Two-thirds of teenagers aged 15 to 17 across 68 countries have communicated online without revealing their identity in the past year, and over half of people 13 and older leave anonymous comments rather than post under their real name (Childnet International, 2013). The allowance of anonymity online is a multifaceted issue with far-reaching consequences: as of late 2023, 5.3 billion people, over half of the world’s population, were using the internet (DataReportal, n.d.). Anonymity is therefore a topic capable of affecting a substantial share of humanity.

This essay considers two perspectives on the issue: that anonymity should not be allowed online because it correlates with hatred and abuse, and that anonymity should be allowed online because it protects freedom of expression.

Before proceeding, it is worth establishing a definition of anonymity. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “a situation in which a person is not known by or spoken of by name” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2023). For the purposes of this essay, anonymity refers to a person going online without using their real name, including through the use of aliases.

​

One perspective holds that anonymity should not be permitted online because of its correlation with bullying. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), for instance, argues that anonymity allows people to target others, including marginalized groups, precisely because their real identity remains hidden (ADL, 2023a).

The ADL’s article opens by defining online anonymity and noting that it varies by platform: some sites require real names, others permit any username, and some require none at all (ADL, 2023a). It then argues that anonymity is controversial because it can enable hate, misinformation, and harassment, and links online anonymity to toxic behavior, crime, and disinformation, citing fake social media accounts that attempted to sway public opinion on immigration and race during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The article also acknowledges anonymity’s protective uses for the LGBTQ+ community and political dissidents, and closes with examples of jurisdictions that have restricted it (ADL, 2023a).

The article’s chief strength is its range of perspectives, which lets readers reach their own conclusions, and its coherent structure. Its main weakness is a degree of bias: the claim that “anonymity is the key to safety for many internet users, and is worth protecting” (ADL, 2023a) uses loaded language, and the piece leans heavily on extreme cases rather than everyday ones, which would have made the issue more relatable.

​

The article was published by the ADL’s Center for Technology and Society. The ADL’s mission is to secure justice and fair treatment for all and to counter antisemitism (ADL, 2022), and it maintains a public page addressing myths about the organization, a transparency that lends it credibility (ADL, 2023c). The Center for Technology and Society is a research-driven body that partners with industry, government, civil society, and targeted communities to combat online hate and harassment (ADL, 2023b). Because it draws on this network of experts and affected communities, the center is a credible source, and that credibility strengthens the article’s argument.

​

A second perspective holds that anonymity should be permitted online because it protects freedom of expression. Samantha Floreani, a digital rights activist, journalist, and head of Digital Rights Watch, an organization dedicated to freedom, fairness, and fundamental rights in the digital world (Digital Rights Watch, 2022), argues that anonymity allows communities such as the LGBTQ+ community to avoid discrimination by concealing their identities (Floreani, 2021).

Floreani’s article responds to Australian political leaders who warned social media platforms that they could be held liable for defamation unless they “unmask” anonymous users, a measure the leaders framed as a response to cyberbullying (Floreani, 2021). Floreani counters that little evidence supports this claim, and that anonymity is often the safest option available: members of the LGBTQ+ community may rely on it to avoid discrimination from unsupportive families, communities, and employers, while activists, lawyers, and front-line staff may use it to shield their identities from clients. Because these examples are difficult to refute individually and reinforce one another, the argument is a strong one.

​

The article’s strengths lie in its logical structure and its engaging opening anecdote about lawmakers threatening to “unmask” users. Its main weakness is bias: terms such as “regulatory crusade” and “the attack on anonymity” (Floreani, 2021) push a one-sided reading, and the near absence of the opposing viewpoint may leave readers wondering whether it was omitted because it would have weakened the case.

​

The article was published by Overland, an Australian literary magazine founded in 1954 whose mission is to explore the relationship between culture and politics (Overland Literary Journal, 2023). Overland describes itself as “Australia’s only radical literary magazine,” a self-characterization that signals a political leaning and may lead readers who do not share it to view the magazine’s work, including Floreani’s article, with some skepticism.

On balance, I believe anonymity should be allowed online, since many people rely on it to seek a safe space for self-expression that removing anonymity would compromise by exposing them to judgment. Of the two articles, I found Floreani’s the more compelling for its engaging argument, though the ADL’s case was also well constructed. Further research into the ethical, legal, social, and psychological effects of online anonymity, through surveys and empirical study, could inform future legislation affecting anyone who uses the internet.

​

References

​

Anti-Defamation League. (2022, May 24). Our mission and history. ADL. https://www.adl.org/about/mission-and-history

​

Anti-Defamation League. (2023a, August 1). Backgrounder: How can online anonymity affect hate? ADL.

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/backgrounder-how-can-online-anonymity-affect-hate

​

Anti-Defamation League. (2023b, October 3). Center for Technology & Society. ADL. https://www.adl.org/research-centers/center-technology-society

​

Anti-Defamation League. (2023c, June 30). Myths & facts about ADL. ADL. https://www.adl.org/myths-facts-about-adl

​

Cambridge Dictionary. (2023). Anonymity. In Cambridge dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/anonymity

​

Childnet International. (2013, October). Global perspectives on online anonymity. https://www.childnet.com/wp-

content/uploads/2016/12/global_perspectives_on_online_anonymity.pdf

​

DataReportal. (n.d.). Digital around the world. Retrieved September 4, 2026, from https://datareportal.com/global-digital-overview

​

Digital Rights Watch. (2022, December 19). Home. https://digitalrightswatch.org.au/

​

Floreani, S. (2021, November 18). Online anonymity is really important, actually. Overland Literary Journal. https://overland.org.au/2021/10/online-anonymity-is-really-important-actually/

​

Overland Literary Journal. (2023, November 7). About Overland. https://overland.org.au/about/