In “Anonymity on the Internet: Why the Price May Be Too High,” David Davenport says that online anonymity is terrible for society and can result in an “incremental breakdown of the fabric of our society” (Davenport, 33).While Davenport does bring some valid arguments in contrast to anonymity, his absolute anti-anonymity stand requires a more convincing defence to abolish internet anonymity. A more complex analysis of the pros and cons of online anonymity is needed. Evaluating these claims shows that Davenport is correct, but his conclusion to oppose anonymity is overstated compared to the countervailing considerations that anonymity enables free speech for the oppressed. Ultimately, Davenport’s thought-provoking but one-sided arguments point towards the need for targeted regulation of particular anonymous abuses rather than blanket prohibition of all online anonymity. This essay will critically evaluate three critical claims made in Davenport’s article: the asserted need for accountability over anonymity, the argument that anonymity enables criminal behaviour, and the concern regarding government misuse of anonymity.
Firstly, Davenport argues that accountability is more crucial than total anonymity online. He thinks that even though some anonymity aids in expressing free speech, accountability systems are still needed to curtail the harmful behaviours facilitated by anonymity. Yet Davenport minimizes the chilling effect on free speech arising from the loss of online anonymity. Asking for real names and identification for all online activities can curb people from voicing minority opinions, unpopular positions, or dissenting views out of fear of attack or reprisal. If their real identity is associated with controversial positions, people might refrain from sharing their opinions for fear of jeopardizing their reputation, job, and lifestyle. Oppressed groups and those living under authoritarian regimes worldwide may use anonymity as their only platform to speak out against authorities without the threat of punishment. Davenport needs to see that identification verification would suppress the lawful free speech of groups that are already marginalized.
Consequently, he overstates the necessity of absolute accountability compared to reasonable anonymity protections, albeit these protections still enable accountability for illegal acts. Some level of anonymity should be maintained to allow for free expression, especially by the vulnerable population. Davenport minimizes the chilling effects by exaggerating the demand for total accountability over anonymity online.
Secondly, Davenport argues that anonymity enables criminal behaviour. This is a valid concern since anonymity provides boldness to some people to indulge in antisocial acts without fear of being identified. On the other hand, completely removing online anonymity will also deprive those who use it appropriately for their needs. For political dissidents, whistleblowers who expose corruption, victims of abuse, and other vulnerable people, anonymity acts as a shield under which they can share information without fear of retaliation. Removing the online anonymity for everyone cancels the main channel through which the disempowered can safely tell the truth to the power. The more sensible approach is to have narrow regulations and restrictions that target specific unlawful uses of anonymity rather than compromising its protections for the legal, responsible ones. Complete banning of online anonymity is an overbroad measure that may bring unintended negative consequences. Some anonymity must be preserved to enable free speech and target harmful behaviours. In conclusion, specific rules on abusive anonymity are wise, but an absolute ban would do more harm than good.
Finally, Davenport cautions regarding government misuse of anonymity. This is a legitimate concern, as there is state-sponsored propaganda and coordinated misinformation campaigns in social media across the globe. On the other hand, restricting online anonymity may provide an easier way for the government to identify, monitor, and target activists, journalists, political dissidents, and minority groups who depend on anonymity for protection. Removing anonymizing tools will make it impossible for people to criticize authorities safely. Rather than prohibiting public anonymity, it is better to impose restrictions on the government’s powers to deal with state abuse of anonymity. Policymakers must consider options such as mandating transparency in government-sponsored online communications, banning the clandestine state manipulation of public social media, and enforcing reforms that will protect the press and free speech.
Furthermore, actions to increase mass media literacy can also fight against disinformation while protecting free speech.
To sum up, Davenport raises a valid point of the government’s abuse of anonymity; however, his indiscriminate response of removing anonymity protection provides the government with a further tool to discriminate against already marginalized groups. A more measured and rights-protecting approach targeted at law-breaking government activities instead of law-abiding private anonymity is a wise policy response. Do away with anonymity on a large scale, and authoritarian regimes will take advantage of the new status quo to suppress dissent.
In conclusion, Davenport raises some legitimate concerns regarding accountability, potential criminal abuses, and government misuse enabled by online anonymity. Overall, his position against internet anonymity shows a lack of nuance and does not sufficiently consider its vital role in preserving free speech, especially for the excluded groups. Davenport mentions some valid concerns that anonymity raises but does not build a convincing, all-round case for getting rid of it entirely. A broad removal of online anonymity will do more harm than good by chilling legal free expression and depriving the underprivileged of the vital tool to tell the powerful the truth. A more sensible, ethical way to go about it is to address specific shortcomings of anonymity through narrowly targeted regulations and accountability mechanisms. Regulations could address these concerns over anonymity without removing its protections for legitimate uses. Let’s consider imposing anonymity for government-sponsored online communications or cyberbullying laws to curb certain abuses without violating public anonymity rights. The legal uses of anonymity need to be retained to have an open internet where the voice of the vulnerable can be heard. We should take a balanced, holistic view of the online anonymity policy. Neither total uncontrolled anonymity nor a complete ban is a reasonable solution. Like any complex issue, nuance is necessary. We need to shape policies that enable us to enjoy the benefits of anonymity, especially for promoting social justice, considering the risks, and trying to avert harm. Mindfully, regulations can respond to the dangers of anonymity but not the destruction of a tool necessary for freedom and empowerment. Even though Davenport firmly supports online anonymity, his legitimate concerns eventually direct us not to ban it in general but to develop complex regulations that preserve its lawful uses and fight specific abuses. Finally, Davenport offers sensible criticisms of anonymity but does not conclude that it must be prohibited, given its crucial role in free speech. The right way to go is to target ethical policies.
Word count: 1126
Work Cited
Davenport, David. “Anonymity on the Internet: Why the Price May Be Too High.” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45, No. 4, Pp. 33–35. 2002.
write