The Mask Shop: Why Anonymous Accounts Must End

When people talk about online abuse, they still treat it as a by-product of digital freedom, a regrettable but tolerable side effect of democracy. It isn’t. It’s an economy. Anonymous accounts have become profitable engines of hate, disinformation, and manipulation, operating under the protection of an illusion called free speech. The result is a digital environment where those who lie most effectively make the most money, while those who tell the truth become their targets.

The architecture of anonymity has broken discourse

Social media was built on the myth that anonymity protects free speech. The reality is the opposite. It protects those who weaponise it. The “faceless user” model, once celebrated for giving whistle-blowers and dissidents a voice, has been hijacked by organised networks and political operators who churn out propaganda and hatred at industrial scale.

During conflicts, anonymous “citizen journalists” flood X (formerly Twitter) with doctored footage and fake eyewitness accounts, shaping global perception in real time. By the time truth catches up, the lie has done its job.

Profiting from hate is the new business model

Outrage drives engagement, and engagement drives revenue. Anonymous accounts exploit this loop, spreading hatred for profit while tech platforms quietly cash in on the traffic. There’s no financial incentive to stop it, quite the reverse.

According to the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, just a handful of anonymous hate accounts generated over 100 million impressions during recent political and cultural flashpoints. Each post, each click, each “debate” feeds the machine. The longer people argue, the more valuable the hate becomes.

Authenticity reforms are coming, but not fast enough

Nikita Bier’s announcement on X marks the start of something overdue. The platform will now display country origin, account age, and device source, an effort to reintroduce authenticity. It’s a start, but it’s also a confession: X knows its user base is riddled with inauthentic behaviour.

These transparency measures may expose patterns, propaganda clusters, coordinated accounts, regional bias, but they do not tackle the root problem. As long as anonymity exists, the incentive to deceive remains intact. A blue tick doesn’t make a liar less dangerous; it just makes them look legitimate.

Abolition is not censorship, it’s accountability

This is not an argument against dissent. It’s an argument for integrity. Freedom of speech was never meant to include the right to deceive without consequence. If we accept that journalism, politics, and law all require accountability, why should digital influence be exempt?

The abolition of anonymity would not silence truth-tellers, it would finally expose those who trade in hate and manipulation for clicks. Genuine dissent thrives in daylight. Lies require the dark.

The moral question

Anonymity online has become a form of cowardice dressed as freedom. It is the digital equivalent of shouting slurs from behind a curtain. If people truly believe in what they say, they should be willing to stand by it, publicly.

Freedom without accountability breeds chaos, and the internet cannot remain both the town square and the mask shop. It must choose which it wants to be.