Online abuse and false information have led some people to argue that internet users should have to post under their real names. Others insist that the freedom to remain anonymous is essential. Both positions have merit, and in my view the best solution lies somewhere between them.
Those who favour real-name rules believe that anonymity encourages people to behave badly. A person hiding behind an invented username may post insults or threats that they would never say face to face, because they expect no consequences. Fake accounts are also used to spread rumours and to make a small group of opinions appear widely shared. If every account were linked to a real identity, users would be accountable for their words, and many would think twice before posting something cruel or untrue.
On the other hand, anonymity serves important purposes. A teenager questioning their identity may seek advice without fear of being exposed to their family. A victim of domestic violence may need to join a support group without being found by their abuser. Employees who reveal wrongdoing in their company, and citizens living under governments that punish criticism, may only feel able to speak if their names are hidden. For these people, a real-name requirement would not encourage honesty but would silence them.
Having weighed these arguments, I believe the freedom to be anonymous should be preserved, but not in an absolute form. Platforms could verify each user's identity privately while allowing them to display a pseudonym. In cases of serious harassment or criminal activity, the courts could then require the company to reveal who is responsible. This approach would protect vulnerable people while removing the sense that online abuse carries no risk.