During a recent interview on Sky News, UK Home Secretary Priti Patel declined to rule out banning anonymous social media accounts. The interview came only days after the murder of Sir David Amess MP, which has prompted calls for a “David’s Law” banning anonymous social media accounts. Such a proposal should concern everyone who values civil liberties. Unpleasant and criminal actors use anonymous social media accounts, but this fact should not blind lawmakers to the value of anonymous speech.

Calls for an end to anonymous social media accounts are not new. Earlier this year, some British commentators expressed support for an end to anonymous social media accounts, motivated by the deluge of online racist abuse directed at black England soccer players after England’s loss to Italy in the Euro 2020 final. Polling from YouGov reveals that 78 percent of people in the UK support mandatory identity disclosure as a precondition of creating a social media account. Of that 78 percent, 37 percent believe that social media users should have to reveal their identities in their profile.

While such a requirement may sound appealing to many at first glance it would result in a significant reduction in the spread of valuable speech and put the privacy of millions of social media users at risk.

Amid well-publicised online abuse directed at lawmakers, racial minorities, and others it is tempting to view anonymity as the refuge of bigots, criminals, and harassers. And while it is appropriate for news outlets to highlight instances of notable online abuse, we should not forget that anonymity is valuable to a wide range of those speaking online.

Speakers who seek anonymity or pseudonymity (writing under an assumed name) do so for a variety of reasons. For some, anonymity provides a shield from social sanction that may result from their speech. Those from strict religious families may want to take steps to conceal their identity when discussing religion in online forums. Similarly, young people seeking new political ideas may want to avoid having their hyper-partisan parents finding out about their political views. Workers who want to draw attention to poor working conditions may choose to conceal their identity in an attempt to avoid being fired. Under a policy mandating that such speakers display their identity, we should expect such speech to diminish and in some cases disappear altogether.

Even those who do not face being disowned or fired for their online speech may silence themselves if an identity verification policy is implemented. Anonymous and pseudonymous accounts allow social media users to explore difficult and complex issues such as politics, race, sexuality, religion, and others without having to fear that comments they make and questions they ask as they seek to learn more will later be used against them. Many speakers would feel less forthcoming in debates online if their identities were linked to an account.

Supporters of identity verification might argue that a policy requiring social media users verify their identity with social media companies but allowing them to post under a pseudonym would allow for such speakers to continue posting without fear of their identities being revealed. This is misguided.

The very fact that a private company is hoarding identity information associated with millions of people will deter many social media users from using their preferred platform. Those who use social media to conduct whistleblowing or highlight government fraud and abuse will flee platforms if their identity is one government request or criminal hack away from being revealed to law enforcement, intelligence agencies, or the public. Such breaches are not hypothetical, as hacks of private companies such as Twitch and government agencies such as OPM demonstrate. Members of religious and political minorities, sex workers, and many others often on the receiving end of surveillance and social stigma would be justified in abandoning social media or seeking encrypted alternatives.

At least one supporter of social media identity verification claims that “People could still use pseudonyms to whistleblow, report abuse etc.” Perhaps, but the question lawmakers should ask is, “How many whistleblowers will there be if identity verification is required in the first place?”

While the identity verification proposal has yet to be presented in a bill we should expect that any proposal will have to define covered firms. “Social media” is a term that we are all used to, and when we hear it firms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter inevitably come to mind. However, “social media” is difficult to define. Lawmakers’ attempts to regulate social media will have to define what firms are covered by the identity verification mandate. This is not an easy task.



We intuitively think of social media as digital platforms where users can post and reply to comments, organize events, share photos, etc. Yet such capabilities are hardly confined to “Big Tech” household name firms. On Wikipedia, users can post comments, contribute to debates, and share content using pseudonymous accounts. Chess​.com allows users to chat with one another, post in forums, and write blog posts. Yelp!, Nextdoor, Rotten Tomatoes, and many, many other websites also have features most people attribute to “social media.” But what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for social media? This is a question lawmakers seeking to impose identity verification on social media firms will have to answer. If they get the answer wrong the unintended consequences would affect much more than Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.

The problems associated with social media identity verification do not diminish the harms inflicted on many social media users. Harassment, bullying, and other forms of abuse can lead to tragic incidents, and the echo chambers that amplify and entrench conspiracy theories are hardly conducive to informed civil discourse. Amid such harms it is not hard to fathom why lawmakers across the world are calling for action. But responses such as a ban on anonymous accounts will stifle valuable speech and put privacy at risk.