Debate is raging on the Canberra Notice Board Group about a new username policy. Photo: Screenshot.
A Canberra Facebook group has threatened to reveal the profiles of members who hide behind nicknames to post abusive, inflammatory or potentially defamatory comments – triggering a fierce debate about where online accountability ends and privacy begins.
Canberra Notice Board Group announced the change after administrators said they had seen an increasing number of people using Facebook’s nickname feature to make comments they might not make under their real names.
From Wednesday, 2 September, members who use nicknames to make inappropriate posts or comments could have a screenshot of their personal Facebook profile shared alongside the offending content.
Those who breach the group’s rules while using a nickname could also be removed and permanently blocked.
“This is not a decision we have made lightly,” administrators said.
“Unfortunately, we have seen an increasing number of members using Facebook’s nickname feature to make comments or posts they may not otherwise make under their own name.
“Using a nickname does not remove your responsibility for what you post.
“Canberra Notice Board is a community of real people and local businesses. We expect members to communicate with the same level of respect and accountability online that they would show when using their own name.”
The announcement quickly generated a debate of its own. Within hours, the post was flooded with responses and administrators eventually turned off comments.
Many welcomed the tougher approach, arguing anonymity had encouraged behaviour people would be unlikely to display under their own names.
“Thank you very much for this decision. I’m appalled by the behaviour of some anonymous individuals in the group,” one member wrote.
Another said: “Unfortunately, grown adults aren’t acting like decent people behind their veil of anonymity.”
One commenter went further, describing Facebook’s nickname feature as “the worst thing to happen to social media in recent memory”.
“It did nothing but bring cowards out of the woodwork,” they wrote.
But others argued using a nickname did not automatically mean somebody was trying to avoid responsibility for bad behaviour.
For people working in public-facing jobs, discussing health conditions or asking sensitive questions, a pseudonym could provide a valuable separation between conversations in a community group and their everyday lives.
One member who works in a public-facing role said there were perfectly legitimate reasons to want that privacy.
They offered the deliberately mundane example of asking where to shop for bras without necessarily wanting members of the community they work with to know about it.
“I do think some of the things people say on this group hiding behind a nickname are appalling,” they wrote.
“If it’s just wanting to ask or share information and remain anonymous, I say crack on. If you’re wanting to remain anonymous because you have something hurtful to say, you should be stopped, and this seems like a pretty good way of addressing that.”
Another member said the nickname feature had allowed them to share their personal experience with sleep apnea in a previous discussion without linking sensitive health information to their public identity.
“I think this is a suitable compromise,” they wrote.
“While there was some abuse, allowing a nickname allowed me to contribute my experiences with sleep apnea in a relevant thread a few months back without necessarily having that linked to my real-world identity publicly.”
Others were more concerned about the group’s proposal to publish screenshots of members’ personal profiles.
One commenter warned that while removing or blocking people who broke the rules was reasonable, publicly connecting their nickname to their real profile could create privacy risks.
“Blocking or removing people is fair. Exposing identities is where things become risky,” they wrote.
Another group member challenged the suggestion that people who use pseudonyms are necessarily “cowards”.
“Using a pseudonym can be about privacy, risk aversion, work, family, avoiding unnecessary drama, or simply not wanting every passing opinion permanently attached to your real identity,” he wrote.
“That is not automatically cowardice.” He argued administrators should focus on what people posted rather than whether they used their real names.
“Criticise what people post. Remove abusive or inflammatory material. Restrict repeat offenders,” he wrote. “But privacy is not cowardice, and visibility is not courage.”
For administrators, the new rule is intended to restore accountability to conversations where they believe anonymity is being abused.
The group has previously found itself at the centre of legal action over comments posted by members.
In July 2022, the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal awarded damages to a Canberra business owner following a civil claim against Jason Victor Bishop, the registered owner of Canberra Notice Board.
The woman sought $15,000 in damages, alleging she had been subjected to severe trolling on social media between January 2019 and September 2020 about her personally and her businesses.
Her claim focused on posts made between 15 June and 15 July 2020 relating to her businesses and her conduct as a businesswoman.
Canberra Notice Board turned off and removed comments after the woman’s lawyers contacted Mr Bishop, but she argued the damage had already been done and some comments continued to appear in subsequent posts.
Mr Bishop argued he had not published the comments himself and that individual Facebook users had posted them. He also argued there was a distinction between operating a Facebook group and a Facebook page.
That history adds another dimension to the group’s latest warning that members using nicknames to make “potentially defamatory” comments could have their personal profiles identified.
Region has contacted the Canberra Notice Board administrators seeking further comment on the new policy, including their reasons for introducing it and concerns raised about members’ privacy, but has yet to receive a response.
