Sir, – Michael McDowell argues that public utterances shouldn't be anonymous, because this would only serve to encourage hateful speech ("Online anonymity propels poisonous opinion", Opinion & Analysis, February 16th).
He notes that The Irish Times doesn’t print anonymous letters.
However, the example he gives of people freely disseminating hate are American alt-right polemicists who are anything but anonymous. They thrive on the notoriety their baleful utterances generate. It may be that maintaining a safe distance rather than anonymity is the key factor.
The internet is full of people speaking openly and rudely about people and ideas they disagree with. Far from seeking anonymity, many of these are proud of their opinions and want plaudits from like-minded people. They want to be admired, and to be thought of as clever and straight-talking. The miracle of the internet allows them to both hide and stand on a soapbox at the same time.
A letters page which only allowed anonymous contributions might not summon the tsunami of bile that is sometimes feared.
A simple but robust editorial policy might be all that’s needed to ensure civil discourse is maintained. With the unattributed writer and their ego left outside, the only thing to focus on would be the opinions expressed and the arguments made to support them. – Yours, etc,
COLIN WALSH,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.