecuted before they spoke out (Emmanouilidou, 2020).
Not only in politics, but also in daily life, anonymity on social media provides people with a safe outlet to discuss sensitive and personal issues, such as mental health, sexual orientation or domestic violence. In this regard, the Pew Center in the United States has conducted a number of studies on digital privacy. According to a survey data from the Pew Research Center in 2019, about 81% of the public in the United States said that they did not believe that they could benefit from such a system of extensive data collection, or that they believed that the potential risks of such extensive data collection outweighed the benefits (Pew Research Center, 2019) (See Figure 3). These data reflect the public’s general concerns about the transparency and privacy of digital identities, and indirectly illustrate that anonymity is still very important to many Internet users.
However, the advantages of anonymity cannot cover up the harm it may cause. Every coin has two sides, and is the same as anonymity. It is a tool. Like any tool, it can be used to protect vulnerable groups, but it can also be used by criminal groups as a sharp weapon to hurt others.
The Dark Side of Anonymity
While online anonymity can give vulnerable groups a voice to a certain extent, it also encourages harmful behavior. Because under the cover of anonymity, some users unscrupulously publish hate speech, spread false information, and even harass others on social media because they believe they can rely on anonymity to escape responsibility.
A notorious example is the Gamergate incident in 2014. At that time, some right-wing gamers launched continuous attacks, threats and human flesh searches on female game practitioners because of their rise and influence in the game industry. It promoted the fermentation of the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory online and even quickly spawned a wider QAnon conspiracy movement (Greengard, 2025).
A more typical case is about American professor Ally Louks. Dr. Ally Louks, a scholar at the University of Cambridge, posted a post on social media to celebrate her academic achievements. After this post was widely circulated, she was subjected to a series of online abuses from students on YikYak, including bullying and threats against women. In response to these insults and bullying, the University of Cambridge issued a statement to fully support Dr. Louks condemned the harassment she suffered (Pandey, 2024). Although YikYak users speak anonymously, law enforcement agencies eventually tracked down the publishers of this information and punished them accordingly. This also shows that anonymity has contributed to the occurrence of these bad behaviors, and it also reminds us that the so-called “anonymity” is often just a myth.
This shows that online hate speech is more likely to spread anonymously. After a 2020 study, the Institute for Strategic Discourse (ISD) made an important point, Anonymous accounts are much more likely to post extreme content than real-name accounts.
This shows that online hate speech is more likely to spread anonymously. The Institute for Strategic Discourse (ISD) made an important point after a 2020 study: anonymous accounts are much more likely to post extreme content than real-name accounts.
The common point of these cases is often anonymity, which allows people to hurt others recklessly without worrying about the consequences. In these incidents, anonymity is not protecting the weak, but encouraging the perpetrators. Anonymity allows users to say things they would never say face to face, causing harm to others and even society.
The Policy Dilemma: Privacy vs Accountability
We often think of “anonymity” as a switch – either allow or prohibit. But the reality is much more complicated than this.
For example, the behavior of anonymous users online will also affect the recommendation mechanism due to different platform algorithms, and finally bring different consequences. When attractive content receives more and more clicks, the algorithm recommendation mechanism will accelerate and amplify the spread. Whether the content comes from real-name accounts or anonymous users, the platform’s algorithm inadvertently encourages the spread and interaction of malicious news. Therefore, once these are involved, accountability becomes very difficult.
This problem has prompted governments to intervene and try different strategies. For example, in 2021, Australia proposed the “Anti-Troll Bill”, which allows courts to require social platforms to disclose the identities of users who post defamatory or harmful content. But experts say that the legislation focuses on defamation and does not help curb the incidence of cyberbullying or cyber hatred (Kelly, 2021). In 2007, South Korea attempted to implement an online real-name system (John Leitner, 2009), but in the 2022 constitution, it was considered that its restrictions on freedom of speech did not match the benefits it brought, and the policy was eventually revoked.
Therefore, not all solutions are fair or effective. Overly strict regulations can inhibit free speech, while weak regulation can easily lead to rampant abuse. Therefore, platforms are also caught in a dilemma of the tug-of-war between privacy and responsibility. Perhaps we should look for a more appropriate middle ground.
How to Regulating and Balancing Anonymity Online
In the face of these phenomena, it is more urgent and necessary to find a balance between protecting freedom of speech and preventing online harm, which is also a great challenge. These issues are not black and white, which means that we need smarter and more flexible ways to deal with them. As just mentioned, complete anonymity will promote the spread of false information and even generate hatred or threats, but completely canceling anonymity will expose vulnerable groups to the eyes of the world and completely deprive them of the space to speak out.
So, how can we find this balance? This undoubtedly requires the joint efforts of the government, social media platforms and Internet users.
For social media platforms, social media platforms can establish a background identity authentication mechanism without forcing users to use their real names. For example, Reddit allows users to use pseudonyms, but when users make inappropriate remarks, the platform can still track the account immediately. This practice protects user privacy while also providing the possibility for intervention when necessary.
Another effective method is to provide users with differentiated anonymity, because not all users need the same degree of anonymous protection. For example, sensitive professions such as journalists, vulnerable groups and dissidents may need higher privacy protection, while some malicious accounts need to be subject to stricter scrutiny and supervision. The different “authentication marks” of Twitter and Sina Weibo are attempts at this idea.
More importantly, the formulation and implementation of relevant legal systems also play a key role. Take the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) as an example. The act aims to create a safer online environment for EU consumers and businesses, requiring platforms to quickly deal with illegal content and products, hate speech and false information while protecting basic rights, including the right to anonymity. It introduces the responsibility and accountability of intermediary service providers instead of simple monitoring (European Union, 2023). This system also provides an excellent model for the world to find a balance between security and freedom.
Finally, digital literacy education for Internet users is also necessary. Users should not only improve their online literacy, regulate their own speech on social media, but also improve their ability to distinguish the authenticity of information. When Internet users understand the potential risks and responsibilities of anonymity, they are more likely to use anonymous functions in a responsible manner. A conscious public with the ability to distinguish right from wrong is the first line of defense against the abuse of anonymity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, online anonymity is a double-edged sword.Online anonymity can empower individuals to have freedom of speech especially for those in oppressive environments or those who are facing personal struggles. As a contrast, it can also be misused to harm, harass and spread disinformation without accountability. This contradiction is at the key of ongoing debate: should anonymity be protected or should it be controlled?
As we’ve seen from real cases, anonymity has played a virtual role in social justice movements and personal expression. At the same time, it allowed hate speech, cyberbullying and even crime threats. This shows that anonymity in itself is not inherently good or bad depending on how people use it as a tool in the online world.
Anonymity should not be fully embraced nor completely banned, instead we should focus on how to regulate it with nuance and care. The government, the platform and the users themselves play an important role each. The government can enforce law in controlling the peace in the online world while the platforms should implement the law accordingly. The Chinese Government made a great example as the identity of online users are protected and hidden but the enforcement is able to track the real identity of the person if needed as everyone must verify their account using real ID card or passport in order to continue using the social media platforms. Last but not least, the users must take responsibility by becoming more digitally literate and ethically aware of how our actions affect others online.
The future of online anonymity shouldn’t be about choosing between freedom and safety but it should be about building a system where both can achieve balance. Only by taking a collaborative and balanced approach, we can create a digital space where voices are protected and harm is prevented.
References:
The Plainsman. (2025, April). Editorial: Internet anonymity is a myth. The Plainsman. https://www.theplainsman.com/article/2025/04/editorial-internet-anonymity-is-a-myth
The World. (2020, December 17). Arab uprisings: What role did social media really play? The World. https://theworld.org/stories/2020/12/17/arab-uprisings-what-role-did-social-media-really-play
Pew Research Center. (2019, November 15). Americans and privacy: Concerned, confused, and feeling lack of control over their personal information. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information
Encyclopædia Britannica. (n.d.). Gamergate campaign. Encyclopædia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gamergate-campaign
NDTV. (2024, March 29). Cambridge University responds to backlash over thesis linking body odour to racism. NDTV. https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/cambridge-university-responds-to-backlash-over-thesis-linking-body-odour-to-racism-7193355
Institute for Strategic Dialogue. (2020, June). An online environmental scan of right-wing extremism in Canada. https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/An-Online-Environmental-Scan-of-Right-wing-Extremism-in-Canada-ISD.pdf
European Union. (n.d.). Rules on personal data protection inside and outside the EU. EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=legissum%3A4625430Karp, P. (2021, November 28). Coalition bill would force social media companies to reveal identities of online bullies. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/28/coalition-bill-would-force-social-media-companies-to-reveal-identities-of-online-bullies
Be the first to comment