The side that won was the one that sounded least sure of itself. The most-respected Yes case opened “I'm actually on the fence with this”, and the other Yes ★ argument wanted verification only behind the scenes. Yes won comfortably all the same.
That Yes case rested on accountability and a compromise. One voter wrote “Yes. The lack of personal accountability has made everyone an internet tough guy”, while others proposed verifying to the platform but posting under a pseudonym. The Facebook-style model, ID checked but an alias allowed, was held up as keeping the bots out.
No voters were blunter and drew the highest respect. The top No case warned of “vast databases ripe for abuse or hacking” and defended whistleblowers and dissidents. A second equally respected No voter pointed to “arrests over social media posts” and said political establishments “cannot be trusted to be honest-brokers”. The tone ran from wary to openly furious, with one voter calling the government “the Stasi”.
The two sides did overlap. Even some No voters accepted that platforms should know who is posting, and one Yes voter conceded that “it is simply not safe for everyone to have their real identity on show”. Yes arguments rarely answered the point about who holds the data and who can be trusted with it, though one voter said they did not believe Facebook would hand it over.
The quarrel here is less about whether anonymity has costs than about who gets to hold the key.
66 Opinions
I believe in free speech and voted no because the British state has shown increasing intolerance for anybody posting views they disagree with. This has led to over-policing, the stifling of public debate, and arrests over social media posts. The lack of integrity of our political establishments (on all sides) show they cannot be trusted to be honest-brokers on this.
No. Absolutely not. Anonymous speech protects whistleblowers, dissidents and ordinary citizens from intimidation and retaliation. Mandatory ID would hand governments and technology giants another surveillance tool while creating vast databases ripe for abuse or hacking. Criminal threats and harassment can already be investigated through lawful procedures. Target actual offenders, not millions of innocent users. Free speech must not depend on showing the state your papers.
What's permissable today may not be permissable tomorrow. What's acceptable today may not be acceptable tomorrow. What's legal today may not be legal tomorrow. Ad infinitum. 💫 Edited
No, there have been enough data breaches and leaks as it is. We do not need constant surveillance and this would only lead to censorship anyway.
I'm actually on the fence with this. I've opted yes to due the real impact of trolling, bullying and misinformation. However, I think it's important to remember that it is simply not safe for everyone to have their real identity on show, for instance victims of abuse who may be finding help and support in closed social media groups.
The only reason the government is pushing for this is because they want to crack down on the opposition for wrong thought. This is nothing to do with protecting children it is draconian authoritarianism. The government just want to weaponise the judiciary and the state apparatus again the opposition and they should be stopped before they start a civil war!
Facebook already checks ID but allows an alias. So you can comment freely but the bots are kept out. I don't believe either that FB will suddenly reveal the data to the world or the Govt, accidentally or on purpose. They might tell the police if I am a criminal eg running human trafficking rings, supporting Palestine Action, offering puberty blockers to kids etc. Which is fine by me because I'm not a criminal.
Another stealth digital ID. This government is the Stasi.
I do not even remotely trust X (formerly twitter) to keep this data safe and secure
Prove your identity to the platform before posting, but it’s fine to keep a public pseudonym. Total anonymity currently shields people who issue threats or post defamatory material. Actions should have consequences. Verify once (ID or credit card), post under any handle, and reveal the real identity only for genuine criminal complaints or defamation cases. This protects privacy while ending the free pass for the worst online behaviour.