Hubbry Logo
Anonymous postAnonymous postMain
Open search
Anonymous post
Community hub
Anonymous post
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Anonymous post
Anonymous post
Anonymous post
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
screenshot of 4chan's interface
A anonymous post on 4chan's /b/ imageborkrkard

An anonymous post, is an entry on a textboard, anonymous bulletin board system, or other discussion forums like Internet forum, without a screen name or more commonly by using a non-identifiable pseudonym. Some online forums such as Slashdot do not allow such posts, requiring users to be registered either under their real name or utilizing a pseudonym. Others like JuicyCampus, AutoAdmit, 2channel, and other Futaba-based imageboards (such as 4chan) thrive on anonymity. Users of 4chan, in particular, interact in an anonymous and ephemeral environment that facilitates rapid generation of new trends.

History of online anonymity

[edit]

Online anonymity can be traced to Usenet newsgroups in the late 1990s where the notion of using invalid emails for posting to newsgroups was introduced. This was primarily used for discussion on newsgroups pertaining to certain sensitive topics. There was also the introduction of anonymous remailers which were capable of stripping away the sender's address from mail packets before sending them to the receiver. Online services which facilitated anonymous posting sprang up around mid-1992, originating with the cypherpunk group.[1]

The precursor to Internet forums like 2channel and 4chan were textboards like Ayashii World and Amezou World that provided the ability for anonymous posts in Japan. These "large-scale anonymous textboards" were inspired by the Usenet culture and were primarily focused on technology, unlike their descendants.[2]

Today, image boards receive tremendous Internet traffic from all parts of the world. In 2011, on 4chan's most popular board, /b/, there were roughly 35,000 threads and 400,000 posts created per day. At that time, that level of content was on par with YouTube. Such high traffic suggests a broad demand from Internet users for anonymous content sharing sites.[3]

Levels of anonymity

[edit]

Anonymity on the Internet can pertain to both the utilization of pseudonyms or requiring no authentication at all (also called "perfect anonymity") for posting on a website.[4] Online anonymity is also limited by IP addresses. For example, WikiScanner associates anonymous Wikipedia edits with the IP address that made the change and tries to identify the entity that owns the IP address. On other websites, IP addresses may not be publicly available, but they can be obtained from the website administrators only through legal intervention. They might not always be traceable to the poster.[5]

Techniques

[edit]

Utilizing pseudonyms allow people to post without revealing their real identity. Pseudonyms, however, are still prone to being tracked to the user's IP address.[6] To avoid being tracked to an IP address, it is possible to post via a public computer where the IP address would usually be under the purview of the public workspace such as a coffee shop, and hence cannot be traced to the individual user.[6] Adversarial stylometry can be employed to resist identification by writing style.

Memes

[edit]

Another way people are posting anonymously online is through the use of memes. One popular meme is the Confession Bear meme. People use Confession Bear to post everything from funny and embarrassing stories to very troubled thoughts.[7]

Technology

[edit]

There are services described as anonymizers which aim to provide users the ability to post anonymously by hiding their identifying information. Anonymizers are essentially proxy servers which act as an intermediary between the user who wants to post anonymously and the website which logs user information such as IP addresses. The proxy server is the only computer in this network which is aware of the user's information and provides its own information to anonymize the poster.[8] Examples of such anonymizers include Tor and I2P, which employ techniques such as onion and garlic routing (respectively) to provide enhanced encryption to messages that travel through multiple proxy servers.[6]

Applications like PGP utilizing techniques like private-key and public-key encryptions are also utilized by users to post content in Usenet groups and other online forums.[9]

[edit]
Main article: Doe subpoena

China

[edit]

The revised draft of the Chinese government's "Internet Information Services"[10] proposes that "Internet information service providers, including microblogs, forums, and blogs, that allow users to post information on the Internet should ensure users are registered with their real identities".[11] Starting October 1, 2017, it will require Internet users to identify themselves with their real names to use comments sections on news and social media websites.[12]

The Philippines

[edit]

The Philippine government passed the Cybercrime Prevention Act on 12 September 2012, which among other things grants the Department of Justice the ability to "block access to 'computer data' that is in violation of the Act; in other words, a website hosting criminally libelous speech could be shut down without a court order".[13]

United Kingdom

[edit]

Under the Defamation Act 2013, in an action against a website operator, on a statement posted on the website, it is a defense to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website. The defense is defeated if it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement.

United States

[edit]

In the United States, the right to speak anonymously online is protected by the First Amendment and various other laws. These laws restrict the ability of the government and civil litigants to obtain the identity of anonymous speakers. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press".[14] This protection has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the right to speak anonymously offline.

For example, in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the Supreme Court overturned an Ohio law banning the distribution of anonymous election pamphlets, claiming that an "author's decision to remain anonymous ... is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment" and that "anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent", as well as a "shield" against the so-called tyranny of the majority.[15] Various courts have interpreted these offline protections to extend to the online world.[16]

Identifying the author of an anonymous post may require a Doe subpoena. This involves gaining access to the IP address of the poster via the hosting website. The courts can then order an Internet service provider to identify the subscriber to whom it had assigned said IP address. Requests for such data are almost always fruitful, though providers will often effect a finite term of data retention (in accordance with the privacy policy of each—local law may specify a minimum and/or maximum term). The usage of IP addresses has, in recent times, been challenged as a legitimate way to identify anonymous users.[17][18]

On March 21, 2012, the New York State Senate introduced the bill numbered S.6779 (and A.8668) labeled as the "Internet Protection Act". It proposes the ability of a website administrator of a New York–based website to take down anonymous comments unless the original author of the comment agrees to identify themselves on the post.[19]

In online communities

[edit]

Online communities vary with their stances on anonymous postings. Wikipedia allows anonymous editing in most cases, but does not label users, instead identifying them by their IP addresses. Other editors commonly refer to these users with neutral terms such as "anons" or "IPs".[20]

Many online bulletin boards require users to be signed in to write—and, in some cases, even to read—posts. 2channel and other Futaba-based image boards take an opposite stance, encouraging the anonymity, and in the case of English-language Futaba-based websites, calling those who use usernames and tripcodes "namefags" and "tripfags", respectively.[21] As required by law, even communities such as 4chan do require the logging of IP addresses of such anonymous posters.[citation needed] Such data, however, can only be accessed by the particular site administrator.

Slashdot discourages anonymous posting by displaying "Anonymous Coward" as the author of each anonymous post. The mildly derogatory term is meant to chide anonymous contributors into logging in.[22][23]

Ramifications

[edit]

Effects on users

[edit]

The effects of posting online anonymously has been linked to the online disinhibition effect in users whilst been categorized into either benign or toxic disinhibition.[24] Disinhibition can result in misbehavior but can also improve user relationships. It may also result in greater disclosure among Internet users, allowing more emotional closeness and openness in a safe social context.[25]

Anonymous computer communication has also been linked to accentuate self-stereotyping.[26] Although it has been linked to notable effects in gender differences, only when the topic bears similarity and fits with the gender stereotype.[26]

A 2015 study suggested that anonymous news comment sections are more susceptible to uncivil comments, especially those directed at other users. Anonymous news comment section users are also more likely to be impolite by either being sarcastic and casting aspersions.[27]

With regard to a recent hostile subpoena in California, commentators have asked if there will be a "Layfield & Barrett effect" chilling job review posting free speech.[28][29] On May 2, 2016, through its lawyers, Layfield and Barrett and partner Phil Layfield issued a subpoena on Glassdoor seeking the online identities of former employees who posted extremely critical and negative reviews. Glassdoor executives have stated that they will fight the subpoena as they have fought off other efforts to disclose anonymous identities in the recent past.[30] Other litigants in California have won their right to anonymously post negative job reviews but the law remains hotly contested.[31][32]

Effects on online communities

[edit]

The conditions for deindividuation, such as "anonymity, reduced self-awareness, and reduced self-regulation," fosters creations of online communities much in the same way that they might be employed offline.[33] This is evident in proliferation of communities such as Reddit or 4chan which utilize total anonymity or pseudonymity, or tools such as Informers (which add anonymity to non anonymous social media like Facebook or Twitter), to provide its users the ability to post varied content. The effect of disinhibition has been seen to be beneficial in "advice and discussion threads by providing a cover for more intimate and open conversations".[3]Anonymous posting can lower social pressure and self-censorship, allowing users to express honest or controversial opinions more freely. Anonymous posting is used by whistleblowers to share sensitive information without revealing their identity.

The "ephemerality", or short-lived nature, of posts that exist on some anonymous image boards such as 4chan create a fast-paced environment. As of 2009, threads on 4chan had a median lifespan of 3.9 minutes.[3]

There is also research suggesting that content that gets posted in such communities also tends to be more deviant in nature than would be otherwise.[34] The ability to post anonymously has also been linked to the proliferation of pornography in newsgroups and other online forums wherein users utilize sophisticated mechanisms such as mentioned in technology.[9]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Anonymous post

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An anonymous post is an entry on an , , or similar online discussion platform where the contributor's identity is not disclosed, with posts by default attributed to "Anonymous" rather than a unique username or account. This format eschews user registration and persistent profiles, promoting ephemerality as threads automatically archive or delete after reaching limits, which encourages rapid, unfiltered exchanges. Anonymous posting originated in Japanese bulletin board systems like in the late 1990s and gained prominence in English-speaking through , launched in 2003 by as an discussion site that expanded into diverse topics. The system's design fosters disinhibited communication, where empirical studies indicate correlates with increased and reduced in expressions, though it also amplifies uncivil or extreme content due to diminished accountability. Platforms employing this model have birthed influential internet memes, subcultures, and even organized actions under the "Anonymous" banner, transitioning from forum pranks to broader hacktivist efforts. Key characteristics include the absence of in many boards, reliance on community norms for self-regulation, and the use of optional tripcodes for loose identity verification without compromising core . Controversies arise from associations with illegal content sharing, coordinated campaigns, and the propagation of fringe ideologies, yet proponents argue it preserves free expression against institutional , with causal links to reduced pressures in . Empirical analyses reveal mixed outcomes: while can degrade information quality in some contexts, it also sustains vibrant, idea-driven communities unbound by real-world reputational risks.

Core Concepts

Definition and Scope

An refers to a , , or other content uploaded to an online platform, such as a discussion forum, , or site, without any identifier linking it to the poster's real-world identity or a persistent username. This form of posting relies on the platform's to withhold personal details, ensuring that individual contributions cannot be directly attributed to a specific user through metadata or account linkage. In contrast to pseudonymous posting, where users adopt a fixed alias that may enable across multiple entries, anonymous posts employ no such consistent marker, rendering the originator indistinguishable even among repeated submissions from the same source. The scope of anonymous posting spans dedicated platforms like imageboards, where all content defaults to , to optional features on broader sites permitting guest submissions. It facilitates unfiltered discourse on controversial or personal matters by shielding participants from reprisal, though this detachment can amplify unaccountable behaviors such as dissemination or targeted . Empirical surveys indicate widespread recognition of anonymity's value for privacy and expression, with 59% of internet users in a 2013 study supporting the right to fully anonymous online activity. However, its implementation varies by jurisdiction and platform policy, often balanced against legal standards for unmasking posters in cases of or threats, as courts weigh First Amendment protections against accountability. This duality underscores anonymous posting's role in both enabling robust public debate and challenging moderation efforts across digital ecosystems.

Levels of Anonymity

Pseudonymity represents a baseline level of partial in online posting, where users adopt persistent aliases or handles not directly tied to their legal identities, enabling the linkage of multiple posts under the same pseudonym but complicating attribution to the real individual. This approach, common on platforms like or early forums, preserves some accountability through behavioral patterns or cross-referencing but relies on the pseudonym's separation from verifiable . Full platform anonymity escalates this by eliminating persistent identifiers altogether, with each post standing independently without usernames, profiles, or requirements, as seen in imageboards like where contributions are attributed solely to timestamps and content. At this level, intra-platform linkage is infeasible without external metadata, though service logs such as IP addresses or device fingerprints retained by operators can still enable tracing by authorities or moderators under legal compulsion, undermining absolute unlinkability. Network-level anonymity extends protection beyond platform policies through technical obfuscation, incorporating tools like VPNs, proxy chains, or via Tor to mask originating IP addresses and disrupt metadata correlation. These methods aim for disassociation between online actions and real-world identities, achieving higher degrees of identifiability resistance, though vulnerabilities persist from endpoint leaks, , or user errors such as consistent posting styles. Empirical analyses of networks quantify these protections via metrics like entropy-based sender anonymity sets, where larger sets correlate with reduced traceability risks. A finer delineates three progressive dimensions: visual (absence of photos or in posts), identity disassociation (severing links between online pseudonyms and offline selves), and ultimate lack of identifiability (preventing re-identification even with aggregated data). In practice, anonymous posting rarely attains the highest tier without layered defenses, as evidenced by deanonymization incidents in purportedly secure systems, highlighting the causal interplay between technical safeguards and adversarial capabilities.

Historical Evolution

Origins in Early Internet Forums

The concept of anonymous posting first took shape in , a decentralized network of discussion groups launched on June 19, 1979, by students Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis using protocols over ARPANET-connected systems. Usenet's architecture enabled users to post articles to themed newsgroups without requiring verified identities, relying on email-like headers that could employ pseudonyms or fabricated sender details, thus providing inherent pseudonymity rather than full traceability. This setup facilitated broad participation but also amplified unmoderated exchanges, including contentious debates, as the absence of centralized control meant posts propagated across servers without authorship enforcement. Anonymity in was bolstered in the early 1990s through pseudonymous remailers, which relayed messages while obscuring origins. The most prominent, anon.penet.fi, operated by Finnish technologist Johan Helsingius from 1993 until its closure in 1996, assigned unique numeric pseudonyms to users and stripped identifying headers before forwarding emails or Usenet posts. Handling up to 2.5 billion annual messages at peak, it supported privacy for informants, dissidents, and others evading surveillance, though Finnish court orders in 1995 compelled disclosure of data related to litigation, eroding trust and leading to its shutdown amid rising legal scrutiny. Earlier remailer experiments, like those by in the late 1980s, laid theoretical groundwork but saw limited Usenet adoption until such practical tools emerged. With the web's expansion post-1993, early HTML-based forums and bulletin boards introduced rudimentary anonymous features, such as guest submission forms in CGI-driven systems like those on or early PHP precursors around 1995–1997, allowing unregistered contributions without login barriers. These differed from Usenet's distributed model by centralizing content on web servers, yet persisted via IP-masked or unlogged posts, though often curtailed by site policies to curb spam. This era's tools prioritized accessibility over robust privacy, setting precedents for later platforms where default reduced and amplified collective, identity-free discourse.

Emergence of Dedicated Anonymous Platforms

Dedicated anonymous platforms first emerged in during the late 1990s, with Ayashii World launching in 1996 as an early anonymous that supported image posting and threaded discussions without requiring user identification, pioneering elements of culture such as ephemeral threads and unmoderated exchanges. This foundation facilitated anonymous interaction in a manner distinct from earlier Western forums, which often mandated handles or registration for accountability. The model gained traction with , founded in 1999 by as a massive anonymous , which by 2002 became Japan's most searched term on and hosted millions of daily posts across diverse topics, emphasizing speed, volume, and freedom from personal attribution over persistent identities. In response to 2channel's 2001 server overload crisis threatening shutdown, debuted on August 30, 2001, as an image-focused counterpart using GazouBBS software, providing a refuge for users and introducing visual that blended text and images in fast-purging threads. These Japanese developments directly influenced Western adoption, culminating in 's launch on October 1, 2003, by then-15-year-old Christopher "moot" Poole, who adapted Futaba's codebase for English-speaking audiences to create a site dedicated to discussion but quickly expanding into broader anonymous imageboards where posts lacked names by default, promoting raw, unfiltered content creation and viral memes. Unlike prior platforms with optional , 4chan institutionalized it as core to its operation, enabling rapid cultural phenomena while inheriting Japanese precedents for minimal moderation and thread auto-deletion after inactivity. This era solidified dedicated anonymous platforms as hubs for pseudonymous creativity, though they also amplified untraceable and due to the absence of accountability mechanisms.

Expansion and Mainstream Integration (2010s–Present)

Dedicated anonymous platforms expanded significantly in the 2010s, with 4chan's traffic more than doubling between 2010 and 2012 to over 22 million monthly unique visitors. This growth enabled the platform to serve as a hub for unmoderated discussions, creation, and coordinated online actions that increasingly influenced broader . In 2013, launched as an alternative emphasizing minimal moderation and user-created boards, attracting users seeking even greater freedom for anonymous posting. These platforms played key roles in high-profile events, including the controversy in August 2014, where anonymous users on and organized campaigns alleging ethical issues in gaming journalism, though the efforts devolved into widespread harassment. Similarly, the conspiracy theory emerged from anonymous posts on in October 2017, migrating to as "" drops proliferated, demonstrating how anonymous forums could amplify fringe narratives into movements with real-world impacts. Mainstream social media integrated pseudonymous and throwaway accounts, allowing users to post anonymously on platforms like and for sensitive or controversial topics. A analysis of Twitter data found that approximately 5.9% of accounts were fully anonymous, with 20% partially anonymous, highlighting pseudonymity's persistence despite real-name policies elsewhere. On Reddit, throwaway accounts became prevalent for disclosures on personal matters, receiving more engaged responses than main accounts, as evidenced by studies of subreddits. This integration facilitated , , and unfiltered discourse but also enabled spread, with anonymous users dominating certain political discussions.

Technical Implementation

Fundamental Techniques

Fundamental techniques for anonymous posting prioritize concealing identifiable information at the content, account, and network levels, forming the baseline for reducing without relying on sophisticated configurations. These methods focus on operational security practices that mitigate common deanonymization vectors, such as direct or default by platforms and ISPs. Unlike advanced protocols, fundamentals can often be implemented with standard tools and behavioral adjustments, though they offer limited against determined forensic analysis. At the content level, posters must avoid embedding personal identifiers, including real names, locations, timestamps tied to routines, or unique stylistic markers that could correlate with known individuals. Metadata in uploaded files, such as data in images containing GPS coordinates or device signatures, should be stripped using basic tools like image editors or command-line utilities before posting. Behavioral patterns, such as consistent phrasing or topic expertise, represent a persistent risk, as linguistic analysis has deanonymized users in controlled studies by matching writing styles across sessions. Account-level anonymity begins with using platforms that permit guest or unregistered posting, where feasible, to bypass persistent user IDs. For sites requiring registration, employ throwaway services without personal verification, avoiding links to real phone numbers or recovery options that could expose identities via cross-referencing. Sessions should be isolated—clearing browser data post-use prevents cookie-based tracking, though this alone does not suffice against server-side logs. Network fundamentals center on masking the originating , the primary identifier logged by most servers. Simple proxies route traffic through intermediary servers, substituting the poster's IP with the proxy's, but free proxies often log activity or inject , compromising . VPNs encrypt connections and hide IPs via provider servers, enhancing pseudonymity for casual use; however, no-log VPNs are essential, as providers can be subpoenaed, and may still infer locations from entry/exit patterns. These methods provide rudimentary IP obfuscation but fall short of true , as they do not inherently resist global adversary or endpoint correlation.

Advanced Tools and Protocols

Advanced tools and protocols for anonymous posting extend beyond basic proxies or VPNs, which primarily obscure IP addresses but remain vulnerable to and endpoint correlation by sophisticated adversaries. These advanced systems employ layered , , and message mixing to achieve stronger unlinkability between sender and receiver identities, enabling posting on forums, blogs, or hidden services without revealing origins. Key implementations include networks and mix-based architectures, often integrated with secure operating environments like Tails or to minimize forensic traces on user devices. The Onion Router (Tor) protocol, developed by the Tor Project since 2002, facilitates anonymous posting through multi-hop circuits where traffic is encrypted in successive layers ("onions") and routed via volunteer relays, with each node peeling back one layer to forward the packet without knowing the full path or payload. For posting, users access clearnet sites or Tor hidden services (.onion domains) via the Tor Browser, which isolates sessions and prevents browser fingerprinting; this has supported anonymous and forum contributions, as seen in tools like OnionShare for secure file-attached posts. Tor's design resists global passive adversaries by randomizing circuit paths and entry/exit points, though it requires careful operational security to counter active attacks like timing analysis. The Invisible Internet Project (I2P), operational since 2003, uses garlic routing—a variant of onion routing where messages are bundled ("garlic cloves") and delayed in unidirectional tunnels to obscure timing and volume correlations, prioritizing internal network anonymity over clearnet access. I2P enables anonymous posting on eepsites (hidden services) or via integrated apps like I2P-Bote for decentralized, remailer-style messaging without central servers, making it suitable for peer-to-peer forums resistant to censorship. Unlike Tor's bidirectional circuits, I2P's inbound/outbound tunnel separation enhances resilience against endpoint compromise, though it demands more bandwidth and setup complexity for full anonymity. Mix networks (mixnets) represent a protocol class emphasizing batching, reordering, and dummy traffic to defeat , originating from David Chaum's 1981 design and evolving into modern systems like Nym or Loopix. In mixnets, messages from multiple users are pooled, delayed variably, and shuffled before release, providing metadata even against observers controlling network fractions; this supports anonymous posting in messaging overlays or blockchain-tied apps, outperforming circuit-based systems in resisting under high . Deployments like HOPR integrate mixnets with incentives for node operation, but scalability challenges persist due to latency from mixing rounds. Anonymous remailers, such as Type III mixes, prepend cryptographic headers to strip origins before relaying posts or emails, historically used for pseudonymous distribution lists but largely supplanted by Tor/ due to single-point failures; modern hybrids combine them with for verifiable anonymity in whistleblower tools. These protocols demand user diligence—e.g., avoiding , using ephemeral identities, and compartmentalizing activities—to mitigate de-anonymization risks from side channels like browser leaks or behavioral patterns.

Key Platforms and Usage Patterns

Imageboards like 4chan

Imageboards like facilitate anonymous posting by requiring no user registration or persistent identities, with all contributions defaulting to the label "Anonymous." Founded on October 1, 2003, by as an English-language counterpart to Japanese sites like [Futaba Channel](/page/Futaba Channel), organizes content into themed boards where users upload images and text in threaded discussions. Posts lack visible usernames or profiles, though optional tripcodes—a cryptographic hash of a password—allow users to signal continuity across posts without revealing personal details, used in fewer than 10% of cases. Anonymity on these platforms extends to , as threads reach a bump limit (typically 300-750 replies) before archiving or deletion, preventing permanent records and encouraging high-volume, transient interaction. of the /b/ (random) board, 4chan's most active, shows over 90% of posts originate from fully anonymous users, fostering a "hive mind" dynamic where individual accountability is minimized. This structure supports unfiltered expression, including meme creation and cultural phenomena like the Anonymous collective, which emerged from 4chan's /b/ board around 2006-2007 for coordinated online actions. Usage patterns vary by board: general boards like /b/ emphasize chaotic, humorous content with rapid thread turnover, while politically oriented ones like /pol/ () feature discussions on current events, often employing irony, memes, and identity signaling through slurs to delineate in-group boundaries. Such enables innovation in subcultures but correlates with elevated rates of aggressive language; studies quantify prevalence on /pol/, attributing it to the platform's low and pseudonymous reinforcement of norms. Similar imageboards, including successors like 8kun, replicate these mechanics with user-driven , maintaining default to prioritize open discourse over traceability.

Social Media and Throwaway Accounts

Throwaway accounts, also known as burner or alt accounts, are temporary pseudonymous profiles created on platforms to enable anonymous posting without associating content with a user's primary identity. These accounts typically rely on disposable email services such as ProtonMail or temporary aliases to register, minimizing traceable personal data. On platforms like , users frequently self-identify throwaways in posts about stigmatized topics, such as personal confessions or health issues, to solicit advice while preserving privacy. Reddit exemplifies widespread throwaway usage, where such accounts facilitate discussions on sensitive subjects; a 2015 analysis of over 8,600 throwaway usernames revealed patterns of one-time or topic-specific posting, often for venting or testing community reactions before main-account engagement. Throwaway comments on Reddit receive responses more frequently and with greater length than non-throwaway ones, suggesting they encourage candid interaction but also attract scrutiny, as evidenced by studies linking them to higher removal rates for rule violations. In 2017, Reddit users generated over 73 million posts, many via throwaways in subreddits dedicated to anonymous sharing, amplifying unfiltered discourse on topics like or relationships. On Twitter (now X), burner accounts serve similar anonymity goals for activism, propaganda dissemination, or evading bans, though platform tracking via IP addresses and device fingerprints undermines full pseudonymity even with burner emails or phone numbers. Users often pair these with VPNs to obscure origins, but X's privacy settings allow discoverability controls that still expose accounts to behavioral analysis. Broader social media trends show anonymous or false accounts implicated in 72% of reported online abuse cases, highlighting their dual role in enabling harassment alongside protected expression. Despite intentions for privacy, throwaways on platforms like or face platform policies against inauthentic behavior, leading to suspensions; a 2013 Pew survey found 59% of users doubt complete online is achievable, reflecting technical and policy barriers to sustained use. This pattern underscores throwaways' utility for short-term, low-stakes in mainstream , distinct from dedicated anonymous boards, but vulnerable to de-anonymization efforts by platforms and adversaries.

Decentralized and Messaging Apps

Decentralized messaging applications facilitate anonymous posting by leveraging architectures and cryptographic protocols that avoid centralized servers and persistent identifiers, thereby minimizing metadata leakage and traceability. These systems often employ or similar multi-hop techniques to obscure sender origins, with messages encrypted end-to-end to prevent interception. Unlike centralized platforms, distributes message relay across volunteer nodes or blockchain-based incentives, reducing the risk of subpoena-compliant . Session, developed by the Oxen Foundation, exemplifies this approach; users generate accounts from public-private key pairs without requiring phone numbers or emails, enabling anonymous participation in private or group chats where posts can be sent pseudonymously. Launched in as a of the Loki network, Session routes traffic through a decentralized onion network of over 2,200 service nodes as of 2024, supporting features like disappearing messages and open group broadcasts for unattributed sharing. This design has proven resilient in adversarial environments, with no reported central breaches since inception. SimpleX Chat, introduced in 2021, further enhances anonymity by using one-time pairwise addresses and queue-based delivery, ensuring no global user IDs exist for correlation attacks; contacts connect via ephemeral links, and group messages can be posted without profile exposure. Operational data indicates it handles millions of messages daily across and Android without server-side logging, prioritizing metadata over discoverability. Briar, released in by the Briar Project, targets offline anonymity through direct device-to-device syncing via , , or Tor, ideal for activists in censored regions; it supports pseudonymous forums and blogs where users post without accounts, syncing content across trusted peers only. Field tests in conflict zones, such as in 2021, demonstrated its utility for untraceable dissemination amid shutdowns. These apps' usage patterns reveal trade-offs: while enabling secure whistleblowing and dissent—evident in adoption spikes during events like the 2022 Iranian protests—they also host illicit channels, with law enforcement noting challenges in attribution due to absent centralized logs. Empirical analyses confirm higher resilience to but slower performance compared to centralized alternatives, with average message latencies of 1-5 seconds in Session and Briar under load.

Protections in Liberal Democracies

In the , the First Amendment to the safeguards anonymous speech as a core aspect of free expression, with the affirming this protection in multiple precedents. For instance, in Talley v. California (1960), the Court invalidated a ban on anonymous handbills, reasoning that prevents reprisals against speakers on controversial topics. Similarly, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995) struck down requirements for disclosing authors of political pamphlets, emphasizing that fosters robust public debate without fear of retaliation. These rulings extend to online contexts, where courts have resisted compelled disclosure of anonymous posters absent compelling evidence of wrongdoing, such as in suits requiring a balancing test against the poster's rights. Section 230 of the (1996) further bolsters anonymity by immunizing online platforms from liability for third-party content, allowing sites to host anonymous posts without editorial responsibility that could deter such features. This provision has enabled the proliferation of forums like imageboards and throwaways, as platforms avoid lawsuits over user-generated material, though it does not shield illegal content like direct threats. Critics from various ideological perspectives argue this immunity sometimes shields abuse, but proponents maintain it preserves a by reducing incentives for preemptive . In Europe, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guarantees freedom of expression, encompassing the right to impart information anonymously to shield speakers from undue interference. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has upheld this in digital cases, recognizing pseudonymity as vital for dissenters in repressive environments or whistleblowers facing professional risks. However, protections are qualified; states may impose restrictions for national security or public order, as seen in Delfi AS v. Estonia (2015), where the ECtHR held news portals accountable for anonymous defamatory comments, prioritizing reputational harm over absolute anonymity. National implementations vary, with the UK's Online Safety Act (2023) mandating harm mitigation that can involve tracing anonymous users for illegal content, though core expressive anonymity remains defended under ECHR principles. Other liberal democracies like and offer analogous safeguards rooted in free speech traditions, but with narrower scopes. Canadian courts protect anonymous online speech unless overridden by harms like , applying a test that weighs expression against privacy interests. In , constitutional implied freedoms of shield anonymous posts on public matters, yet recent legislative pushes, such as 2022 proposals to unmask users for offensive content, signal tensions between and combating abuse. Across these jurisdictions, is not absolute—exceptions apply for crimes like or —but empirical data from free speech advocacy groups indicate robust judicial resistance to blanket disclosure mandates, preserving as a tool for unfiltered .

Restrictions in Authoritarian Contexts

In authoritarian regimes, governments impose stringent controls on anonymous online posting to monitor dissent, enforce ideological conformity, and prevent organized opposition, often mandating real-name verification for internet access and content publication. These measures typically involve legal requirements for platforms to collect user identification data, coupled with penalties for non-compliance, effectively eliminating pseudonymity as a tool for free expression. China exemplifies such restrictions through its comprehensive real-name registration system, implemented progressively since 2009 and expanded in 2017 to prohibit anonymous posts on forums, , and news sites. Under regulations from the , users must provide government-issued identification numbers to comment, reply, or interact online, with platforms required to verify identities and report violations; non-compliance results in content removal or service suspension. This system, justified by authorities as enhancing accountability, has led to , as evidenced by reduced critical commentary following enforcement. Russia has similarly escalated anonymity curbs, with a 2017 law mandating identification for messaging apps and social platforms, empowering authorities to block services that permit anonymous accounts. Further tightened in 2024, legislation targets popular bloggers and accounts on platforms like YouTube and Telegram, requiring real-name disclosure under threat of fines or bans, amid broader efforts to de-anonymize online activity during geopolitical tensions. In Iran, anonymity faces erosion via proposed cyber bills banning unauthorized VPNs and encrypted tools essential for pseudonymous posting, alongside the 2009 Computer Crimes Act's penalties for unapproved online expression, which include imprisonment for content deemed false or disruptive. These policies, enforced through surveillance and periodic shutdowns, prioritize regime stability over individual privacy.

Recent Global Developments

In 2024, Chinese authorities expanded requirements for platforms to mandate real-name verification for influential users, effectively curtailing anonymous posting by linking accounts to legal identities. This built on prior policies, with platforms like and Douyin enforcing disclosure to prevent misinformation and unrest. By June 2025, the government introduced a centralized virtual ID system, requiring facial scans and true names for cross-platform access, further eroding for over 1 billion users under the guise of enhanced security. Australia's Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, passed in November 2024 and set for enforcement in December 2025, prohibits accounts for those under 16, mandating age verification that platforms must implement through ID checks or , thereby limiting anonymous access for minors. This follows codes requiring tech firms to verify user ages, raising concerns over broader privacy erosion as non-compliant executives face fines up to AUD 22.5 million. Similarly, the UK's , fully operational by March 2025, imposes age assurance for pornographic sites and harmful content, compelling service providers to end default via verification tools. In the United States, the Supreme Court's July 2025 ruling in v. Paxton upheld Texas's age-verification law for websites with over one-third sexually explicit content, applying and permitting states to restrict anonymous access to protect minors, despite First Amendment challenges. This decision, which reversed lower court injunctions, signals tolerance for similar mandates in over a dozen states by 2025, prioritizing child safety over unverified anonymous browsing. The European Union's (DSA), enforced progressively from 2024, requires very large online platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks including spread via anonymous accounts, with fines up to 6% of global turnover for non-compliance; while not banning outright, it pressures platforms to enhance and user identification. In , the Telecom Regulatory Authority's 2023 traceability mandate for commercial messages, extended into 2024, requires telecom firms to enable originator identification, indirectly curbing anonymous messaging on apps like amid broader IT rules enforcement. These developments reflect a worldwide shift toward measures, often justified by harms to youth, though critics argue they undermine core protections without sufficient evidence of proportionate benefits.

Societal and Cultural Ramifications

Benefits for Expression and

in posting facilitates unfiltered expression by shielding users from retaliation, enabling the dissemination of controversial or minority viewpoints that might otherwise be suppressed due to social or professional pressures. Empirical analyses indicate that anonymous platforms lower perceived risks, thereby increasing participation in discussions and promoting a diversity of ideas essential for robust . This protective layer has proven vital for whistleblowers and dissidents in restrictive environments, allowing critical information to reach wider audiences without immediate identification and . In terms of , encourages risk-taking in idea generation by decoupling contributions from personal reputation, which can stifle novel thinking in identifiable settings. Experimental research on virtual teams demonstrates that anonymous interactions enhance — the brainstorming phase of —leading to more original outputs compared to identified groups, as participants feel freer to propose unconventional solutions without fear of judgment. Similarly, studies of find that boosts diverse input and overall creative processes, particularly in development and . A prominent example is the creation of , published in 2008 under the pseudonym , whose anonymity insulated the project from early regulatory scrutiny and personal attacks, permitting organic community-driven development and emphasizing the protocol's merits over its originator's identity. This approach fostered a decentralized , encouraging widespread adoption and iterative improvements without centralized bottlenecks. In cultural domains, anonymous forums like have incubated memes and viral trends through ephemeral, unattributed posting, spurring rapid experimentation and collective creativity that influences broader . Such environments prioritize content quality and iterative refinement over authorship, accelerating the evolution of digital artifacts from niche ideas to global phenomena.

Drawbacks Including Abuse and Misinformation

Anonymity in online posting facilitates and by reducing perceived accountability, as individuals feel disinhibited from real-world social norms and consequences. A of 42 studies found that anonymous environments correlate with higher levels of digital , including threats and abusive language, due to the dissociation of online actions from . Empirical experiments, building on theory, demonstrate that concealed identities lead to rude and abusive behavior, with participants in anonymous conditions exhibiting significantly more than identifiable ones. On platforms like , this has manifested in coordinated campaigns, such as the 2010 of a 11-year-old girl known as Jessi Slaughter, where anonymous users amplified doxxing and threats, resulting in her receiving death threats and requiring police intervention. Similarly, in 2020, anonymous groups on organized "zoombombing" intrusions into video calls, injecting racist and violent content, which affected thousands of sessions and prompted FBI warnings. Harassment often targets vulnerable groups, exacerbating harms like and . Research on shows amplifies misogynistic content, with anonymous posts on platforms like correlating to a 20-30% increase in gendered abuse compared to named accounts. A 2023 study of 4chan's /b/ board revealed patterns of gendered , where anonymous threads promoted , contributing to real-world incidents like the inspired by similar online rhetoric. data from 2022 indicates 46% of U.S. teens experienced online , with cited as a key enabler in 41% of cases involving repeated targeting. These patterns persist across anonymous apps, where throwaway accounts enable and intimate partner abuse without traceability. Anonymous posting also accelerates misinformation spread by shielding posters from reputational costs, allowing unverified or fabricated claims to proliferate unchecked. Analysis of during the 2024 U.S. elections found anonymous accounts responsible for 25% of viral false narratives on topics like voter , often amplified through bot-like networks evading moderation. On imageboards, has birthed conspiracy theories like in 2017, originating from anonymous drops that evolved into widespread campaigns influencing offline events, including the , 2021, Capitol riot. Empirical models of network propagation show anonymous sources increase rumor diffusion rates by 15-20% due to reduced scrutiny, as recipients perceive less bias risk from faceless posters. This dynamic undermines public discourse, with studies linking anonymous misinformation to eroded trust in institutions, as seen in a 2023 survey where 35% of respondents cited anonymous online claims as influencing their skepticism toward verified news.

Major Controversies

Debates on Free Speech Versus Accountability

in online posting facilitates free expression by insulating individuals from retaliation, , or professional repercussions, particularly for whistleblowers, dissidents, and those in repressive regimes discussing sensitive topics. This protection aligns with longstanding legal precedents, such as U.S. rulings upholding anonymous political speech under the First Amendment, as seen in cases like McIntyre v. Elections Commission (1995), where the Court emphasized that anonymity preserves the vibrancy of public discourse by allowing unpopular views to surface without fear of reprisal. Scholars argue that such shielding encourages broader participation in debates, fostering innovation and in digital spaces where identifiable users might self-censor. Opponents contend that anonymity erodes accountability, enabling unchecked dissemination of , threats, and , as posters face no personal consequences for falsehoods or incitements that could lead to real-world harm. Empirical analyses, including surveys of experts conducted in 2017, highlight persistent concerns over trolls and manipulative behaviors thriving under , potentially splintering online communities and amplifying epistemic harms like eroded trust in information. For instance, anonymous forums have been linked to coordinated campaigns and , where the lack of complicates moderation and , as documented in studies on online covert hate. The debate intensifies around proposed solutions like mandatory identity verification or platform bans on anonymous accounts, which proponents of view as essential for curbing abuse but critics decry as threats to democratic discourse. In , Australian discussions on banning —prompted by high-profile harms—drew opposition from free speech advocates who argued it would disproportionately silence marginalized voices without addressing root causes like poor platform enforcement. Balanced approaches, such as application-layer designs integrating pseudonymous without full de-anonymization, have been proposed in academic to reconcile these tensions, though implementation remains rare due to technical and privacy challenges. Surveys indicate divided , with some perceiving "cancel culture" calls for as veiled , while others prioritize harm prevention over absolute speech protections. Notable controversies underscore the stakes: Positive outcomes include anonymous leaks driving accountability in scandals, as with platforms hosting whistleblower posts, contrasted by harms like the 2014 Gamergate events, where anonymous boards fueled targeted abuse campaigns. Experts predict that without nuanced reforms, anonymity's dual role—empowering truth-tellers while shielding bad actors—will perpetuate polarized online ecosystems, with governance favoring either overreach or under-regulation.

Political and Ideological Influences

Anonymous posting on platforms like 4chan's /pol/ board has fostered environments where users engage in unmoderated political discourse, often characterized by opposition to progressive cultural norms and narratives. This board, dedicated to "" discussions, attracts participants who prioritize free expression over social conformity, leading to the proliferation of memes and rhetoric challenging left-leaning institutional biases observed in academia and journalism. Studies indicate that such enables ironic humor to evolve into substantive ideological mobilization, as seen in campaigns against perceived . The ideological influences manifest prominently in the board's role in amplifying alternative-right perspectives, including skepticism toward globalism, immigration policies, and . Research on /pol/ threads reveals recurrent themes of , anti-feminism, and theories, which users attribute to reactions against what they view as suppressed viewpoints in credentialed institutions. For instance, self-improvement discussions intertwined with racial and fascist undertones have been documented, illustrating how lowers barriers to exploring fringe ideas without personal repercussions. This dynamic has causal links to real-world political events, such as the viral spread of election-related memes in that bolstered populist candidates. While predominantly right-leaning, anonymous spaces exhibit internal ideological contests, with users debating , traditionalism, and amid habitual use of provocative language to signal in-group identity. Empirical analyses highlight how facilitates habitus formation around and identity signaling, reinforcing echo chambers that prioritize causal realism over politically correct interpretations. spreads rapidly in these contexts, yet proponents argue it counters systemic left-wing biases in legacy media by enabling fact-checking and dissent. Overall, these influences underscore 's double-edged role: empowering marginalized ideologies while risking through unchecked escalation.

Cultural Outputs and Backlash

Anonymous posting on platforms like has generated significant cultural artifacts, particularly internet memes, which emerged from the site's anonymous and ephemeral structure allowing rapid iteration and dissemination of humorous or satirical content. Examples include "," a prank involving deceptive links to Rick Astley's "" video, which originated on 's /b/ board in and spread virally across the web. Similarly, , created by artist in 2005, gained prominence through anonymous remixing on starting around 2008, evolving into a versatile before later associations with unrelated political movements. These outputs reflect how facilitates collective creativity without individual credit, contributing to broader humor and visual language. The Anonymous hacktivist collective, which coalesced from 4chan's /b/ board around 2003–2006, represents another key cultural output, channeling anonymous posting into real-world activism. Initial actions focused on pranks and "lulz" (amusement at others' expense), but evolved into operations like in 2008 against the , involving distributed denial-of-service attacks and protests. The group supported causes such as disclosures in 2010 and in 2011, popularizing the as a symbol of anti-authoritarian resistance, drawn from the 2005 film . This influence extended to cyber campaigns against entities perceived as censorious, demonstrating how anonymous forums can mobilize decentralized action. Backlash against anonymous posting has intensified due to its facilitation of harassment, misinformation, and extremism. During the 2014 controversy, anonymous coordination on and similar boards targeted journalists and developers with doxxing and threats, amplifying gender-based animus in gaming culture. Platforms have faced scrutiny for hosting ; analysis of 4chan's board showed a surge in white supremacist terminology post-2015, correlating with broader online . The origins of in 2017 on , via posts from "Q Clearance Patriot," exemplify how anonymity enables unchecked conspiracy propagation, influencing events like the , 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. Critics, including academic studies, argue that ephemerality reduces accountability, fostering toxic norms over constructive discourse, though proponents counter that such features protect dissent in censored environments. Regulatory and platform responses include increased ; for instance, 8chan's 2019 shutdown followed manifestos linked to mass shootings posted anonymously there, reflecting heightened concerns over violence incitement. Despite this, persists with minimal moderation, underscoring tensions between unfiltered expression and harm mitigation, as evidenced by leaks of its moderator data in 2025 amid internal disputes. Empirical data from content analyses indicate that while boosts innovation, it correlates with higher rates of derogatory language compared to named forums, prompting debates on reforms without eroding core benefits.

References

  1. http://yotsubasociety.org/imageboardguide/
  2. https://projects.csail.mit.edu/chanthropology/4chan.pdf
  3. https://wordpress.cs.vt.edu/cs6724f17/2017/09/24/4chan-and-b-an-analysis-of-anonymity-and-ephemerality-in-a-large-online-community/
  4. https://www.darkowl.com/blog-content/4chan-history-communities-controversies-and-future-outlook/
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563223002315
  6. https://www.uh.edu/news-events/stories/2014/january/12114santana.php
  7. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/anonymity-and-identity-online
  8. https://www.esafety.gov.au/industry/tech-trends-and-challenges/anonymity
  9. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/information-technology/online-anonymity
  10. https://tante.cc/2011/08/12/anonymous-vs-pseudonymous/
  11. https://www.discovermagazine.com/anonymity-vs-pseudonymity-32565
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7217243/
  13. https://blog.washcoll.edu/wordpress/theelm/2024/04/social-media-anonymity-presents-both-immense-harm-and-real-benefits/
  14. https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/56114122
  15. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/09/05/part-1-the-quest-for-anonymity-online/
  16. https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/online-defamation-first-amendment-rights-and-legal-standards-for-unmasking-the-identities-of-anonymous-defendants/
  17. https://idebate.net/this-house-believes-that-the-right-to-anonymous-posting-on-the-internet-should-be-protected-by-law~b1537/
  18. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-online-anonymity-matters
  19. https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/backgrounder-how-can-online-anonymity-affect-hate
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2338028_Levels_of_Anonymity
  21. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.5613
  22. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8723335
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167404820303795
  24. https://www.andysowards.com/blog/2018/introduction-to-usenet/
  25. https://favshq.com/blog/the-early-days-of-online-communities-the-story-of-usenet
  26. https://www.wired.com/1996/11/anon-penet-fi-rip/
  27. https://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/remailer-history.html
  28. https://www.theinformation.com/articles/history-holds-tough-lessons-for-anonymous-services
  29. https://wptavern.com/the-evolution-of-anonymity-in-the-internet-age
  30. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/04/first-post-a-history-of-online-public-messaging/
  31. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/history-imageboards-still-influence-120016298.html
  32. http://yotsubasociety.org/ayashii-and-amezou/
  33. https://sabukaru.online/articles/2chan
  34. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sites/futaba-channel-2chan
  35. http://yotsubasociety.org/Futaba_Channel_briefing/
  36. https://www.gawkerarchives.com/5925535/4chans-moment-is-over-even-though-its-more-popular-than-ever
  37. https://www.wired.com/story/the-weird-dark-history-8chan/
  38. https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/756034720/how-gamergate-became-a-template-for-malicious-action-online
  39. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531
  40. http://cosn.acm.org/2014/files/cosn025f-peddintiA.pdf
  41. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3359237
  42. http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/newswire/anonymous-users-dominate-right-wing-discussions-online-fuel-spread-false-information/
  43. https://ssd.eff.org/module/protecting-yourself-social-networks
  44. https://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy
  45. https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/unspecialrapporteurfoe2011-final_3.pdf
  46. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexvakulov/2024/09/18/11-tips-for-safely-using-anonymous-accounts-on-social-networks/
  47. https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-be-more-anonymous-online/
  48. https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/29196/how-to-remain-100-anonymous-on-the-internet
  49. https://www.torproject.org/
  50. https://geti2p.net/en/
  51. https://support.torproject.org/misc/misc-12/
  52. https://textbook.cs161.org/network/tor.html
  53. https://geti2p.net/en/docs/how/tech-intro
  54. https://geti2p.net/en/docs/how/intro
  55. https://nym.com/blog/what-is-a-mixnet
  56. https://docs.hoprnet.org/core/mixnets
  57. https://leastauthority.com/blog/introduction-to-mix-networks-and-anonymous-communication-networks/
  58. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/context/slis_facpub/article/1022/viewcontent/Winkler_An_Analysis_of_Tools_for_Online_Anonymity.pdf
  59. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/25/what-is-anonymous-the-group-went-from-4chan-to-cyberattacks-on-russia.html
  60. https://aaai.org/papers/00050-14134-4chan-and-b-an-analysis-of-anonymity-and-ephemerality-in-a-large-online-community/
  61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221297869_4chan_and_b_An_Analysis_of_Anonymity_and_Ephemerality_in_a_Large_Online_Community
  62. https://seclab.bu.edu/people/gianluca/papers/4chan-ICWSM2017.pdf
  63. https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1824&context=masters_theses
  64. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.00045
  65. https://www.darkowl.com/blog-content/chan-blog/
  66. https://www.ferretly.com/blog/unmasking-social-media-burner-accounts-what-they-are-and-why-they-matter
  67. https://www.makeyourmarkdigital.com/burner-account-on-social-media/
  68. https://www.getphyllo.com/post/social-media-burner-accounts-sc
  69. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2675133.2675175
  70. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300917900_This_is_a_Throwaway_Account
  71. https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4evzdb/some_analysis_of_8600_throwaway_reddit_usernames/
  72. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.17430
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5977623/
  74. https://www.quora.com/If-I-post-absolutely-no-personal-information-on-Twitter-with-a-burner-email-can-someone-still-find-out-my-identity-or-location-Maybe-hrough-IP-or-something
  75. https://www.burnerapp.com/blog/burner-number-for-twitter
  76. https://help.x.com/en/safety-and-security/email-and-phone-discoverability-settings
  77. https://www.compassioninpolitics.com/three_quarters_of_those_experiencing_online_abuse_say_it_comes_from_anonymous_accounts
  78. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/09/05/anonymity-privacy-and-security-online/
  79. https://www.pcmag.com/picks/best-secure-messaging-apps
  80. https://simplex.chat/
  81. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373604160_Anonymity_in_decentralized_apps_Study_of_implications_for_cybercrime_investigations
  82. https://www.freedomforum.org/anonymous-speech/
  83. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/encyclopedia/case/anonymous-speech/
  84. https://www.thefire.org/news/anonymous-speech-american-apple-pie
  85. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
  86. https://www.thefire.org/news/your-guide-section-230-law-safeguards-free-speech-internet
  87. https://itif.org/publications/2021/02/22/overview-section-230-what-it-why-it-was-created-and-what-it-has-achieved/
  88. https://rm.coe.int/guide-on-article-10-freedom-of-expression-eng/native/1680ad61d6
  89. https://www.accessnow.org/access-intervenes-at-ecthr-for-the-right-to-be-anonymous-online/
  90. https://www.insideprivacy.com/international/post/
  91. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer
  92. https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2011/08/online-anonymity-case/
  93. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10462035/Australian-laws-force-social-media-giants-remove-offensive-posts-UNMASK-anonymous-users.html
  94. https://epic.org/issues/democracy-free-speech/anonymity/
  95. https://www.csis.org/analysis/shrinking-anonymity-chinese-cyberspace
  96. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/08/01/russia-new-legislation-attacks-internet-anonymity
  97. https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/27/china-doubles-down-on-real-name-registration-laws-forbidding-anonymous-online-posts/
  98. http://www.cecc.gov/publications/commission-analysis/china-requires-real-names-identification-numbers-to-post-comments
  99. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol25/iss1/3/
  100. https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/b000273j
  101. https://freedomhouse.org/country/iran/freedom-net/2024
  102. https://iranhumanrights.org/2025/07/iran-proposed-cyber-bill-gives-authorities-sweeping-new-powers-to-block-and-punish-online-content/
  103. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/iran-country-policy-and-information-notes/country-policy-and-information-note-social-media-surveillance-and-sur-place-activities-iran-april-2025-accessible
  104. https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/01/10/1086366/china-social-media-anonymity-end/
  105. https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/20/tech/china-censorship-internet-id-hnk-intl
  106. https://www.nchrd.org/2025/07/chinas-new-internet-law-raises-privacy-fears-for-1-billion-users/
  107. https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/australia-proposes-ban-social-media-those-under-16-2024-11-06/
  108. https://ondato.com/blog/australia-social-media-ban/
  109. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/20/face-age-and-id-checks-using-the-internet-in-australia-is-about-to-fundamentally-change
  110. https://reason.com/2025/07/28/the-age-gated-internet-is-here/
  111. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/24/thursday-briefing-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-internet-safety-rules
  112. https://reason.org/commentary/supreme-court-erodes-online-privacy-and-free-speech-in-age-verification-ruling/
  113. https://techpolicy.press/us-state-age-verification-efforts-threaten-online-speech-and-privacy-the-supreme-court-seems-ready-to-allow-them
  114. https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/digital-services-act-keeping-us-safe-online-2025-09-22_en
  115. https://techpolicy.press/understanding-the-eus-digital-services-act-enforcement-against-x
  116. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/trai-extends-deadline-of-traceability-mandate-for-commercial-messages-7147028
  117. https://paragraph.com/%40leonortoledo/anonymity-laws-and-traps-whats-at-stake-online
  118. https://digitalrightswatch.org.au/2021/04/30/explainer-anonymity-online-is-important/
  119. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388036038_Innovation_in_Virtual_Teams_The_Critical_Role_of_Anonymity_across_Divergent_and_Convergent_Thinking_Processes
  120. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251609813_New_Organizational_Designs_for_Promoting_Creativity_A_Case_Study_of_Virtual_Teams_with_Anonymity_and_Structured_Interactions
  121. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07421222.2025.2520175?src=
  122. https://www.netcoins.com/blog/who-created-bitcoin-unveiling-the-mystery-of-satoshi-nakamoto
  123. https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/article/the-history-of-bitcoin-who-invented-it/
  124. https://www.wired.com/story/4chan-happy-birthday/
  125. https://www.folklore.ee/rl/fo/konve/ishs2018/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Kuipers-seminar4_NissenbaumShifman-2015.pdf
  126. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178923000435
  127. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/who-is-that-the-study-of-anonymity-and-behavior
  128. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/03/technology/zoom-harassment-abuse-racism-fbi-warning.html
  129. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546553.2024.2384044
  130. https://eagleeye.news/29346/opinion/internet-users-abuse-anonymity-to-perform-harmful-acts/
  131. https://apnews.com/article/misinformation-anonymous-accounts-social-media-2024-election-8a6b0f8d727734200902d96a59b84bf7
  132. https://knightcolumbia.org/content/anonymity-identity-and-lies
  133. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2021/7999760
  134. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/01/countering-disinformation-effectively-an-evidence-based-policy-guide?lang=en
  135. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/anonymous-speech/
  136. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/03/29/the-future-of-free-speech-trolls-anonymity-and-fake-news-online/
  137. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4597&context=cmc_theses
  138. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/viewFile/6465/3119
  139. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/25/banning-anonymous-social-media-accounts-stifle-free-speech-abuse
  140. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2773195
  141. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308596113000451
  142. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-where-some-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/
  143. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17577632.2024.2425547
  144. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03033-1
  145. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2056305120969912
  146. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00732-x
  147. https://cdn.aaai.org/ojs/14893/14893-28-18412-1-2-20201228.pdf
  148. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/research-note-the-spread-of-political-misinformation-on-online-subcultural-platforms/
  149. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nana.12780
  150. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331998335_They_Probably_Have_Better_Memes_the_Birth_and_Formation_of_Internet_Memes_on_4chan_2007-2014
  151. https://www.wired.com/2011/11/anonymous-101/
  152. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/truth-about-anonymouss-activism/
  153. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8206165/
  154. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-measure-of-hate-on-4chan-627922/
  155. https://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/download/2362/1508/8871
  156. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/how-the-internet-left-4chan-behind
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.