One of the tools necessary for a relatively free (but not stateless) society to function is free speech. Free speech allows for vigorous arguments to flourish and help people understand contentious issues. As a state becomes more censorious, or as people become more vindictive about those presenting differing opinions, it is natural for people making arguments that counter the narrative to want additional protection. The use of anonymity or pseudonyms provides this additional protection for dissidents.
A great article by Ryan Turnipseed published by the Mises Institute got me thinking about this topic. It is no surprise that state actors wish to know the identities of their detractors, spurred on by their over-sized abilities to punish those with dissenting opinions. It is no surprise that vindictive individuals seeking to target dissenters’ employers dislike anonymity. However, even some personalities who are generally in favor of freedom have made statements against anonymity, claiming that it encourages negative personality traits.
The value of anonymity as a precaution against assault by state agents, however, has a long history. I will examine two places in history where anonymity was used specifically for this purpose.
First, in Revolutionary-era America, writers posted anonymously or using pseudonyms to avoid being targeted by the British state. Samuel Adams wrote with many different pseudonyms in support of independence. John Dickinson wrote using “Fabius” as a pseudonym. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was originally published with both the author and publisher remaining anonymous. After the Revolutionary War, the use of pseudonyms continued in the debates over the ratification of the Constitution, with the Federalist Papers famously penned by “Publius,” and with many others using pseudonyms to write both in favor of and against the proposed Constitution.
Much later, the use of pseudonyms or outright anonymity became a question of life or death in the Soviet Union. The Communist Party’s control of everything from economic planning to art and music led to a movement called “samizdat,” or self-publishing, in which authors would write or copy articles, stories, essays, etc. and pass them to known and trusted others, who would spread them using similarly quiet methods. Some of the materials disseminated as samizdat were dissents or criticisms of the Communist system, but the samizdat method was necessary even for discussions on music, as Paul Wilson was forced to do before he was exiled from Czechoslovakia.
The lesson here is clear: anonymity is an extremely valuable tool in the arsenal of freedom and dissent. It is not worth throwing away for false promises of accountability. State actors will always be able to avoid responsibility for publishing propaganda. The “cost” of having to deal with trolls and shitposters is not worth the cost of losing the ability to state one’s opinions without fear of retribution from the state, or from those addicted to cancel culture.