![\"WASHINGTON,](\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/GettyImages-2189228827_3bf9ef.jpg?fit=7422%2C4951\")
![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Taylor-Lorenz-headshot-4-e1772685436165.jpeg\")
<\/p>\nTaylor Lorenz is a technology reporter based in Los Angeles. She is the author of \u201cExtremely Online: The Untold Story of Fame, Influence, and Power on the Internet.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
In August 2024<\/span>, the Biden administration hosted hundreds of influencers at the White House for the first-ever Creator Economy Conference. Neera Tanden, a senior Biden adviser, took to the stage and bemoaned anonymity online. The influencers alongside her agreed, pushing the idea that anonymous speech on the internet is harmful, and regulation is needed to force the use of real names on social media. The audience whispered excitedly as those on stage spoke about how proposed laws like the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, could unmask every troll.\u00a0<\/p>\n This narrative of online safety, particularly in relation to children, has become central to the bipartisan effort to censor and deanonymize the internet for everyone.\u00a0Today, a package of a dozen<\/a> \u201cchild online safety\u201d bills is moving forward<\/a> in the House of Representatives with bipartisan support. The laws, framed as a way to crack down on harmful content and make the internet safer, would force social media companies to enact invasive identity verification measures in order to keep children from accessing online spaces.<\/p>\n The problem is that there\u2019s no way to reliably verify someone\u2019s age without verifying who they are<\/a>. A platform cannot magically discern that a user is 16 without collecting identifying information, whether through government documents such as a passport, payment information like a credit card, or other identity-disclosing data. Whether that data is stored by the platform itself or outsourced to a vendor, the result is always the same: A user\u2019s offline identity is forever linked with their online behavior.<\/p>\n Stripping anonymity from the internet would constitute one of the most sweeping rollbacks of civil rights in recent history. It would allow for unprecedented levels of mass surveillance and censorship, endangering the most marginalized members of society. Whistleblowers exposing corporate wrongdoing could be tracked and fired, government employees speaking out about illegal behavior or bad policies could face prosecution, and activists organizing protests could be identified and surveilled before ever setting foot on the street.<\/p>\n Already, the U.S. government is flooding<\/a> social media platforms with subpoenas<\/a> seeking to unmask<\/a> hundreds of anonymously run anti-ICE social media accounts<\/a>. These laws would make it all the more easier for the government to target and prosecute those who dissent<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Vulnerable members of society will suffer most. Trans people under attack from the government could be identified and outed without their consent. Undocumented immigrants could be cut off from the ability to communicate and connect with advocates. Young people seeking abortions in states with restrictive laws<\/a> might no longer have the ability to access information safely and anonymously.<\/p>\n Not only will a de-anonymized internet be valuable to the government as it seeks to tighten control, it will also make it easier for any corporation or bad actor to intimidate, blackmail, or exploit people by leveraging their own data against them.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The quest to remove anonymous speech from the web is not new. Conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation<\/a> and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation<\/a>, formerly known as Morality in Media<\/a>, have long pursued these laws, arguing<\/a> that online anonymity fuels pornography<\/a>, exploitation, and general moral decay. In recent years, Democrats have become integral to advancing these proposals, falsely claiming that surveillance laws will crack down on Big Tech<\/a> or curb social media addiction.<\/a><\/p>\n The laws will lead to more data being collected on kids, which predatory companies can then use to target them in more invasive ways.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n None of these surveillance laws do any of that. In fact, the laws will lead to more data being collected on kids<\/a>, which predatory companies can then use to target them in more invasive ways. Already, these bills are standing in the way of protecting kids online: Last week, the FTC said it would decline to enforce COPPA<\/a>, a landmark law that mandates the protection of children\u2019s data, in order to incentivize ID verification.<\/p>\n The laws would create a massive new market for third-party identification vendors<\/a>, many funded by the same tech investors who backed social media giants, such as Peter Thiel<\/a>, who funded ID verification platform Persona via his investment group Founders Fund. Smaller apps will be forced to shoulder the enormous cost of enacting identity verification measures, hindering their ability to operate, and making it harder to compete with Big Tech companies that are leveraging these laws to consolidate power<\/a>.<\/p>\n It\u2019s no surprise then that Big Tech companies are also heavily involved in lobbying for various versions of these laws. Elon Musk has endorsed<\/a> KOSA. The Digital Childhood Alliance, a group that frequently posts <\/a>about the dangers of \u201cBig Tech,\u201d is secretly funded by Meta<\/a>, and has played a role in pushing<\/a> the App Store Accountability Act. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently told a court<\/a> that Apple and Google should verify the identity of every smartphone user at the operating system level, which would permanently end anonymous internet access<\/a> for everyone.<\/p>\n This exact invasive scheme is being boosted by Democratic lawmakers like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who recently signed an ID verification law<\/a> for all operating systems, including Linux, and has mused about banning all social media<\/a> for users under the age of 16.<\/p>\n \u201cYoung people still have human rights.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n These efforts have \u201cbeen brewing for or for a few years now, but just in the last few months, we\u2019ve seen a lot of momentum,\u201d said David Greene, senior counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. While it\u2019s tempting to take a paternalistic attitude toward young people, Greene said that it\u2019s crucial to recognize young people have rights too, and often use the internet when taking part in social justice movements.<\/p>\n \u201cYoung people still have human rights,\u201d he said, \u201cand that includes the right to access information and to associate with other people and to speak to the world. These laws are designed to diminish those rights.\u201d<\/p>\n Young people have led campuswide protests against the genocide in Gaza and against ICE across the country. Laws that restrict and surveil online access would severely limit their speech and ability to organize. And as the U.S. escalates attacks in the Middle East and immigration agents exert more power at home, activists are becoming concerned by the assault on anonymous speech.<\/p>\n \u201cWhenever imperialist governments go to war, they become more authoritarian at home,\u201d Evan Greer, director of digital rights group Fight for the Future, posted to Bluesky<\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
\n