Many digital identity proponents love the meme “the internet was built without an identity layer” and claim this as a bug to defend the need for a universal digital identity system. They’ve got it wrong though. This is a feature of the Web that has allowed the Web to flourish not a bug that must be fixed. The reason we should be preserving it extends beyond privacy and is more than ever relevant to the impact the Web has on our society.

Instead, we have to look beyond about the purpose the Web serves in our greater lives. Today, many of us use the Web as a means to learn, challenge our beliefs, and ultimately shape who we are by being exposed to new and challenging ideas. However, without pseudonyms it’s hard for us to refine and grow ideas. This is because pseudonyms are a hallmark to challenging the Overton’s window.

What is an Overton window though and why does it matter? The idea of an Overton window is that there’s a limited number of acceptable policy or discussion points that are acceptable to a mainstream populous. For example, if we were to debate the concept of inequality and someone were to propose the idea of getting rid of money in today’s time it would not be a widely accepted solution in a discussion or debate. The reason for this is that it’s impractical relative to our cultural and social norms and therefore sits outside the Overton window of today.

Similarly, slavery is a well understood concept that is no longer acceptable in today’s society. We understand it no longer aligns with our values as humans and therefore sits outside the Overton window as well as a regressive policy that was once acceptable, but is definitely not now. So, in any good faith discussion or debate there’s a range of believes that are acceptable as a path forward for the majority of people and that’s what makes an Overton window interesting in the broader perspective of the Web. It serves as a tool for us to consider and evolve our beliefs in society today. This range of acceptable beliefs changes though, but how?

Essentially, in any discussion people stake their credibility to put forth ideas that they believe have merits to the stakeholders of a problem and one that aims to solve such problem. The issue is though that some ideas exist too far outside the range of acceptable policies such that the idea of even proposing them would instantly affect the credibility of the author of the idea. Therefore, in order to reduce the risk while still moving the discussion forward we need the ability to submit and refine ideas that exist outside the Overton window until they’re good enough to shift the window. So why is pseudonymity important to guiding this?

Pseudonymity serves as a way to reduce the risk while still contributing to the overall broader conversation without running the risk of hurting our credibility within the broader context. Often times, the people with the most interesting ideas are those who are most involved within the topic, but may not be willing to contribute under their true moniker. Benjamin Franklin is one such example of a person who famously used pseudonyms in this way. Silence Dogood was a pseudonym that Benjamin Franklin developed at the age of 16 in order to test his political ideas and refine his writing style. It’s likely the case that this ability to submit publications under this pseudonym and listen to the feedback of readers anonymously contributed to his ability to shape the founding of the United States beneficially. So should we remove or reduce that ability from the Web which is now the primary place for us to engage in political discussions? Furthermore, how is that happening?

With the advent of digital credentials coming to your phone soon we’re about to make it very easy for any social media platform, forum, or site to link our online identities to our real life identities. In fact, in some places like Australia they’ve recently passed a bill to require the collection of this information for the purposes of protecting children. Since these digital credentials of our true monikers will be easily accessible, as they become collected within places on the Web where political discussions occur we will see a reduction in the use of pseudonyms on the Web. Instead, people will either be forced to remain silent or they will be forced to overcome a greater barrier of entry in order to shift the Overton window under true monikers. Is that beneficial for society as a whole?

I’d argue not - clearly it’s been beneficial both for the purposes of the progress of a nation and for the progress of us as people to have pseudonymity to in political discussions previously. Therefore, it seems risky to accept the path of reducing the pseudonymity on the Web and ultimately reducing the shifting of the Overton window by chilling political speech on the Web via the allowance of digital credentials. Instead, we should be limiting digital credentials usage as much as possible in order to continue making progress in our political discussions and ultimately progressing our shared values together.