An Analysis on the Exchange of Ideas in History & Modernity

Anonymity throughout history meant nothing more than simply not sharing your name, or wearing a mask.

The sharing of ideas in public forums, both in ancient times and the modern era, have done nothing but serve the forward-moving mentalities which are the cause of moral development, cultural appreciation, and lively debate.

However, there is a looming threat: the gatekeepers of information are increasingly tightening their grip on people they deem ‘unworthy’ of having a voice.

Not only this, but the volatile nature of ‘cancel culture,’ when it comes to digital forums, threatens the livelihood of anyone that dares step outside the ‘status quo.’

This essay will defend the use of anonymity on the basis that healthy debate & discourse are the entire source of Culture and Ethics as we recognize (and bastardize) today.

‍

Using Pseudonyms

Notable thinkers we know by name throughout history, often took up the use of “Pen Names” in order to prevent excessive persecution for ideas deemed not publicly ‘palatable.’

Examples include:

• Benjamin Franklin (Richard Sanders / Mrs. Silence Dogood)

• Samuel Langhorne Clemens (Mark Twain)

• Charles Dickens (Boz)

These prolific writers understood the degree of danger they’d put themselves, and their families in, if their writing were to strike a frenzy in their society.

The argument could be made that without this degree of caution, there would be little incentive in putting such a target on the backs of your entire life simply to share a train of thought considered to be ‘counterculture.’

Even though these authors chose to separate their ideas from their identity, effectively relinquishing any possibility of associating those same “dangerous” thoughts with their personal lives, this would become a strategy used well into the future, for good reason.

The separation of ideas from identity can be argued as a net positive or negative for society.

On one hand, it prevents the threat of persecution for the simple action of sharing these ideas, on the other hand, many use anonymity as a tool for spreading hate speech, defamation, and threats of violence, because it is understood that they are not likely to be held responsible for their words in a public forum.

This is the double-edged sword in those who prefer to remain anonymous in modern culture.

Although there is little that can be done to prevent the spread of such messages and threats, the only solutions that come about from politicians and law-makers, or in countries like China, is to implement restrictions of communication based on how much information is provided prior to the use of the internet.

At which point, all online communication is ‘scored’ against a scale determined by the country’s government. As bad as being harassed online may seem, there is nothing worse than automatically revoking your privacy for the sake of security.

To the opposition who may claim that privacy is not important to them in their use of online communication, I offer a simple rebuttal: the modern strategy ubiquitously known as “Doxxing.”

Cancel Culture In Modernity

This means personally identifiable information including (but not limited to): Full Name, Address, Social Security Numbers, Birth Certificates, Occupation, Employer, or the information of their Family Members.

This action has become more popular in modern times due to the implementation of ‘cancel culture,’ which is the hive-mind, collective decision, to take any and all action possible in the degradation of one’s lifestyle.

This can mean not supporting their work, attempts to get them fired, or repeated actions of harassment online or in the real-world.

Couple this with ‘doxxing,’ and we’re reaching unprecedented danger for anyone who shares thoughts that others may take offense to, not want to recognize, or refuse to consider themselves part of a larger problem as a whole.

Entire lives have been ruined for the plain and simple fact that many do not consider their place in the world, automatically seething with rage at those who attempt to move society forward in a progressive manner. It is akin to blaming the mirror for the reflection seen within it.

This fallacious approach to recognition will only serve to degrade societal standards for discourse & debate, increasing exponentially in the coming years.

‍

Anonymity as a Digital Right to Defense

Anonymity has served a critical role in the development of ideas: intellectually, socially, & culturally. This importance is no less subdued in the modern day. Those who are considered radical are in danger of risking their entire livelihood for simply sharing ideas that may be against the modern ‘norm’ or status quo.

In light of this, many have decided to keep their identities as close-guarded secrets from prying eyes.

Although “Anons” are typically frowned upon, the severity by which herd mentality has infected the modern world serves only to destroy those they do not deem worthy of a public platform.

In lieu of this, many ideas and discourse, those of which have steered the course of history in innumerable ways, are being stifled for the sake of personal sensibilities.

With the looming threat of hyper-centralized information gate-keepers, those who are deemed “too dangerous” are simply swept under the rug. This sort of behavior does nothing but prevent the sharing of arguments, and debates, which homogenize popular culture into a form that is more easily controlled, easily regulated, and worst of all, easily revoked.

This is a dangerous precedent for the interactions which are the entire source of Culture, Ethics, Mythology, and Oratory; if such a threat is not managed, soon, we may all be stifled in our expression of self.