Would removing anonymity from the internet make society more civil or more oppressed?

Removing anonymity from the internet raises critical questions about the balance between accountability, freedom of expression, and surveillance in the digital age. Online anonymity has been central to the internet since its inception, enabling users to express unpopular opinions, seek support, or explore identity without fear of social, political, or professional consequences. It has empowered whistleblowers, dissidents under authoritarian regimes, and marginalized communities, playing a key role in digital activism and free speech. At the same time, anonymity has also facilitated toxic behavior: cyberbullying, harassment, misinformation, and criminal activity. The rise of social media and anonymous forums has shown how easily anonymity can shield harmful actions from consequences. Proponents of identity-based internet use argue that removing anonymity could increase accountability and civility by forcing individuals to stand by their words. Historically, societies have always grappled with anonymous speech—from unsigned pamphlets in revolutionary movements to secret ballots in democratic elections. Modern platforms echo this tension on a massive scale. Countries like South Korea have attempted real-name policies online, but such efforts often raised concerns about censorship, surveillance, and the silencing of dissent. This debate ultimately centers on if transparency promotes a healthier digital society.