The fight goes far beyond the borders of France, but it could well invite itself into the French presidential election. And for good reason, there have been many cases, during the term that is ending, which have highlighted anonymous accounts that are not always well-intentioned on social networks. Threats and intimidation, disinformation on the Covid-19, “raids” on the accounts of political opponents… Anonymity disinhibits certain behaviors. To remedy this, Franck855, a reader of Le Parisien, proposes to make it mandatory to create accounts with the real first and last name of the user. The candidates for the April 2022 ballot, however, are not all of this opinion.
Why does it seem so complicated?
Lifting the anonymity of all the accounts of a giant like Facebook or Twitter could reduce verbal abuse and online threats by promoting self-policing, a form of social self-censorship of which human beings are capable in life. “real”, in society or in business. But anonymity does not only benefit malevolent interlocutors, it also makes it possible to denounce injustices or to make revelations of public utility without running any personal risk. The question of lifting anonymity is therefore more complex than it seems and if French and international institutions have begun to take hold of it, the reflection to be carried out remains immense.
What about abroad?
Last October, the Australian Prime Minister announced that his country would force social networks – “palace of cowards”, according to his expression – to identify anonymous users. A threat hardly taken seriously by Twitter, according to which “any initiative by the Australian government to crack down on anonymous accounts would be ineffective and would not reduce the number of abuses”, relayed in November The Guardian.
To date, no country has actually put an end to online anonymity. In Germany, the “NetzDG” law, which came into force in 2017 and which aims to better regulate social networks, “seems to have done little to fulfill its objective of eradicating extremist content from the Internet”, believe William Echikson and Olivia Knodt in a 2019 report relayed by The world. On a European scale, a regulation is currently being discussed to better regulate social networks, without there being any question of lifting anonymity.
What are the candidates saying?
In 2019, the president and probable candidate Emmanuel Macron advocated a “gradual lifting of all forms of anonymity” during the great national debate, believing that everyone “must know where people are talking from and why they are saying things. things “. His speech was strongly criticizedand it would seem that he has since evolved within the majority.
For Cédric O, Secretary of State for Digital, anonymity is “something that almost does not exist”. “Most of the time, justice knows how to find you. The bottom line is to make sure to punish people who insult, who threaten with death, ”he said in March 2021 on FranceInfo, in a comparable speech. to that of its predecessor.
The candidate of the National Rally, Marine Le Pen, joins him on this point. “I am not for banning anonymity on social networks. This is a false debate. It is extremely easy to know the identity of a person behind an anonymous account”, declared at the end of October the candidate of the National Rally on the plateau of the Grand Jury of RTL/LCI/Le Figaro.
The program of Valérie Pécresse, candidate of the Republicans, does not mention this subject. Nevertheless, the president of the Île-de-France region gave a clear opinion on the question in 2020, proposing to set up “a social network police”. “This requires a law and perhaps a reform of the Constitution,” she imagined.
In her program, the socialist candidate Anne Hidalgo envisages the creation of a “national commission for monitoring social networks” whose role will be to “initiate criminal proceedings against networks that continue to tolerate online harassment and discrimination” , without directly pointing to anonymous users.
What could be the benefit?
In reality – and as many candidates seem to have understood – the lifting of anonymity – or more generally of pseudonymity – does not solve anything on its own. Last summer, the convictions – very real – of eleven people who had harassed the young Mila on social networks, demonstrated it: justice is now able to find and condemn harassers, even if their name and surname are not displayed on their Facebook or Twitter profile. It would therefore be more a question of naturally regulating behavior with users who must assume their words in their name, which would potentially induce more benevolence and politeness, with the awareness of possible social consequences.
Why can it be dangerous?
According to some, the lifting of anonymity could also serve noble causes or harm fundamental rights. Thus for Maître Richard Malka, lawyer for Mila or even Charlie Hebdo, the lifting of anonymity is not only impossible, but even undesirable. “That there is a reflection to lead on anonymity, it is certain. But there are cases where it may be justified, the council believes. You are a student, you do not share the same ideas as the majority of people on subjects which are a matter of debate – feminism, Wokism, Islamism, etc. – you can have things to say, testimonies to bring without insulting anyone, but wanting to remain anonymous, otherwise things can go wrong for you. The fact remains, he says, that “this should not allow people to be insulted or threatened”. In short, “there is a framework for anonymity to invent”, sums up Me Malka, but this should not be lifted.
The National Commission for Computing and Liberties (CNIL) goes even further by presenting anonymity and pseudonymity as “an essential condition for the functioning of democratic societies” which allow “the exercise of several essential fundamental freedoms, in particular freedom of information and the right to privacy”.
In summary
Wanting to lift anonymity on social networks leads to come up against legislation that goes far beyond the national framework. It is also to forget that legal tools exist today to identify and convict users of social networks, even hidden under a false name. Perhaps we should therefore deploy these legal means and dwell more on better supervision of social networks, taking into account the fact that some anonymous users are also vectors of information and contribute, without insult or threat, to the public debate.