Nikki Haley made a huge unforced error Tuesday in the 2024 Republican presidential primary when she said that one of the first things she'd do as President of the United States is require that social media companies ban anonymous accounts and that they verify all of their users by name. Haley was roundly criticized over this likely unconstitutional plan, which is so tone-deaf that one could easily believe that she just spoke without thinking and would surely issue a statement walking it back a bit.

Nope. Apparently this is a plan she'd been thinking about and developing talking points about for awhile, because in addition to her initial comments on Fox News Channel, Haley said basically the same thing on the Ruthless podcast - only worse.

Nikki Haley doubles down on her vow to have social media companies ban anonymous accounts and have all users verified by name in the interest of “national security”:

“They need to verify every single person on their outlet… I want *everybody’s* name.”pic.twitter.com/S8pSLhDgzO

— Michael P Senger (@michaelpsenger) November 14, 2023

Prior to Haley's comments contained in the video above, the entire discussion was about Israel, Joe Biden's response, and the level of latent antisemitism on the left in the United States and globally. Somehow Haley turned that around, complaining that since October 7 people aren't talking about inflation or... China and social media.

But you know what no one's talking about is -- first of all, the antisemitism was there. It was always bubbling up. It was always a concern. This just brought it to a whole new level. But what no one is talking about that is, to me, a huge issue that I'll deal with as soon as I get there, is social media.

The fact that Haley basically said, "Yeah, this raging antisemitism on the left in this country is no big deal because it's always been there, and I'm kinda mad that since Hamas started raping and killing women and burning babies in ovens nobody's talking about China, so I'm turning the conversation to my Orwellian proposal" and didn't get called out on that shows how horrifically bad her proposal is. She continued:

So when you look at social media's role in the division of our country, the first thing I'm gonna do is go to those social media companies and say, "You have to show us your algorithms." I want the country to see the algorithms, so that you can see how these companies move.

The second thing is, they need to verify every single person on their...outlet, because -- and I want it by name. Because when you --

Haley was then interrupted by the podcast hosts because one of them, Comfortably Smug, has used a pen name online for years, although he was doxxed by the left. They asked, what about Smug?

If Smug is on your driver's license -- and look, you can put Smug in parentheses, but I want everybody's name, because guess what that does? It gets rid of the Iranian bots, the Russian bots, the Chinese bots, and the North Korean bots.

When you look at the misinformation that is causing Americans to do this, who is it coming from? 

Haley continued:

This is a national security threat. They are giving the narrative to the American people....

It's not clear which was filmed first, and it really doesn't matter, because Haley's rights-eroding proposal is disqualifying, in addition to being historically ignorant and a bureaucratic/logistical/personal security nightmare.

While at least two RedState writers have already discussed the Constitutional issue immediately raised, even people like Byron York said, "Hey, wait a minute...." York asked about her comments and whether they raise "troubling issues of privacy and freedom of speech," and Haley's campaign responded thusly:

I asked the Haley campaign about her statements advocating mandatory ID and verification of all social media users. Doesn't that raise troubling issues of privacy and freedom of speech? Below is Haley's initial statement and then the campaign's response: https://t.co/QcN6emgrcQ pic.twitter.com/1deVKY42ly

— Byron York (@ByronYork) November 15, 2023

In case you can't read the statement, it says: 

We all know that America's enemies use anonymous bots to sow anti-American lies and sow chaos and division within our borders. Nikki believes social media companies need to do a better job verifying users so we can crack down on Chinese, Iranian, and Russian bots. That's common sense.

No, it's not common sense.

First, "a better job verifying users" is quite different from wanting social media companies to keep a list, and very different from having them provide government with a list.

And, what's the problem, Nikki? In the two media appearances, two different reasons were given for this draconian proposal. Is it about regular Americans who get caught up in anonymous bullying online, or is it about counteracting foreign bots bent on influencing culture/elections? Or both?

If it's about individual citizens getting caught up in bullying campaigns, social media platforms already have procedures in place (whether they use them properly or at all is a discussion for another post) to punish individual users who engage in targeted harassment, doxxing, or other bullying, or accounts using the platform to coordinate harassment. And, plenty of people still engage in this behavior using accounts with their true name and photo, so government-mandated ID verification won't have the effect she allegedly desires.

If it's about counteracting foreign bots bent on influencing American culture/elections, Haley's proposed solution wouldn't affect that, and platforms already have at least some procedures for identifying/removing bots. Does she think that the people employing the bots can't find a way around ID verification? Is she proposing not allowing people in other countries to "talk" to Americans online? Good luck with that.

She's also ignoring two important factors: First, that the United States government and various politicians/political groups use bots and social media manipulation to influence public discussion. Second, to a large extent it's those social media manipulation efforts - the ones managed domestically, especially the Global Engagement Center - that are "giving the narrative to the American people." Does she really want that whole racket exposed even further? I mean, I know that I do, but Nikki Haley and I aren't exactly on the same page when it comes to our views on Big Brother Government.

The knee-jerk reaction is that the plan is likely unconstitutional. Some defending Haley's remarks compare anonymous political social media posts with BLM/Antifa/professional leftist "protesters" carrying out riots while wearing masks, and say that neither should be acceptable. However, there's a big difference between believing rioters shouldn't be wearing full mask regalia and instituting a law requiring that those demonstrating in person should be required to show their ID -- and that ID be verified -- before entering the public square. And what Haley is proposing is the digital equivalent of having ID verification before being allowed to freely speak.

Even assuming that Haley's solution would actually be effective in making social media a wonderland where free speech is protected while harassment and propaganda are stifled, and that social media companies are able to quickly and correctly implement such a massive IT project (a huge assumption), we already know that our information isn't safe anywhere. It's stunning that less than a year after the Twitter Files came out Haley would make such a proposal, knowing that federal agents and big tech employees had unfettered access to any user's personal information, including IP addresses from where they'd logged in to their account and used that access to harass people. Mandatory pre-speech doxxing would only make that worse - and boy would it present a shiny, valuable target to Chinese, Iranian, and Russian hackers. The government can't keep sensitive personnel information (even of those who work undercover in the intelligence community) out of the hands of foreign malicious actors, so it's naive to think that a private company - which can monetize that data - would do any better.

Haley claims that this power grab is needed for national security, but it forces those who want to exercise their First Amendment rights online to take a huge personal security risk. Not everyone uses their full legal name professionally, as Haley knows too well. She generously told Comfortably Smug that he could put "Smug" in parentheses in his username. Would "Nikki" be in parentheses for her? What about people (like me) who use a different last name than the one on their driver's license professionally, for security? Or a stage name? Or whistleblowers? Or abused women?

As Teri Christoph wrote Tuesday:

And many people choose to use pseudonyms to avoid being doxxed or having their employers harassed. Has Haley somehow missed that conservatives have been on the receiving end of such abuse for years? Sure, get rid of the bots, but forcing people to verify their accounts, which often isn't free, makes for terrible policy.

Let's not forget that the phenomenon of Americans using pen names or pseudonyms to publish their political speech isn't new. Any time there's an attempted paradigm shift in the public discourse, those leading the way are generally vilified by those who benefit from the current system. It's not easy and can be personally and professionally dangerous to express views that aren't politically correct, or to expose corruption or malfeasance. That's why three of our founding fathers wrote the Federalist Papers under the pen name "Publius." It's why Benjamin Franklin wrote letters to the editor under the name "Silence Dogood." During the Constitutional debates, dozens of people on both sides of the issue (Federalists and Anti-Federalists) used pen names to publish tracts aimed at persuading the public. Sure, it's easier these days for foreign governments to employ this type of information warfare, but it's ignorant to think it didn't happen before. We know that foreign saboteurs have plied their trade here for centuries, and we've done the same.

That Haley either doesn't know all of this, or that she pushes for such government overreach despite that knowledge, is, in my opinion, disqualifying in a Republican candidate for President of the United States.

UPDATE: 2:20 PM EST, November 15, 2023

Haley's campaign told Phillip Wegman that "she believes 'Americans have a right to free speech including having anonymous accounts on social media'" followed by a jab at Ron DeSantis.

NEW: @NikkiHaley campaign tells me she believes “Americans have a right to free speech including having anonymous accounts on social media”

She doesn’t support letting foreign bad actors “create anonymous accounts to spread chaos and anti-American filth among our people.”

Full: pic.twitter.com/8FOT3TjpmI

— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) November 15, 2023

Her walk-back still doesn't acknowledge that it's more than foreign bad actors spreading "chaos and anti-American filth among our people" and the problem that creates, nor does it explain why she went out of her way to parrot her proposal twice.