Pandemics : Real Name Policy vs Whistle Blowers

About ten years ago, the real name policy imposed by social networks such as Facebook or the now deceased Google+ sparked a controversy, especially in the United States, where this policy was denounced in particular by LGBT and Native Americans communities. Such policies hinder the freedom of speech of many actors, including for example those residing in authoritarian or totalitarian countries. And among them, doctors, including for example those who want to warn the public about an emerging epidemic.

In 2011, Randi Zuckerberg, sister of the founder of Facebook, advocated the end of anonymity on the Internet (not just on Facebook, but on the whole Internet) on the pretext that it encouraged incivility. This point of view ignores the fact that anonymity or pseudonymity are necessary and legitimate to prevent the infringement of minorities' freedom of expression, or harassment or physical violence IRL. In other words, Facebook's policy fosters such behavior.

As early as 2012, the pretext of preventing online harassment put forward by Google and Facebook was denounced: banning anonymity does not eliminate cyberbullying, but on the other hand, Google and Facebook are described as making substantial profits from this policy.

On December 27, 2019, a laboratory informs Wuhan hospital of the appearance of a new coronavirus. On December 30, doctors Ai Fen and Li Wenliang discuss the situation on private networks. Ai Fen is summoned and reprimanded by her management for “spreading a rumor and undermining stability”, and Li Wenliang and seven of his colleagues are arrested and threatened by the police for informing friends via social media of the existence of a health threat.

While there is much to be said about the censorship operated by the Chinese authorities at the start of the epidemic, and the inevitable impact this will have on its spread, the point here is that no doctor in an authoritarian country will take the risk of warning of the existence of a pandemic threat on social networks if, like Facebook, they are forced to use their real name. The consequence of policies prohibiting pseudonymity is that these doctors have the choice between going to prison, or hiding the existence of an epidemic.

When it comes to freedom of expression, even if the Chinese government has been filtering Western social networks since 2009, Facebook's policy of prohibiting pseudonymity could only lead to self-censorship among its users in China. In fact, many observers consider the proposal to access Facebook via tor to be paradoxical: what is the logic of anonymous access to a social network that requires the use of one's real name?

Ten years later, and after more than two million deaths due to the covid-19 pandemic, nobody can any longer consider initiatives to create a right to pseudonymity as a rearguard battle.