There are two types of freedom: freedom to and freedom from. Freedom to is positive liberty: the ability to act upon one’s free will. Freedom from is negative liberty: the absence of interference by external factors.

In the digital world, we enjoy freedom to but lack freedom from. 

Freedom to identify however we want, however no freedom from having our identity known.

While we can identify anonymously or pseudonymously on the Internet, there is no guarantee that this identity will not be exposed. Doxxing continues to be a major risk across social media platforms; an act that has proven to be detrimental, irreversible, and in some instances, inaccurate.

Freedom to access data, however no freedom from having that data traced and collected.

Although the Internet has enabled an unlimited access to information, the entities facilitating this access are harvesting the data and using it to manipulate users. Through search algorithms, trend spotting, and location tracking, a digital profile is created and exploited.

Freedom to share ideas, however no freedom from being attacked for our opinions.

Publishing ideas online has become completely frictionless. However, a backlash against these ideas has also never been easier. When a controversial idea or event is disapproved of, the idea alone is not refuted. Instead, the individual who posted the idea is now also at risk. Ostracism from society has become commonplace, otherwise known as cancel culture.

What do all these problems have in common? They are enabled by one party ultimately controlling all activity. In the case of the digital media system, one party controlling the flows of data.

How can we solve this problem? One solution is a combination of pseudonyms and  decentralization.

Pseudonym

A pseudonym is a fictitious name that differs from one’s real name. Some examples include: Robert Galbraith (J.K. Rowling), Samuel Langhorne Clemens (Mark Twain), Pierre Delecto (Mitt Romney), and Satoshi Nakamoto (Unknown). A pseudonym’s usage can vary however in this context we will explore the purpose of concealing one’s real identity while still retaining some degree of reputation. 

Using multiple pseudonyms on the Internet can reduce your risk of being doxxed and having your opinion attacked with consequences on your real identity. 

A thought experiment by Balaji Srinivasan, The Pseudonymous Economy, articulates that within the existing digital world, there is commonly a direct link between the following:

Real Name – Identity by which an individual is known to an external observer, synonymous with a birth name or legal name (e.g. John Doe)
Speaking Name – Identity used to interact on social media (i.e. Twitter handle, Facebook handle, etc.)
Earning Name – Identity used in work settings to earn an income (i.e. name on your paycheque)

Through the use of pseudonyms, Balaji presents the possibility to separate your earning, speaking, and real name, preventing a tracing of your data and attack on your opinion.

“Why would I want to separate my identities?”

Speaking: You want to share an opinion on a controversial topic (e.g. political, religious, climate) but avoid the risk of being judged and ultimately cancelled.
Earning Name: You have the specific knowledge and opportunity to work on a controversial project but are worried about being judged by your peers or society for your involvement.

Decentralization

Within the existing legacy system, data is centralized, controlled by a central entity (e.g. Twitter, Facebook). Decentralization enables the use of a distributed ledger, a database consensually shared and synchronized across the network (e.g. Ethereum, Bitcoin). Blockchains can use this distributed ledger technology, removing control by one single entity. Everyone in the network can access the data in the blockchain, with data manipulation only possible upon reaching a consensus across the network. If a change is to be made, there is no sole entity who can approve or deny it. Instead, the consensus must approve the change for the block (i.e. new data) to be added to the chain.  

A distributed network can work to restore freedom from within the following:

Censorship: The removal of a central authority eliminates censorship risk, as the blockchain is immutable and controlled by the network rather than one single entity. 
Digital Profile: Decentralization enables your pseudonym(s) to live on the blockchain, preventing an external party from creating a single profile across your various pseudonyms.
Doxxing: Decentralized blockchains do not have any single point of failure. Within the existing system, data is stored in a single node that once compromised, reveals the network’s data to attackers. Rather than being concentrated in one location, decentralized blockchains use a distributed and shared ledger, managed peer-to-peer and living across multiple entities. Distributed ledgers increase the difficulty of cyber-attack as all distributed copies now need to be attacked simultaneously.

“Why can’t I simply make a pseudonym on Twitter? Why does it have to be decentralized?” 

A Twitter pseudonym is not a true separation of identities. Twitter can still access the data of your pseudonym and trace the connection back to your real identity. Further, Twitter can also censor your pseudonymous account, use their algorithm to position your content unfavourably on the timeline, and even remove you from the network permanently. A decentralized platform eliminates the ability of any one entity from owning, censoring, or manipulating your content.

For freedom from to be achieved, both pseudonymity and decentralization need to occur. 

The blockchain is a public ledger, with all past data immutable and accessible. Given that pseudonymous does not mean anonymous, when “posting” to the blockchain, this data can be accessed, traced, and collected by any party. However, since you will identify through multiple pseudonyms, these identities will be completely independent. This is an important point as decentralization without pseudonyms removes censorship but not risk of being cancelled, while pseudonyms without decentralization removes cancellation but not censorship. 

We have seen a transition from the physical to the digital world, and in the process, also experienced a realignment in the freedoms we enjoy. While the degree at which a further realignment is currently unknown, decentralization and the use of pseudonyms is an innovation that should be explored not ignored.

Matthew J. Gilmour
@mattjgilmour
Any thoughts, comments, disagreements are welcome.