I stumbled upon this word on the first chapters of the book Permanent Record by Edward Snowden. “Nym” is simply a screen name which a person uses to post on websites, blogs, and even public chats. Yes, people were using such or even multiple ones more than decades ago, and it might be even earlier than the generation of Internet Relay Chats (IRC). It was a great experience for one doesn’t have to be who the person really is. The anonymizing characteristics created a form of privacy, security and equilibrium to all relationships. Of course, this is with the assumption that everyone is using an unlinkable nym.

When arguments have to be thrown, people won’t know anything beyond about what you argued or how you even argued about it. If such nym becomes the target of being bashed, it can easily be dropped and just take on another nym that can even join others towards contribution on the bashing of the discontinued nym. Being dissociative also encourages one to even alter themselves as a form of being open-minded. However, such characteristic has declined the moment when governments and businesses want to connect screen names to offline real identities, mostly either for profit or for surveillance. In addition, people are not aware that their personal data leaks, usually through their own hands by posting too much on social media their behavioral data.

There used to be a statement I heard before in blogging summits (or possibly even earlier than these) - “If you can’t be searched on the Internet, then you don’t exist”. This paved the way for people to create websites or blogs, becoming into potential influencers and making sure that their profile is all over the Internet through likes and shares. Of course, the direct opposite is much better now. Reducing your online footprint means lowering the chances of identity theft, phishing, and other cybersecurity threats.

Anyway, going back to my topic about nyms, I got an anonymous tip recently via secure email that this particular person got kicked or banned from attending an on-going webinar because of using a screen name. This person stated that s/he was not doing anything wrong in the webinar and even emphasized that s/he was having a great time exchanging ideas with the webinar speaker before the webinar started, thus, contributing to the usual knowledge sharing. Unfortunately, after some time, the host of the webinar sent a private message to the person asking that s/he be identified. The person declined because of privacy reasons plus the fact that the webinar is open to the public and that s/he was not doing anything wrong. Within just seconds before s/he even had the time to send the reply to the host, the latter banned the person from participating in the webinar for no reason at all except possibly for the fact that s/he is using a screen name in spite of the fact that the person also registered beforehand using a valid email address. Such move is a denial of the freedom of access to knowledge and information.

Now, if you think about it, this poses a similarity to what can possibly happen when it comes to how privacy is being treated in a different scenario. However, I’ll definitely leave it up to your imagination on how it can be similar especially in these times when free speech and democracies are at stake.