Should Anonymous Accounts Have the Right to Go Viral?

Last week, I spoke at NATO’s CyCon 2025 in an Oxford-style debate on a deeply uncomfortable but necessary question:

"Should governments have the right to censor or control the internet during cyber conflict?"

My answer: in some cases - yes. Not because I believe in authoritarian control. But because the alternative is losing control entirely to actors who don’t care about our values.

To frame my argument, I explored three fatal asymmetries that define today’s information environment. This post is the first in a series where I’ll go deeper into each—but here’s the core argument.

1. The Asymmetry of Accountability

Democracy doesn’t work without accountability.

And yet, online, we’ve carved out an exception—total anonymity, zero consequences.

Throughout history, meaningful democratic discourse required skin in the game.

– In Athens, citizens named themselves and stood in public.

– In Parliament, members rise and identify.

– In 1776, the American founders signed their names under the declaration of independence knowing it could get them hanged.

Accountability wasn’t a footnote to democracy - it was the price of entry.

Now consider the internet: our new global town square.

An environment where anyone with zero identity, zero risk can inject slander, falsehoods, and deepfakes into the bloodstream of public discourse.

One anonymous user. One fake video.

That’s all it takes to destroy reputations, crash markets, incite unrest.

The phantom walks away. Society pays the price.

We’ve confused free speech with consequence-free speech.

We wouldn’t let unregistered factories dump toxic sludge into rivers -

but we let bot farms dump psychological sewage into the public mind.

The Proposal:

You can be anonymous. You can say whatever you want.

But if you're anonymous, your reach ends with your friends. Private speech stays private.

If you want the megaphone - if you want to reach the public - then identify yourself. With real verification.

Banks require KYC. So do crypto exchanges.

We don’t call that authoritarian. We call it basic risk management.

Some will argue this betrays the open nature of the internet.

But openness without discernment becomes self-defeating.

Karl Popper warned us about this in the Paradox of Tolerance:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.”

If we tolerate malicious manipulation - fake accounts, AI-generated lies, coordinated bot attacks - all in the name of “openness,” we’re not preserving freedom. We’re setting the stage for its collapse.

The proposal isn’t to restrict the internet.

It’s to redesign the most vulnerable terrains of it like social media where anonymity at scale meets amplification at speed, and where our values are turned against us with ruthless precision.

If society bears the cost of disinformation, manipulation, and chaos - is it really insane to ask who’s polluting the well?

If you want to play in the commons, wear a name tag.