A Different Kind of Identity Politics

Nikki Haley vs. anonymous speech.

By
76
Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley speaks during the Republican Jewish Coalition's Annual Leadership Summit at The Venetian Resort Las Vegas on October 28, 2023 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Ten years ago, one of Twitter’s power users had a complaint—and a suggestion.

There was too much trolling on the platform, he observed. (Or too much trolling of him, at least.) He knew how to make it stop.

Donald J. Trump, civility policeman.

Ten years later, one of his challengers for the Republican presidential nomination had a complaint—and a suggestion.

Her proposal annoyed right-wing populists, a group not normally given to principled defenses of liberal values. “Nice try, Nikki,” Turning Point USA poohbah Charlie Kirk responded. “Anonymous speech is a core part of free speech—which the founders would know, since many of them (including Alexander Hamilton and James Madison) wrote anonymously.”

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Get Deal
Already a paid member? Sign In
76
By
Comments (76)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Bloodredinabluestate

    I am for anyone but Trump and Ramaswamy, so I am happy if Haley starts to surge. I don't, however, see her path to the nomination as easily as I see DeSantis's, since I think his voters would more likely go to Trump if RDS drops out. But this essay is especially snotty. Haley says something asinine and her rival for the nomination tries to exploit it. Calling DeSantis a" ludicrous hypocrite" for doing so is completely unfair. When everyone is thirty points down, they all need to peel off Trump voters. At least DeSantis didn't, you know, actually serve in the Trump administration. Neither is exactly a profile in courage, both having pledged to support Trump if he is the nominee and Haley has sucked up to Trump enough that her name should be Hoover. The Haley=good and DeSantis=evil paradigm just doesn't wash.

    Collapse
    1. BPhillips

      I can appreciate your criticisms of Haley but that doesn't make DeSantis any less of a hypocrite.

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Lchrisberg

    **A discourse without anonymity would be a less honest discourse.**
    That's just nonene. Really, truly ludicrous. Anonymous discourse does not require an iota of accountability, the guardrails for honesy.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Randall Reese

    Government coercing companies or individuals to identify posters is surely not constitutional. But a President using her bully pulpit to shame an industry into voluntary self regulation is not. And, as Nick points out, private enterprises may require transparencyof their customers. If her history as SC Gov is instructive, then Pres. Haley would be the type of consensus building leader able to bring industry players together to organize and voluntarily enforce a workable identity scheme. There are enough live examples of Government-Sponsored Voluntary Regulation that it has its own acronym, so there should be ample reason to believe it's feasible and constitutional.

    Would it work? Could the Cubs win another World Series in my lifetime? As a Cubs fan I live on the hope that goodness and virtue will prevail.

    Collapse
  4. FreddySez

    I think Haley recognized the taste of foot pretty quickly on that one, and is hoping it falls into a memory hole.

    Look for DeSantis, however, to go on and on about it at the next debate. He would love for this to be her "there is no Communist domination of Poland!" even though it isn't.

    Collapse
  5. BizChuck

    I might note that the author wrote for a number of years at HotAir, where in February of 2016, commenting was restricted to a Facebook interface, which generally meant a lack of anonymity.

    The move was massively unpopular with longtime commenters at HotAir, and resulted in a number of spin-off sites being created by former HotAir commenters.

    Collapse
  6. BizChuck

    Nick, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    "There’s no question that if Disney had praised his “don’t say gay” law instead of opposing it, he (DeSantis) wouldn’t have thought to eliminate the special district that governs Disney World. In Florida, rights like free speech and free association are contingent upon retaining the political favor of the government and its supporters. Which is to say, they aren’t “rights” at all."

    This reads like the script for a talking head at MSNBC.

    Collapse
    1. BPhillips

      Are you arguing against the veracity of that statement? It seems pretty obvious to me.

      Collapse
    2. Dhafvens

      I think DeSantis wouldn't have eliminated the special district without Disney's lobbying against his bill.

      It doesn't bother me as much as it bothers Nick, and I think it's because Disney's special district isn't a basic right. It feels more to me like a special gift given to someone with a lot of political clout... And thus I'm less worried that it's being taken away as an acct of political retaliation. If they shouldn't really have special treatment already, why do I care if it's removed?

      Collapse
      1. BPhillips

        There are over 1,800 Special Districts in Florida - it wasn't special treatment for Disney.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Pbanuski

      Does it matter what it reads like? Doesn’t it matter that it’s true?

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Marty

      But it's true.

      Collapse
      1. BizChuck

        No, the following statement is categorically false.

        " In Florida, rights like free speech and free association are contingent upon retaining the political favor of the government and its supporters. Which is to say, they aren’t “rights” at all."

        Collapse
        1. BPhillips

          This is one of the most obvious examples of political retribution against a company I can think of.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Pbanuski

          So you don't disagree that the first part is false? "There’s no question that if Disney had praised his “don’t say gay” law instead of opposing it, he (DeSantis) wouldn’t have thought to eliminate the special district that governs Disney World. "

          Do you think absent Disney taking ANY position on the law DeSantis would have pursued the special district issue in the first place?

          Because if the answer to that is "No, he wouldn't have" then Nick's next sentence, the one you object to, may be hyperbolic, but it contains the essence of truth, that rights aren't rights if they're dependent on government favor.

          Collapse
  7. Mirabelle

    Sure, put your real name and even your location on your posts. That way when someone misconstrues or doesn't like something you post they can be sure and find you.

    Collapse
  8. Tallredrider

    I think Haley did this just to get attention. Everyone hates bots and worries about foreign influencers. So even though her proposal is unconstitutional, there is no price to be paid. Now we’re talking about her. So there seems to be a net gain; this seems like good politics.

    My real name isn’t Nikki Haley.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Ptburcher

    "Even if social media platforms were game to require users to post under their own names, how would they enforce the policy?"

    I can be done. Two financial websites I used to belong to previously allowed anonymous users and were actually more social media than it would appear. One even hosted an entire section for open subjects of any and every type, including utter nonsense and frivolity. Then they both said no more anonymous, you had to use your real name. Both went to Face Book as the go-to source of proving you were a real person, your comments were linked directly through your FB account. Now of course, you could set up a fake account with FB, but eventually you will get caught and have your account locked until you submit government ID to prove who you are. But it did cut down on the trolling quite a lot. Now this does mean that FB is the enforcer, not the site, but it worked to a large degree. However, it also cut down on users, fewer people utilized their sites, therefore fewer eyes (and clicks) on the ads. Now both of those sites require a paid subscription to even read an article past the first paragraph.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    Did Haley call for legislation? If she has, I haven't seen that yet.

    Or was she urging that media companies voluntarily institute a real-name policy, as a public service to encourage more civil discourse?

    FWIW Mr. Catoggio: I respect your writing and opinions more, and in general take you more seriously, since you've shed your nom de blog. I made the choice to write always only under my own name in the early days of the internet — both with respect to my own blog (which has never been anonymous, but to the contrary has always identified me and provided a link to my professional contact info), and in the comments I leave on others' media (including here) — with the expectation, that's proved correct more times than I could count, that posting under my own name would deter me from behavior I'd later regret or even be ashamed of.

    Thus, when I write something that I'm proud of, that stands up years later to my satisfaction, I don't have to re-read it under the name of some sock-puppet alias. (I have, however, kept the goofy nickname, which dates back to my college days, in part because it keeps me from taking myself too seriously in what I post.)

    And while I've never blogged or posted on the internet for the purpose of drumming up business for my day job, I've had several clients who've first encountered me through my blog or internet posts and then ultimately came to hire me. If I'd blogged anonymously, I'd not only have missed out on those clients, but I'd have missed the occasions that I've gotten positive feedback from people I respect, including a few judges.

    I would oppose legislation requiring the use and publication of true, verified names by all social media platforms, and I doubt it could be written constitutionally. But I support the concept as a matter of good long-term business practice if voluntarily undertaken.

    Most of all, I look forward to the day in the near future when Musk, who's hemorrhaging cash from Twitter and making all his other business co-venturers (including Tesla's board and major shareholders) very uncomfortable, either sells it or liquidates it. It's always been a socially irresponsible platform; its defining feature is to artificially truncate thoughtful expression after an arbitrary number of keystrokes, and although that's been tweaked, it's still a medium for mobs and outrage — moreso since Musk bought it. I'm glad that it's paying — that Musk is paying — a spectacular price in the marketplace for that, not due to redemptive legislation and government fiat, but because most decent people, in the long run, dislike bathing in sewers.

    Twitter delenda est. You'll be a better person and better writer when it's no longer available to you, Mr. Catoggio.

    Collapse
Load More