Authority, Anonymity, and the Collapse of Accountability

 

Note: I have been trying to understand why some want ICE to remove their masks, but the protestors evidently can keep theirs on. The thought hit me about the internet political trolls I witness every two years. Some names I recognize are making harsh comments on local social media, in newspapers, and on social media sites, inciting nothing more than hate and violence. Once the election is over, they disappear for another two years. Social media can act as a mask, a cover-up, and I wanted to write about that cover-up. Why do you think we allow such bad actors to exist?

Authority, Anonymity, and the Collapse of Accountability

We are living through a strange contradiction.

On the street, some demand that federal law enforcement remove masks, expose names, and provide personal identification during active operations — even when officers are clearly marked as ICE or Police. Yet online, those same voices tolerate — and often defend — a digital world where anonymous trolls hide behind fake names, fake photos, and bot networks while threatening families, doxing agents, and destroying lives. That contradiction is no longer defensible.

 

1. Identification Does Not Mean Personal Exposure

If a vest clearly identifies a man as ICE or Police, then he is identified. That is the purpose of the uniform. In a lawful society, citizens are not expected to conduct on-the-spot identity audits during enforcement actions. Compliance with lawful commands occurs in the moment; accountability occurs afterward through courts, internal review, and elected oversight. Demanding personal exposure during active operations does not enhance accountability — it increases danger. Officers are not private citizens acting on impulse. They are representatives of the state operating under law. Their authority comes from office, not from public approval in the heat of confrontation.

 

2. Masks Exist for a Reason — and the Reason Is Real

ICE agents wear masks for the same reason undercover officers, judges, and jurors are sometimes protected: retaliation is no longer hypothetical.

 

In the age of social media, doxing is instantaneous. Fake accounts publish home addresses, harass employers, and threaten spouses and children. What once required physical proximity now requires only a keyboard. Masks are not symbols of tyranny — they are shields against lawlessness amplified by anonymity. Ironically, the same voices demanding officers unmask themselves often defend online anonymity even when it is used as a weapon.

 

3. Tech Companies Exercise Power Without Democratic Accountability

Social media platforms now function as public squares, narrative gatekeepers, and reputation engines, yet they operate with almost no democratic accountability. Unlike law enforcement, which is constrained by statute, courts, and constitutional limits, tech companies set rules that shape speech and visibility behind closed doors. They lobby legislators, fund campaigns legally, hire former regulators, and shape laws historically in their favor — all while claiming neutrality.

This is not free speech.

It is power without consent.

When unelected corporations decide who is amplified, who is buried, and who is targeted — while shielding anonymous trolls and bot networks from identification — they exercise authority without responsibility. That imbalance should concern anyone who still believes in democratic legitimacy.

4. Every Society Has Rules for Bad Actors — Trolls Are Bad Actors

No functioning society survives without rules for those who abuse freedom to harm others. We regulate fraud, threats, stalking, intimidation, and conspiracy not because speech is dangerous, but because speech becomes conduct when it produces real harm. Online trolls who dox federal agents, threaten families, fabricate accusations, or mobilize harassment campaigns are not “expressing ideas.” They are weaponizing anonymity.

The internet did not invent new rights.

It exposed a failure to enforce old ones.

 

Pseudonymity Is Legitimate — Until It Becomes a Weapon.

 Pseudonymous speech has an honorable history.  The Federalist Papers were written under the name Publius to focus attention on ideas rather than identities. That tradition elevated argument — not abuse.

The line has always been clear:

Pseudonymity protects ideas.

It does not protect attacks on people.

The moment speech shifts from argument to ad hominem — from persuasion to intimidation — anonymity should end. Not because speech is fragile, but because people are. Threats, doxing, harassment, and reputational destruction are not opinions. They are actions carried out through digital means.

Every civilization understands this distinction. The online world pretends it cannot.

 

A Brief Historical Reminder: This Was Already Settled

What we are struggling with today is not new. It is old ground — and it was once well governed. In Roman law, libertas loquendi (freedom of speech) existed alongside strict prohibitions against iniuria — personal attacks intended to disgrace, intimidate, or provoke harm. You could argue ideas freely; you could not weaponize words to destroy a person without consequence. Harmful speech was treated as conduct, not opinion. Under English common law, articulated most clearly by William Blackstone, liberty of the press meant freedom from prior restraint — not freedom from responsibility. Once speech crossed into libel, threats, or intimidation, punishment followed. Anonymity did not absolve liability; it merely delayed identification. The American Founders inherited this understanding. Publius used anonymity to elevate ideas, not to target private citizens. Had the Federalist authors engaged in threats or coordinated harassment, no one in their time would have defended it as protected expression.

 

Even the First Amendment was never understood to protect:

• threats
• libel presented as fact
• incitement
• or organized intimidation

Those limits were assumed, not debated.

 

What Changed

What changed was not our values — it was enforcement. Technology collapsed distance, multiplied reach, and removed friction. Speech that once required courage now requires only a keyboard. Consequences that once arrived swiftly now dissolve into anonymity, platform immunity, and algorithmic indifference. Tech companies did not invent this drift — but they profit from it. Outrage drives engagement. Harassment drives clicks. Accountability slows growth.

So we pretend the line is unclear.

It isn’t.