Editor’s note: In this opinion piece, Kimutai Kirui argues why there is an urgent need to have moderation on the use of anonymity on social media platforms. According to Kirui, the use of pseudonyms is often aimed at accelerating coordinated hostility, misinformation, and character assassination. On the other hand, Kirui explains why the use of hidden identities can be effective in some situations, for instance, in a tense political environment.
In the noise of social media, perception is often manufactured faster than truth can catch up—and what appears as mass consensus may, in reality, be only a few voices amplified, repeated, and disguised.
We are entering an era where even identity itself is negotiable! Soon, some of the most notorious pseudo-accounts in Uasin Gishu County will be exposed for what they truly are — bitter digital propaganda machines built on malice, cowardice, and character assassination tailored towards intimidation, blackmail, and extortion.
For years, they have hidden behind fake names, recycled outrage, and coordinated lies, mistaking noise for influence and propaganda for truth.
What they still fail to understand is simple: propaganda may shape narratives and create temporary confusion, but it cannot permanently obscure the truth.
Why does truth stand on its own?
Falsehoods often rely on repetition, intimidation, and the appearance of consensus created by anonymous, pseudonymous, or faceless accounts. Truth requires none of these mechanisms. It stands on its own, based on evidence, facts, and its ability to withstand scrutiny. A lie may draw temporary strength from coordinated amplification, numerical pressure, or coercive narratives.
Truth, by contrast, does not depend on numbers; it endures because it is anchored in reality rather than fabrication! What is false must be continually repeated, defended, and sustained mostly by numbers. What is true remains stable under examination and ultimately prevails through clarity, evidence, and verification, even if it’s a lone voice.
Effective advocacy is not built on rumours, conjecture, innuendo, or fabrication. It is sustained by consistency, credible documentation, verifiable facts, accountability, and fidelity to the law. While misinformation may generate momentary attention, enduring credibility is earned through accuracy, transparency, and proof. In the final analysis, evidence outlives rhetoric, facts outlast speculation, and truth remains resilient; it can withstand examination. What is fabricated must constantly be defended; what is true requires only to be revealed.
For too long, pseudo accounts have been weaponised to distort perception, manufacture outrage, and poison public discourse. We strongly condemn the use of anonymity for coordinated hostility, misinformation, and character assassination.
- Public discourse must be rooted in accountability, facts, and respect — not digital manipulation.
- Integrity must prevail over toxicity.
- Once, a face carried accountability.
- A name carries consequences.
- Reputation took years to build and seconds to destroy.
Now identity can be manufactured, duplicated, concealed, and weaponised at scale. Behind millions of screens exist millions of alternative selves — anonymous profiles, burner accounts, coordinated avatars, and algorithmic voices shaping public opinion in ways society barely understands. Pseudo accounts are not inherently evil. But neither are they innocent. “They Are Both Shield And Weapon!”
The need for hidden identities
Not every hidden identity is malicious. Sometimes anonymity is survival. Journalists, whistleblowers, activists, dissidents, and ordinary citizens often rely on pseudonyms to speak without retaliation. But the issues raised must be grounded because, if exposed, legal action is inevitable, and at worst, God forbid, physical attacks! Anything exposed — even through pseudo accounts — must be verifiable, evidence-based, and firmly grounded in fact.
In politically tense societies, a concealed identity can protect employment, reputation, liberty — even life itself. History has repeatedly shown that truth often survives behind masks. Without anonymity, corruption remains hidden, abuse goes unchallenged, and vulnerable voices disappear beneath systems designed to silence them.
But politics is only part of the story. Modern social media has evolved into a theatre of performance — curated lifestyles, manufactured confidence, strategic outrage, and validation economies driven by likes and algorithms.
People are exhausted
Many create secondary identities simply to escape the pressure of constant visibility. To speak honestly. To be vulnerable. To exist without performance. For younger generations especially, pseudonymous spaces often provide something increasingly rare online:
Honesty – Other people use hidden identities to separate professional life from personal belief. For instance, a lawyer may want to discuss a political matter without risking their client’s safety or reputation. A teacher may want creative freedom without institutional scrutiny. An employee may want privacy from employers, governments, or surveillance systems. In that sense, pseudonyms have become instruments of autonomy in a hyper-visible world.
When anonymity becomes a weapon
But every shield can also become a weapon. The same invisibility that protects vulnerable voices can also remove restraint. Hidden behind fabricated identities, people often say and do things they would never attempt publicly.
- Accountability weakens.
- Empathy erodes.
- Aggression escalates.
This is where anonymity mutates into digital violence. Cyberbullying, coordinated harassment, misinformation campaigns, and character assassination thrive most effectively where identities are obscured. Pseudo accounts allow mobs to appear instantly, attack relentlessly, and disappear without consequence.
This time, consequences must follow specific posts — not as a warning, but as a necessary line in the sand to deter future abuse. And increasingly, this behaviour is not random. It is organised.
Political actors, influence networks, propagandists, commercial interests, and ideological groups now deploy coordinated digital armies to manufacture perception.
One account introduces a narrative. Another validates it. Several amplify it emotionally. Soon it appears organic. But often, it is choreography disguised as public opinion. Visibility is no longer proof of legitimacy. Virality is no longer proof of truth. The internet has industrialised perception management.
Manufactured outrage and synthetic consensus
This manipulation no longer exists only online. Across rallies, demonstrations, and public participation forums, crowds are increasingly curated, mobilised, and sometimes incentivised — then presented as spontaneous civic will. The same logic dominates digital spaces: noise replaces dialogue, insults replace argument, and volume replaces evidence.
What appears organic is often engineered amplification designed to simulate consensus and silence dissent. We now live in an era where outrage itself can be manufactured.
The inability to distinguish genuine public sentiment from organised theatre is becoming one of the defining challenges of modern democracy.
The rise of synthetic trust
The greatest danger is no longer deception itself but collapsing trust. People increasingly question whether anything online is real — whether outrage, support, or identity is human, automated, or manufactured.
Artificial intelligence has intensified this uncertainty, enabling identities built with synthetic faces, cloned voices, and convincing personas.
As authenticity becomes harder to verify, public discourse weakens. Democracy, community, and relationships all depend on trust — yet digital systems increasingly reward engagement over truth and performance over integrity. Social media can be an illusion factory. What looks like a crowd is often just a handful of voices echoing themselves through multiple pseudonymous accounts, manufacturing noise where there is no real chorus.
The result is a staged “majority” effect—loud, repetitive, and artificially inflated—designed to intimidate dissent and simulate influence. But volume is not validity, and repetition is not truth. When the scaffolding is stripped away, what often remains is not a movement but a small cluster of actors mistaken for a tide. And tides built on fabrication don’t last; they recede the moment scrutiny turns on the source rather than the spectacle.
But these busybodies don’t last the heat
Support that is built on falsehoods or coercion is rarely stable; it tends to erode over time as scrutiny increases and inconsistencies become apparent. What may appear as a large following can quickly diminish once credibility is questioned and individuals reassess their positions. In contrast, positions grounded in truth and evidence do not rely on enforced loyalty or coordinated pressure. They remain steady because they can withstand examination, and they do not depend on constant reinforcement to survive.
The author is Kimutai Kirui, a Kenyan political analyst and human rights activist known for his work in Uasin Gishu County, where he has championed justice in cases ranging from police brutality to land disputes affecting widows.
Views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the editorial position of news9.africa.
Discussion about this post