Internet boosters like to predict that the Internet will become a major force in politics. There is much to support this theory. Candidates are using the Web to supply information. After all didn't even Bob Dole announce his campaigns Web page during national debates? All major and most minor Presidential candidates had Web pages. Many candidates for lesser offices also maintain pages. Information and communications are key to any political activism and the Internet provides governments, news organizations and activists with unprecedented information availability. Another great opportunity for the Internet to make a major contribution to political activity is that it allows "regular" people to interact and to provide their own opinions and insights to public policy debates.

One possible impediment to a real contribution may be Internet paranoia and a propensity for anonymity. Information and opinions must be accompanied by source identification to be properly evaluated. Information must be verifiable. Anonymous postings lack full verifiability which diminishes credibility. Opinions depend on the credibility and accepted authority of the source even more than raw information. Many contributors to Internet discussions, in chat rooms, Usenet news and Internet forums, try to maintain as much anonymity as possible.

Before the recent US Presidential election a number of discussion forums were set up by various organizations to allow people to discuss the campaign and its related issues. On a number of these participants were not required to provide much, if any, identifying information. A change in this forum was proposed that would require that all postings included contact information. This would include an author's actual name and Email address. This change brought on a dramatic series of strong objections. Many participants clearly did not want to see themselves identified with their statements.

These objections were not intended as a denial of opinions. They were completely a reaction to various fears, real or imagined, of retribution. A number of people said that they were afraid of what might happen to them if people they worked with or lived near found out what they believed.

Some maintain that true freedom to express an opinion is enhanced by permitting anonymous speech. This is a tempting argument. After all should one not be able to speak out with a controversial opinion protected from retribution by anonymity? On the other hand one must ask the reason for this expression of opinion. Is it mealy to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt? Are the statements backed by fact, provable or verifiable? Are the statements made to effect actual change or just to be disruptive? How do I know I can trust the person making the statement?

Actual change can only be effected by people willing to back their statements with facts, logical arguments, and their own personal integrity. Anonymity decreases the value of a statement as it suggests that one, two or all three elements are lacking.

Some will argue that great political progress has been made in the past by anonymous writers. The authors of the Federalist Papers wrote under an anonymous pseudonym. Though of course one must realize that names of the actual authors, as a group, was a fairly open secret. And they had all contributed much with their names firmly attached before this time. This was not the writing of men afraid to have their opinions known. Other writers though history have used anonymous writing to stir things up of course. But actual, lasting change has come about only after men and women of courage and conviction have attached their names and reputations to those ideas. People follow leaders not anonymous writers.

John Hancock signed the American Declaration of Independence using a large bold signature. He did so as a political statement. His signature remains the definitive symbol of placing ones full and public support behind a political statement. The Internet equivalent is a sig file with a full name and a pointer to a truly descriptive home page. Those who would rise above noise level and be taken seriously in public debate on the Internet will have to learn to do as Hancock did. Only when participants are willing to place their name and reputation on the line will Internet discussions have a lasting impact on the political process.