The news of Elon Musk clinching the deal to buy Twitter for
$44 billion, was celebrated by proponents of freedom of speech.
Since the news of his takeover, users have inundated Musk with suggestions on how to improve the platform.
Among the leading suggestions is the elimination of anonymity.
Governor Mike Huckabee thinks it is a good idea.
https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/status/1520363075660140547
Musk responded as follows.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1520624512588742657
So let’s dig deeper.
Currently. during enrollment, Twitter verifies that a confirmed email
address or mobile phone number is associated with an account. Twitter has a two-factor authentication process. The first is obviously the username
and password used to sign in. The second is the entry of a security key received
via email or text on their mobile device.
Those who desire anonymity while authentication can confirm their
identity via email with a cryptic username instead of their mobile device.
One of the issues on Twitter, that even Musk has complained
about, is bots. These are dummy accounts whose sole function is either to boost
follower counts of certain users or push an agenda to influence others.
This enables the call for cancellation by claiming that "Mr. ABC was excoriated by thousands of users on Twitter for his bigoted utterances”
But the truth is the trend is being pushed by a thousand bogus
accounts run by Democrat operatives.
Making authentication more ‘robust’ will eliminate bots.
Perhaps n addition to a confirmed email address or mobile
phone number, Twitter mandates that the user’s Social Security number be verified during enrolment.
This would eliminate the issue of bots.
Even if users are allowed to remain anonymous after signing in, the thought that their account is linked with the government could deter users from expressing themselves freely.
What if Huckabee’s recommendation is also implemented, i.e. in addition to government verification while enrollment and every user has to have their own display photo and real name.
Most people use their cloak of anonymity to express ideas that
they would hesitate to express in person. Some claim that anonymity is the sole
reason behind abusive and hateful online behavior.
But there are other circumstances that require anonymity.
Perhaps a whistleblower wants to reveal large-scale corruption or wrongdoing at his place of work but doesn't know whom to turn to. Being anonymous is the only way the individual can
express himself freely without fear of reprisal. The hope is that his Tweets will cause an internal or external investigation that is followed by remedial action.
People often hesitate to even file police complaints because they
do not want to be mixed up with the law. Here again, social media anonymity
can be invaluable. Perhaps an individual witnesses a crime in progress but hesitates
to call the police because he doesn’t want to be subjected to questioning and participate
in court hearings. If
however, the user can tweet anonymously to law enforcement, precious lives could be
saved without the complainant being ‘mixed up with the law’.
We know that most big corporate houses, showbiz, educational institutes, and NGOs are overwhelmingly liberal. Conservatives often have no option but to be reticent about their opinions at work. Being anonymous once again is the only way they can express their political views on social media and meet many others like them. If users are compelled to reveal their identity they will probably remain silent and an independent voice will be lost.
The result is Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper will still be able to tweet about the debunked Russian Collusion story but a covert Trump supporter working in Hollywood, will not be able to reply and debunk her story for fear of reprisals at the workplace.
It is not just politics, there may be other scenarios where people desire anonymity. Perhaps an individual suffers from a rare health disorder and wants to interact with others who suffer from it without having to disclose their identity.
Under totalitarian regimes, anonymity on social media may be the only way to express dissent.
Beyond social media, many writers have used nom de plume to conceal their identity. Charlotte, Emily, and Anne Brontë published Jane Eyre and, Wuthering Heights under the pseudonyms of three brothers, Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell.
It has to be remembered that absolute anonymity is impossible
on social media. Irrespective of how cryptic a Twitter handle and display
photo is, an identity (and address) of a user can be exposed by determined cyber experts.
This occurred with the famous Twitter account ‘Liberals of
Tick Tock”, which merely reposts the voluntarily posted ridiculous utterances of
the woke liberals. The Washington Post carried an article that revealed
the identity of the individual who runs the account. The
risk of this doxing
is that the user could suffer both professionally and personally. Perhaps an
angry waiter sneezes into her soup or an irate left-winger resorts to violence.
The user will have to always be on the lookout for the rest of her life.
What about those who incite violence and hate?
Twitter can easily remove such content if law enforcement
issues directives. There have been plenty of instances when this has been done.
Anonymity is related to privacy which is regarded as a human right. The right to remain anonymous hence must be respected.
In the end, we cannot deny responsible individuals their right to express themselves freely just because rogue elements will abuse it.
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment