French President (Again) Calls For An End To Online Anonymity
from the macron-would-prefer-a-more-totalitarian-democracy-apparently dept
A world leader not known for shying away from truly terrible ideas about speech and the internet is back at it again. A few years ago, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered, as Cathy Gellis put it, “a speech only an autocrat would love,” decrying pretty much everything that’s good and open about the internet while trying to portray his ideas as necessary to societal development.
To summarize his general view on the subject: sure, we don’t want certain ideas to be marginalized. We should defend people’s access to the Internet, he said, but not always. He interprets the term “neutrality” to mean that all ideas have to be treated equally, but, in his view, some ideas are more equal than others. And this is what so offends him: net neutrality allows those who do not share “our values” to spread their ideas too.
The bad ideas have flowed nonstop from Macron and the French government. Everyone seems to think the internet must be more regulated. Any additional regulation should align with their views, rather than the views of the people they serve. And, while Macron is the nominal king, online anonymity should be the first against the wall.
Macron still believes online anonymity is a direct threat to society. And he has chosen to defend this view with one of the worst analogies ever deployed by a politician.
French President Emmanuel Macron has reiterated his opposition to online anonymity, and stated that he will not close the door on the idea of dismantling platforms. EURACTIV France reports.
“In a democratic society, there should be no anonymity. You can’t walk around in the street wearing a hood. On the Internet, people allow themselves, because they are hooded behind a pseudonym, to say the worst abjections,” the outgoing president told Le Point on Tuesday (12 April), two weeks before the second round of the presidential elections.
As Euractiv points out, this would be the third time in four years Macron has stated online anonymity is a luxury his country can do without.
But his analogy makes no sense.
First, there’s a very good chance someone can walk down the street wearing a hood, no matter what aggressive (and potentially unlawful) anti-mask laws the government might have in place. A hood doesn’t cover a face and a person can still be identified (especially by government employees) by demanding they lower their hoods.
But underneath this rhetorical hood is a straw man. People are still anonymous when out in public. Even if they interact poorly with others while in public, they remain anonymous. Maybe those they’ve insulted will be able to identify them at a later date, but lowering a hood does not immediately provide others (much less the government) with a wealth of identifiable information about that person.
If this is the analogy Macron wants to use, it suggests he’d prefer people out on public streets were immediately identifiable, at least to the government. This would mean a vast network of cameras tied to multiple databases, facial recognition software, and other tech goodies that would subject all French residents to continuous, pervasive surveillance should they decide to leave their houses.
Is that what Macron really wants? Because that’s what ending online anonymity does. And it is something a government can carry out without signalling its intent by erecting a network of visible cameras in any place accessible by the public.
Then there are the side effects, some of which may be intentional. Just as surely as a massive physical surveillance network would result in fewer displays of civil disobedience and encourage people to censor their outside conversations, the stripping anonymity online would curtail criticism of the government and opinions on heated topics of public interest. While it may force some people to be a little more courteous in their online interactions, it will do more to prevent the government from being the subject of internet invective.
Also ignored by this clumsy attack on anonymous speech is the fact that stripping anonymity doesn’t automatically result in more online civility. This assumption has been proven false again and again by websites who’ve allowed Facebook (and its “real name” program) to handle online comments. This hasn’t made comment sections any more tolerant or hate-free than more anonymous options.
Finally, there’s the undeniable fact that stripping online anonymity will result in more harm to marginalized groups, rather than less. Without even digging into the collateral damage to speech in general (which includes reporting using anonymous sources and anonymous reporters), the removal on anonymity will make it more difficult for those who fear reprisal for their very existence (much less their online posts) to engage in online discourse, knowing that their names or skin color will be all that’s needed to draw the unwanted attention of people who don’t care who knows how bigoted they are.
Macron’s an addict that just can’t seem to stop going back for one more “no anonymity” hit. He needs an intervention. Unfortunately, years of being wrong haven’t brought him any closer to being right.
Filed Under: anonymity, france, free speech, surveillance


Comments on “French President (Again) Calls For An End To Online Anonymity”
Old habits die hard it seems
The peasants aren’t allowed to speak unless it’s in a manner than allows people to positively identify who is speaking, talk about a suggestion straight out of the era of kings and nobility who I’m sure would have loved that sort of rule and for exactly the same reason.
Re:
Or alternately: Almost straight out of 1984.
Re: Re: 'Ooh, we haven't done that one yet...'
It’s more than a little disturbing how many politicians seem to treat that book as a to-do list rather than a warning of what not to do.
Christ what an asshole.
In a democratic society, there should be no anonymity.
Read as no one should be able to criticize the state without us knowing who we are so we can exact our pound of flesh.
You can’t walk around in the street wearing a hood.
The Little Sisters of Notre-Dame would like to have a few minutes with your knuckles and a ruler.
On the Internet, people allow themselves, because they are hooded behind a pseudonym, to say the worst abjections
Perhaps instead of being pissed off they said things in a mean way, you shoudl focus more on the issues they are raising? Just because they didn’t say it in a nice way doesn’t mean that they don’t have a point, but then keeping people focused on they called you an asshole rather than they called you an asshole because your policy decision benefited your political friends at the expense of the citizens?
Perhaps the reason your nation has so many problems is you spend so much effort being upset about words online while ignoring actual harms in society fed by your selective outrage. I mean, you’re running against someone who wants to appease Putin and you aren’t winning by a landslide… perhaps you have much bigger problems you shoudl focus on instead of being pissed off some anonymous jerk online called you a fuckwit??
It’s because I said fuckwit isn’t it?
Re:
No, I am Fuckwitticus.
Re: Re:
I was just flipping the table.
Re: Re: Re:
My comments sometimes get held in moderation too, but you don’t see me whining about it.
Re: Re: Re:2
But you’re not a gay immortal sociopath with impulse control issues.
Thats my thing 🙂
Besides other comments made it out but not this one yet…
Re: Re: Re:3
Dude, I’m a furry, and even I’m cringing at that “I’m an actual immortal!” schtick.
Re: Re: Re:4
Furries are good people.
I used to hang out with them on teh Twitters.
Law Furs, Crytpo Furs, Random Furs.
There was even a short run sketch thread where I rode with a car full of furs to go get ice cream… it went exactly as you’d expect.
You might be cringing at it but let me put it this way…
I accept people for who they tell me they are, I expect the same.
SwiftonSecurity might possibly not actually be Taylor Swift, but I never challenged her on it. Most of the time I pointed out that not only was she a Security Superstar AND a Music Superstar and it was rude of people to treat her poorly because she didn’t reply fast enough b/c someone mentioned her in a Tweet storm. I mean shes Taylor fscking Swift, perhaps your tweet is in the middle of the other thousand bombarding her every 20 min, you didn’t hire her for an exclusive event so chill.
The whole immortal sociopath schtick didn’t stop another InfoSec rockstar from putting me on a follow friday list, knowing I’d hate it but I ended up with more followers which was scary for me. I’m not an infosec person, but I ask interesting questions, solve puzzles, & some people found use in it… even if the outer wrapping is loopier than that Ancient Aliens guy.
Remember I built TAC for the copyright wars & I made it purposely hard on myself.
Trendy avatar – Check
Tragic history – Check
Ethical as hell – Check
Insane – Check… people thought so from the jump so why not roll with it?
When it matters, I am amazingly matter of fact.
I might not actually believe that the person behind the keyboard is an immortal (sociopath is on the table), but its part of the backstory created & I speak from that place.
I mean I would never have done that if I were just trying to find ways to make sure that the grammar bots & comparison softwares would be confused because the style changes from TAC to that guy behind the curtain are huge.
I’ve never cycled through soda, pop, coke as descriptors as they are specific regional idioms making placing me harder.
We could sit down over a hot dish and discuss this, but its more likely that I’ll cycle to a different language to keep people guessing… I mean you’ve seen how I write… completely believable as ESL.
Classic human fallacy:
“I can only imagine a bad reason to use this, so it must be fully bad with no good use.” or “I only know good things about this person/group, so I don’t believe you when you say they do awful things.”
You see this with online anonymity, police reform, new wave technologies, and many more. It’s simple to articulate, reinforces loyalties, and is always wrong.
The sad thing is that he is right (in France): Burqas have been outlawed there.
Re: well fine then
So France doesn’t believe in freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Dress is a form of speech. If burqas didn’t say something to people, then nobody would care about them. Do they also get upset when they see other large expanses of cloth, such as drapes? Why get upset over fabric.
sigh
“You can’t walk around in the street wearing a hood.”
Uh, yes you can. Women who wear full burqa for instance. Maybe that’s been outlawed in France but it can’t be outlawed in America, since that would violate freedom of religion and I would argue also freedom of speech, since dress is a form of speech (if it didn’t say something to people, nobody would get in a dither about a burqa in the first place.
And there are many other examples: covid masks, Halloween costumes, ski masks, motorcycle helmets, the KKK…
But more to the point, even if I walk around without a hood, that doesn’t mean I have my name, address and social security number tattooed on my forehead.
Well, in this time period, you are right. But with the mandatory tagging laws of 2035, lowering your Faraday Hood exposes your Citizen RFID Tag to the active detector network, as well as the officer’s ID tool.
If you agree with russia or china internet policys you are in the wrong place, changing the laws would have negative effects on minority groups ,especially lgbt groups in certain countrys .religious monoritys.but then the usa uk, eu seem to be on track
to attack free speech on the web ,via mandating upload filers or online id laws that would make encryption iilegal
god love these countries with only two terrible candidates per important office.
Sadly, we have found out that attaching your name to something doesn’t prevent people with no shame from being total fuckwads anyway.
In a word: Yes.