Thread
The Musk/Twitter press release states that the company will authenticate "all humans." I'm not sure what this means, but there is at least a chance that it could compromise users' ability to be anonymous. In this thread I explain some concerns with this possibility.
It's important to emphasize that beyond Musk's statement that he will improve Twitter by "authenticating all humans," it's not clear what he means. At least some high-profile commentators have interpreted it as banning anonymity/requiring ID verification.
If that is the case, and it applies to "all humans" (rather than just making verification an option for everyone), then that could threaten some of the values that have helped to define and distinguish Twitter from platforms like Facebook that have always required real names.
As I document in my book, Twitter's pseudonymity has made it possible for many people to speak publicly when they wouldn't have the luxury of speaking under their real names on Facebook. The LGBT community, political dissidents, whistleblowers, and so many others.
To be clear, Twitter has every legal right to require real names (either only at registration, or also at posting). The question is *should* it. There certainly are some compelling reasons to at least require authentication - bots, abusive accounts, etc.
My concern, though, is that some commentators already seem to think that a crackdown on anonymity would solve the real problems that we face on social media. I think the benefits of such a policy change are overstated, and the harms are understated.
Anyone with a Facebook or Nextdoor account will attest that online toxicity still exists quite abundantly when people post under their real names. The research backs this up - people tend to be more aggressive when posting under real names.
And the harms would be great to the marginalized communities that rely at least on some degree of pseudonymity. Even if the posters can still publicly post under pseudonyms, the collection of identification data at registration would shut out many people.
Again, perhaps "authenticating all humans" will not require any compromises to anonymity. I do hope that we hear more details about this important issue soon.
If you want to read about anonymity offline and online, and how it has contributed to the American conception of free speech, check out my book: www.amazon.com/United-States-Amendment-Shaped-Online/dp/1501762389/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF...
Some are interpreting the statement as allowing anyone to get a blue checkmark by providing ID, but not requiring it. That of course is better than requiring the ID for everyone, and I'm hoping that is what he means, but I don't think we have enough details.
And I'd also want to know how, under that system, pseudonymous accounts are treated/displayed. Right now, there are plenty of pseudo accounts that have great visibility.
And of course the best possible interpretation of those three words would be something like a CAPTCHA, if that is what he meant by "authenticating."
Getting a lot of comments along the lines of, “Another reason to leave Twitter.” I don’t know if the details are even worked out, so I suggest waiting to see how the authentication process will work (and if there are any other changes not only to moderation but to privacy).
Mentions
See All
Chris Boutté @TheRewiredSoul
·
Apr 26, 2022
This entire thread from @jkosseff is interesting and gave me some things to think about. After having thousands of anonymous strangers attack and threaten me as well as my family, I've been very anti-anonymity. Although this tweet is definitely true, I wonder 1/