According to several political commentators, the blame for the violent scenes that have spread across the UK and Northern Ireland since the murder of three children, along with the attempted murder of ten others, in Southport last week lies squarely with online anonymity.
Why? Because following the attack social media was quickly flooded with false information about the perpetrator’s identity with posts incorrectly claiming the 17 year-old suspect was a Muslim asylum seeker.
In an op-ed for the Telegraph, Miriam Cates, the former MP for Penistone and Stockbridge, arguedthat social media platforms must now ban anonymous accounts because “online anonymous users can say whatever they like without repercussions” and “freedom without responsibility is just anarchy”.
“TIME TO REMOVE SOCIAL MEDIA ANONYMITY,” thundered Tobias Ellwood, the former MP for Bournemouth East, on X (his caps). “We cannot allow the use of social media to so effectively promote disinformation and rally violence that’s now ripping communities apart across the country,” he added.
Writing for The Conversation, communications and media scholar Paul Reilly wasn’t convinced. The impact of social media on incidents of civil unrest is, he says, often overstated, and there is little evidence that online ‘misinformation’ persuades law-abiding citizens to engage in rioting.
In any case, was it actually anonymous accounts that were key to spreading the misinformation? As Ben Sixsmith points out in The Critic, “Major accounts that promoted fake news included people with real names.
It is also worth noting that in China, where the state has been an enthusiastic adopter of the idea that there should be “repercussions” for social media users who “effectively promote disinformation” (as defined by the state, naturally), banning anonymity online has failed to quell growing social unrest.
Last year, for instance, China experienced a significant increase in violent protests compared to the previous year, while the Freedom House China Dissent Monitor project has recorded a 21% year-on-year increase in documented “dissent events” in the country during the first quarter of 2024.
What, then, would banning online anonymity actually achieve?
It would chill the speech of marginalised groups, according to FSU Director Ben Jones. During a debate with Tobias Ellwood on GB News this week, he pointed out that he had spent four of the past five years interviewing former Muslims as part of his doctorate and that for one of his interviewees, a 19 year-old lesbian growing up in an Islamic household, anonymous social media usage was her only lifeline to the outside world. Mr Ellwood’s proposed ban on online anonymity, however well-intentioned, would “become a dragnet, capturing people like that young women, and in every way make her life more difficult” he said.
No doubt repressive regimes around the world who are known to operate on British soil, intimidating and plotting against UK-based dissidents, would also be keen to see the UK government impose an online anonymity ban.
After all, when Hong Kong activists based in the UK wear face masks at protests in London, they do so not because they’re intent on breaking the law and hope to avoid arrest, but because they need to protect themselves (and their families) from China’s global surveillance system.
Simon Cheng, founder of the community organisation Hongkongers in Britain, recently said the group had heard of at least 10 cases in which Hong Kongers were pressured by police for political activities abroad after they returned home, and more cases where relatives had been harassed.
The Iranian regime has also long demonstrated that it is ready, willing and able to threaten the lives of Iranians living in Britain, with agents from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard orchestrating a Europe-wide campaign of harassment, surveillance, kidnap and murder, targeting political activists who protest against the regime.
Unmasked journalists and citizen journalists that report on protests against the Iranian government outside the Iranian embassy in London have repeatedly been threatened and found hostile Iranian surveillance teams outside their homes and offices in the UK.
Few will sympathise with those who spread lies on social media to whip up civil unrest. But a ban on online anonymity will do nothing to ameliorate that problem and just curtail the freedom of expression of those who fear the long, repressive reach of their familial and national ‘guardians’.
