Is anonymity always bad?

Kevin Mokento | Monday June 27, 2022 06:00

Though considered a handy tool for the bad boys; burglars and robbers, for many, facemasks continue to be a prized possession, principally because they have been effective in saving lives.

Inevitably, because of masks, we have failed to recognise people that we know. Some would stop and engage us in small talk, but many, despite recognising us, took good advantage of their masks to press on as if we were strangers to them.

This reminds me of Oscar Wilde’s words, “Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will show his true face.” This suggests that there is an element of safety and a sense of comfort in anonymity. Of course, society will always have courageous and outspoken individuals who will always tell it like it is without hiding behind pseudonyms.

Once their conscience does not object to saying or writing something, these people would boldly go ahead, unfazed and undeterred by unfavourable repercussions.

Many tend to admire such individuals, particularly when their backbone is not anchored on brittle vertebrae of vanity and unsteady nerves of self-glorifying heroism, but on flexible facet joints of principle, stable ligaments of truth and high-tensile-strong tendons of integrity that can positively aid communities in making progress.

These are societal assets with an amazing unifying effect, keen to use persuasive vocabulary to drive change.

On the flip side of this are self-assured individuals who try too hard to prove that they are fearless. Oftentimes, they have a large online following and thrive on ‘reputable’ self-invented influencer status, particularly when addressing issues for which they are experts. Through hard work and professional dedication, some of them have earned bragging rights to the upside spot of their career arc.

Their energy, articulacy and erudition as reflected in the quality of their reasonably intelligent posts, tend to earn them a huge number of likes and comments. All this speaks to the value of their contribution.

Barring a few exceptions, you might have noted that some of them tend to think they can best articulate their views in a way that will hit home if they have the effrontery to post opinions that vibrate with mocking undertones, humiliating barbs, crude swear words and downright invective vocables.

Rather than portray them as fearless individuals, wouldn’t you agree that, on the downside, such raucous conduct and the propensity to use extraneous words betray the lack of emotional depth and sensitivity that is rightly expected from all forward-thinking individuals? One wonders what drives them. Is it the desire to be destructive as opposed to being instructive? Is there a kernel of truth in the view that for these individuals, ambition and perceived power outstrip principle and morality in value? Other people derive power from the cover of darkness. In most cases, they are content with what an American poet named Walter Whitman calls, ‘flowing with the flood-tide and ebbing with the ebb-tide.’ In simple terms, they feed on the energy they derive from the crowd. On their own initiative, they cannot drive change.

And this is where darkness comes into play. Darkness endows them with the power to find their inner voice and share it with a select few or with all on online platforms. That darkness is anonymity. For this reason, social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and TikTok have many accounts that are only operated with digital masks.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? To a large extent, the answer to this question depends on the motivations of the account holders. Anonymity and integrity are not always eternal enemies. While light might persuade people to censor themselves, and say and write what is generally expected of them, darkness empowers them to unshackle themselves from what might be perceived as more conventional. Uninhibited by ‘oppressive’ societal expectations and norms, they would enthusiastically and courageously express their innermost feelings, concerns and wishes in what they consider a safe and secure setting. This is particularly important for reticent and demure individuals who for fear of being judged negatively, and out of being ill-equipped to handle face-to-face discussions, would rather slink away and hide in a corner. Anonymity might aid them in finding their place in society and could drive away a sense of unworthiness that often comes with knowing that one is not making a meaningful contribution to the upliftment of their community. They would also find comfort in releasing the anger, frustration, fear and all unhealthy emotions that could otherwise fester when bottled in for too long, and thus avert the potential for wallowing in extreme negativity, minor or major depression, anxiety and panic attacks. Anonymity bestows them with the grit to be brutally honest thereby validating their worth.

Digital platforms enable them to show what Oscar Wilde called their “true face.”

We also know that the truth is not always welcome. Particularly when it could lead to the fall of powerful people. For fear of victimisation, without necessarily treading the malicious route, legions of users of social media platforms choose to hide behind a fake name. This is what has led to the unearthing of rot through whistleblowing, not to be confused with leakage, especially in large organisations led by a few unprincipled executives and board members. This works well in cases where the right of the whistleblower to remain anonymous is respected and their right not to be victimised is protected.

Some take advantage of digital masks, not necessarily to show their “true face” but “their true colours.” The expression “true colours” is structurally negative and suggests that someone deliberately blows the façade of respectability and reveals their unpolished and unadulterated character. This emboldens them to weaponise online platforms.

They get a kick out of doing and saying whatever they wish, and harassing other Internet users with impunity, comfortable in knowing that they may not be held accountable. They easily turn into digital stalkers, trolls, and pugilists. They thrive on the seductive toxins of hate speech, online settling of scores through lies, cyberbullying, digital vandalism, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, racism and all sorts of cybercrime, and would deliberately sow malice and defamatory content about their targets.

Many of our compatriots are committed cheerleaders for free speech. Notably, our Constitution guarantees certain freedoms, such as freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of expression. It expressly states, “Except with his or her own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of expression, that is to say, freedom to hold opinions without interference, freedom to receive ideas and information without interference, freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons) and freedom from interference with his or her correspondence.”

It is constitutionally unacceptable to deny people who wish to remain anonymous the right to air their views. However, the freedoms conferred by the Constitution should not be abused. Unfortunately, under the cloak of political activism, slacktivism, vigilance and surveillance, all deemed as civil responsibilities, some of our compatriots have strayed, and I must say, impulsively so, into the ugly and dangerous minefield of digital trolling, which, if left uncontained, can be extremely harmful. The government has provided an environment favourable for the self-regulation of online platforms, and that is the way it should be, but distasteful as this may sound, if we do not actively drain social platforms of malice and martialised rhetoric, despite having a generally indulgent leadership, such self-regulation might not always be guaranteed, particularly when other people’s rights are trampled upon with impunity.