Slashdot Log In
Esther Dyson Grudgingly Defends Internet Anonymity
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Dec 11, 2008 05:22 PM
from the shall-I-compare-thee-to-a-summer's-day? dept.
from the shall-I-compare-thee-to-a-summer's-day? dept.
An anonymous reader writes "In an interview, Esther Dyson, chairman of EDventure Holdings, describes anonymity on the Internet as similar to abortion: a bad practice that people should still have rights to. Calling anonymity one of the greatest disappointments of the Internet's evolution, Dyson said: 'I'm pro choice, but I think abortion is an unfortunate thing. I think the same thing about anonymity: Everybody should have the right to it, but it's not something one wants to encourage.'"
Related Stories
Submission: Esther Dyson Shuns Internet Anonymity by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Why Not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
Here's a test for you:
On Slashdot Post:
"IMO Linux is a joke and will never amount to anything that could even remotely compete with MS software"
At any tech user group meeting stand up and say:
"IMO Linux is a joke and will never amount to anything that could even remotely compete with MS software"
And then come back and say that "anonymity doesn't affect anyone"
-Rick
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
There. Anonymity doesn't affect anyone.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
Now you know the difference.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, I just tried this, and DAMN I see the light now. I now fully appreciate anonymity and its ability to keep my person and my clothes free from frothing spittle, multiple-chin sweat, and greasy cheetos stains.
Though standing a little closer to the door would have had largely the same effect as anonymity. They didn't exactly surge after me like a pride of lions.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
They didn't exactly surge after me like a pride of lions.
You might think that. Just wait until you discover the sort of sites that the police now trace to your IP address.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Interesting)
So may people incorrectly think that the powerful deserve to be defended from the powerless, completely losing sight of the fact that it is unnecessary since the powerless are incapable of attacking the powerful. These well meaning people are merely reinforcing the inequity. With anonymity the person in your example at least has the option of making their comment. Without anonymity the powerless person loses the power to make the comment, even it it is true, because it they do they will have to defend themselves against the powerful.
Hint: The vast majority of attacks on anonymity that you hear come from powerful people. This is because the powerless generally do not have a voice. Powerful people have a vested interest in maintaining their power.
The problem is not anonymity. The problem is that people need to learn to think critically and evaluate everything that is said to them. That way they can spot BS, whether it comes from an anonymous source or not.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
You are kidding arent you ?Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any drivers, and without any services ?
That sounds preposterous to me.
If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling computers without a windows. This clearly is not happening, so there must be some error in your calculations. I hope you realise that windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the computer from start to finish, and that is a very difficult thing to acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.
Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap into existence overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of money developing OS/2 but could never keep up with Windows. Apple tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.
Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended to the point where it runs the entire computer fron start to finish, without using some of the more critical parts of windows. Not possible.
I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Informative)
I think you have just created the perfect troll.
No, he didn't. [jerryleecooper.com]
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not encourage anonymity?
Because it also encourages the lack of accountability that goes along with it.
Or, put more crudely. [penny-arcade.com]
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
And anyway, non-anonymity is vapid and trite. Plastering your name over everything you do, waving your tiny banner as hard as you can trying to get people's attention and adoration.. it's pretty pathetic. Just toss in your little contribution and disappear into the crowd with the rest of us.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what you describe in your first paragraph is exactly why many of us who cordially dislike Internet anonymity (I'm Aaron Babb, by the way, hello) understand that sometimes it can be a good thing.
When I'm willing to use my real name it's not that I'm looking for people to see my e-mail address and say "Wow, that's Aaron Babb! Isn't he awesome?" (I'm not). Rather, it's my way of saying that this is my real name and I don't mind if you know it because I'm not going to be an asshole who is unwilling to back up what he says and/or admit when I'm wrong.
Not everybody uses their Internet anonymity to be a jerk, but enough do that I wonder if things would be different if they were using their real names. Still, I have no interest in forcing people to use their real names, mainly because it's not really any of my business if someone doesn't want to do so. I'm free to ignore anonymous jerks, just as I'm free to ignore jerks who use their real names.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Funny)
[citation needed]
Sorry, couldn't help it.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everybody uses their Internet anonymity to be a jerk, but enough do that I wonder if things would be different if they were using their real names.
Ever walk the streets of New York (or any large city for that manner). Whole throngs of people walk around being jerks at each other. And they're doing it right there in person! Right in front of you. Within arm's reach.
Yeah, sure. Some people are jerks when they're anonymous. But its hardly the root cause of the problem.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Informative)
It also encourages people to be able to speak freely without fear of persecution. Without anonymity it would be impossible for whistleblowers to out evil empire corps without losing their jobs and probably never being hired again.
I agree completely. Anonymity is a cornerstone of free society.
Without anonymity we wouldn't have vitriolic bloggers; we wouldn't have this fantastic forum of discourse where we can speak our minds and not worry about being smacked with a lawsuit (well, not including the video professor).
Of course, that doesn't mean we should encourage people writing inflammatory bullshit just for the sake of it, because they're trolls and know they can hide their bias behind the veil of anonymity.
Or, in other words, anonymity definitely has its uses, but that doesn't imply it should be encouraged.
And anyway, non-anonymity is vapid and trite.
No, it's honest and expected.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not just create tools that take the annoyance out of trolls, anonymous or otherwise?
I've been "browsing at -1" since Slashdot invented moderation, and the system of denying attention to trolls *works*. The amout of trolling, and especially crapflooding, on Slashdot has fallen *dramatically* over the last 5 years or so. When's the last time anyone saw a GNAA post? We get less than one racist or gay porn copypasta post per story these days, and clever goatse.cx links almost non-existant.
There was no change in the difficulty of being anonymous here. There was little change in the maturity of Slashdot readers (arguably the average was less mature while the trolling was falling fastest, in the last year before Digg), yet trolling and crapflooding has almost vanished, compared to the bad years.
I don't think we need to discourage anonymity. We need to vigorously discourage trolling, and ignoring the trolls is the best way. Technology can help with that.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Informative)
It's like the original Forum of Greek polises (polisi? poli?)
Poleis, actually. That's the first time I've ever gotten to use that particular bit of useless knowledge. Thanks!
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not encourage anonymity?
Because it also encourages the lack of accountability that goes along with it.
it's only been six weeks since the u.s. election -- and already people are forgetting the importance of anonymity.
in the united states, indeed in every western democracy, ballots are secret. no one questions this anonymity -- indeed, it's mandated by law.
the reason we have secret ballots is simple: the framers of the constitution (any western constitution) realized that people could only truly vote their conscience, express their political preference, if they could do so without fear of reprisal or ridicule. anonymity is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society.
it's kind of a shame that ms. dyson doesn't realize that.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not encourage anonymity? It doesn't affect anyone so why not encourage it?
Anonymity is important because it gives people the power to say un-popular things that need to be said without getting mob-lynched for it.
However, people abuse anonymity too. People act *much* differently when being anonymous, and it's usually not for the better.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the same could be said of abortion.
No, the nonliving mass of cells in the woman's uterus doesn't count.
I think the problem some people have with abortion is that it IS a living mass of cells
I think what you meant to say is the non-self aware mass of cells in the woman's uterus does not count.
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how this discussion has an explosively controversial issue built right into the discussion, but such that it really has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand. It's like it was written to guarantee the topic of anonymity would get almost no attention at all.
I find it both entertaining & amusing. :-)
Parent
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Insightful)
that's why it's hypocritical to oppose abortion to protect a nondescript clump of cells without any observable sign of sentience, much less sapience, while one continues to support the slaughter of clearly sentient animals such as chickens, cows, pigs, lambs, etc.
it makes even less sense to support capital punishment while claiming to be pro-life and calling the use of emergency contraceptives "murder." an embryo doesn't have any more sentience than a plant. nerve endings/pathways don't even fully form until the 28th week of gestation, precluding the possibility of experiencing pain (or any other sensation) before the 27th week of gestation. so how can one justify terminating the life of a human being (especially knowing the justice system is far from infallible) when it is presumably wrong to terminate the life of an embryo which has no capacity for pain or conscious thought?
and the only connection between anonymity and abortion is that Esther Dyson is wrong about both of them. though anonymity can sometimes facilitate rude behavior, it's not the cause of it, and it certainly doesn't a make everyone behave rudely (just as a lack of anonymity doesn't prevent rude behavior). besides, anonymity is just an extension of personal privacy; and like privacy, there are different levels of anonymity. signing an e-mail or forum post with your full name doesn't really eliminate anonymity completely. and signing a message with an e-mail address or pseudonym still isn't completely anonymous. so should everyone's address, photo, and phone number be attached to every message in order to qualify as no-longer anonymous?
most people have a natural tendency to be cordial and sociable regardless of whether they have "anonymity" or not. it's just an evolutionary adaptation. we're social creatures, and being able to co-exist and cooperate with others is an integral part of our survival. only those with sociopathic tendencies would intentionally be rude to others just because they have some semblance of anonymity. so there's no reason for anonymity to be discouraged.
likewise, abortion shouldn't be something to be held against a someone for having. the cultural stigma that still surrounds abortion is a vestige of the religious fundamentalism that dominated our culture in the past. there's no good reason to look down on someone for making the responsible decision to not have a child when they're not ready. it's really no one else's business, and making women/teenage girls feel ashamed of making a personal choice about their body is really just continuing the persecution that women/girls were subjected to in decades past.
Parent
Is she related to... (Score:5, Interesting)
Is she related to Freeman Dyson, (inventor of the Dyson Sphere)
Re:Is she related to... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Freeman Dyson is her father. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_dyson [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Is she related to... (Score:5, Funny)
Is she related to Freeman Dyson, (inventor of the Dyson Sphere)
No. If you FTFA, you will note that she is actually the offspring of a woman and a demonic Dyson vacuum cleaner.
Parent
Re:Is she related to... (Score:5, Funny)
No. If you FTFA
Fuck the fucking article? Sounds like fun, but how does it help?
Parent
Is there anyone who doesn't? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pro choice, but I think abortion is an unfortunate thing.
No, really? Is there anyone who is pro choice who doesn't feel the same way? I mean, I've never heard anyone who was honestly "pro-abortion," just "pro-having the option when life hits the fan."
Re:Is there anyone who doesn't? (Score:5, Insightful)
My GF has had an abortion. No big deal. Her words.
Parent
Wha..... (Score:5, Funny)
So you're saying by posting anonymous cowardly then I'm advocating abortion?
I almost feel as sorry as when I heard that god kills kittens when I masturbate... those poor kitties.... millions of poor dead kitties... :(
Re:Wha..... (Score:5, Funny)
If that's what you think about when you masturbate, you have issues~
Parent
I agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Parent
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymity is crucial in ensuring that those who need to speak out have the means to do so without fear of retribution.
Not to nitpick, but anonymity is the treatment for the symptoms of the abridgement of free speech, not the symptom itself. Just as with treating disease, we need to treat both the symptom (retribution for speaking out, etc) and the primary disease (abridgement of fundamental rights).
To comment on the specific POV in question, I feel that Esther Dyson views (perhaps subconsciously) anonymous speech as making it easier for people to infringe the rights of others. My disagreement lies with with the assumption that words themselves (from a non-authority figure) can impinge on ones' rights.
Parent
Re:I agree (Score:5, Informative)
Two words: Dixie Chicks.
Parent
Anonymity? (Score:5, Funny)
Google and Apple suck.
I am a man who likes men.
George Bush was a great president.
His son was better.
Digg is the best place for all news.
I'm quite the opposite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Abortion, if you're not killing a person (tricky thing to define, I admit, but your arm is alive and removing ('aborting') it is no moral problem and I feel the same way about an unthinking fetus.
I don't understand the arguments that seem to justify murder for the woman's convenience, however, anymore than killing baby after birth for the woman's convenience is acceptable. Even in a future where a fetus can be transplanted into another mother I suspect the "pro-choice" crowd will insist that the mother can still choose to abort it.
Likewise, with anonymity, I think it's one of the best parts about the internet. It's hardly unfortunate that it makes it difficult for governments to track down dissenters, etc. Sure, people use it for bad things as well, but that's true of ANY freedom. Might as well suggest that "free speech is unfortunate thing that people should still have the right to." People will 'abuse' free speech in other different ways but it's still inherently a good thing.
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:5, Informative)
Men already have this right (as do women). An old roommate of mine got his girlfriend pregnant. When they split up he signed away his rights. He will never owe child support and she can never come after it in exchange for him having no rights or claims on the child. Lone mothers who give their children up for adoption also sign away their rights, such as the case of my younger (adopted) brother.
You're citing rare cases. What typically happens is the girl gets pregnant, discovers her maternal instincts and decides to keep the baby. The man, at that point, is at the whim of everything she subsequently chooses to do, while she is free to pursue her preferences with the full force of tradition, public sympathy, friends, family and neighbours, the efforts of the local district attorney and a court system eager and able to help behind her. Any rights the man has (a tentative and often dubious set of concepts) are there for him to pursue on his own, with the expenses bourne by him exclusively.
That's a long way of saying that most men who find themselves in this situation pregnant will spend the next 18 years involuntarily signing off on what typically amounts to 1/4 to 1/3 of their gross income to the woman. If the guy's lucky, he may get visitation.
Parent
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:5, Interesting)
Abortion, if you're not killing a person (tricky thing to define, I admit, but your arm is alive and removing ('aborting') it is no moral problem and I feel the same way about an unthinking fetus.
You yourself admit its tricky to define.
Most pro-lifers think an unthinking fetus IS a person, so for them it IS a moral problem.
And they aren't "wrong" for thinking that. Its a perfectly rational position. After all, your suggestion that simple self-awareness is required before you can be considered a person raises questions about certain classes of mental handicap, people in comas, brain damage, etc... these are a people that are not self aware. And a fetus actually has a very good chance of achieving self-awareness. Like you said, 'person' is tricky to define. So if someone believes the definition includes an unborn fetus, I can see the argument is reasonable, whether I agree with it or not.
Further, your arm analogy has multiple flaws. An arm is not, was not, and will never be an independent person. A developing fetus has its own unique DNA, and is steadily sliding along a continuum towards being an independent person. I don't see a logical error being committed by arguing that a living organism with its own DNA that is actually developing into a fully 'normal person' should be protected more than a limb.
And it certainly seems reasonable that it shouldn't be protected LESS than your limbs?
And that's where it gets interesting... you can't just go in and get your arm lopped off because you feel like it. And its indisputably 'just' a part of you. Yet it would be pretty challenging to find a doctor willing to amputate your arm without a medical necessity. A fetus is arguably a person, and at the very least developing into a person. In fact, where I live at least, it would probably be HARDER to get a healthy arm amputated than to arrange for the abortion of a healthy fetus.
Hell, I'm pro-choice and that even seems out of whack to me.
Parent
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are twisting the facts a bit. There are two ages which most pro choice people would argue:
1) The time of brain activity. Before a certain time, there is no brain activity (for some time, no brain at all). Thus the fetus really is nothing more than a collection of cells. If the brain isn't active, there's no self at that point.
2) The time of reasonable fetal viability outside the mother. Before a certain point, a fetus cannot survive if removed from the mother or should the mother die. Even if care is immediately available, there is still no saving it. Thus in a very real way it is a part of the mother, not an individual entity.
Now if you don't like those that's perfectly fine, but please stop trying to distort the argument. The biggest problem I have with the abortion argument is people get so passionate about it that they let all logic go out the window and try to completely misrepresent the other side of the argument. People aren't interested in weighing the issues, thus they try to make the other side's issues appear to me irrelevant or monstrous and so on.
It is not a simple issue, and both sides have valid points. Don't try to distort that.
Parent
until human beings can be trusted not to reprise (Score:5, Insightful)
anonymous posting is NEEDED.
there are many who want to silence those that post opposing views.
until we 'fix' that (it will never happen) - the ability to post without tracable info directly to yourself is a MUST HAVE.
she's dead wrong. this is a fundamental RIGHT, or should be considered as such.
the argument about spam is different and you don't solve one by 'ruining freedom'.
Her views on broadband is wrong! (Score:4, Interesting)
Broadband is not a technology issue, it's really a financial issue. How should it be funded? Should it be subsidized? I tend to think not. Broadband is a miraculous technology, and it ought to be able to pay its own way. We need competition; we also need attractive enough propositions [in which] companies will invest.
Broadband CAN pay for itself... and companies do spend money on infrastructure. The problem is that they won't put broadband everywhere. They only put it in places where they believe there will be a high rate of return on investment. "Cherry picking" leaving every place else without anything more than dialup which is barely acceptable for email. If the nation is to move forward and have broadband everywhere, companies will NEVER do it of their own volition. They have to be required to do so by government mandate. This is what utilities commissions are for. They just don't often include requirements for broadband... yet. And they should.
I kind of makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, if birth control is widely available, pre natal care is available to all comers, and food, shelter, and education is given to all children, without question or exception, then one can imagine a world in which every child would be wanted. Likewise, if maximum information and open debate were seen as a asset, and everyone was encouraged to have their say, all everyone was honestly listened to, and no one would retaliate based on personal superstitions, then one could imagine a world in which everyone could be open and honest with their opinions.
In the real world, though, significant militant groups enjoy killing people who disagree with their superstitions. For example, groups have felt the right to kill people [armyofgod.com] who believe differently from them, following a tradition that killed the man that believed that the heart pumped the blood [faqs.org]. Clearly when the righteous feel the right to kill based on beliefs, anonymity is necessary.
But I will be a rebel and say that even in a perfect world where all superstition was gone, both anonymity and abortion would still have a place. No matter how careful and care full we are, there will still be that one case where a family might have to choose between the mother and unborn child.
This is about Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
PJ has confessed she had to move six or seven times since starting to do Groklaw because she receives death threats she must take seriously. Anonymity is a defense against those jackasses that will bully you or worse in retaliation for spreading ideas they don't like and telling facts they don't want to be known. Insinuating that anonymity could be something dirty is nauseating. The right to anonymity is nothing less than a requirement to Freedom of Speech.
And yes the bullies and the issuers of threats are doing their misdeeds anonymously. It does not mean anonymity is wrong. Bullying and death threats are what is wrong.
Or to continue the analogy, kitchen knives are used to murder spouses. Should we consider kitchen knives bad?
Never apologize for freedoms... (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom is never the problem. It is the solution.
Oppression is the problem. When someone uses their free speech rights to trample the rights of others (i.e. libel, etc...), the problem is not that they have free speech. The problem is always a matter of the actual harm caused by said speech.
Likewise, when people use their anonymity on the internet to hide their crimes against others, the problem is not a matter of anonymity, but rather, the crime committed in the first place. The value of a society where speech is effectively anonymous far outweighs the loss caused by the occasional criminal who uses it to hide from law enforcement.
Before the internet, and even today, one can send hate mail through the postal service *anonymously*. We didn't shut down the Post Office when the Unabomber used it to send bombs to people, instead, the FBI went looking for the perpetrator.
I can't help but wonder if Ted Kazinksi (sp?) would have become an internet troll rather than the Unabomber, had he been born 20 years later.
From time to time, there are people who suggest that we could catch criminals if we eliminated anonymity. They are lying or just plain naive. The fact is, if you remove anonymity from one medium, criminals will use another. Think about that for a moment. Now, in the era of the internet troll, frustrated individuals take out their passions online, rather than sending bombs through the mail. Which would you rather have?
Argh! Obfusciation. (Score:5, Insightful)
If this were a wiki post, I'd use the term "weasel words" to describe the analogy--The author is confusing several issues. Women's rights have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the issue of anonymity online.
The material issue here is whether the benefits to society in allowing anonymous posts outweigh the harm in doing so. And in the United States, we already have the answer -- we have a long history (albeit, recently screwed up!) of supporting free speech and expression as a general rule. And nowhere does it say that you must reveal your identity to protest -- for example KKK protests. In fact, anonymity is an indespensible tool in a society where it is a moral offense to be different from your neighbors. In every case I've seen where a person clamoured for a secret identity to be revealed one of the following has been true:
1. Money or economic interest; ie, quash a leaked trade secret, protect a brand name, or a copyright.
2. Personal attack; ie, Myspace, Facebook, "cyberbullying"; Where someone didn't like being told they were a douche, etc.
3. Batman
4. Political dissent
5. Unpopular viewpoint (NAMBLA, for example)
6. Illegal; ie, terrorism, white collar crime, etc.
In my opinion, #4's benefits outweigh the risks and harm caused by all others, and also applies to all others. Things are made illegal (such as file sharing) that are not necessarily in the public interest all the time. Money or economic interests -- money doesn't vanish because someone made a comment, it just goes somewhere else. They're reciprocally free to post their opinions. Personal attacks are a fact of life... Deal with it people. Same with unpopular viewpoints -- they're an anecdote to mass hysteria and mob thinking.
Anonymity is a necessary first step in political protest, because protest is never necessary when the majority approves... Remove anonymity and what you've got left are circumstances ripe for tyranny either by the few or the many, but tyranny all the same.
It's not a perfect world (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Esther, both anonymity and abortion are unfortunate things.
In a perfect world where people never made mistakes in judgement, where contraception never failed, where women were never raped, where sudden medical complications didn't arise out of nowhere, where events beyond your control never turned your life upside-down without warning, we'd never had a need for abortion.
And in a perfect world where people with power never abused that power to take revenge against those who made their misdeeds public, where bullies and petty tyrants never attempted to "punish" those who didn't bow to them, where fraudsters never attempted to masquerade as others, where criminals never attempted to use information for illicit gain, and where small-minded people never made life miserable for those who weren't exactly like them, we'd never have a need for anonymity either.
Pity this isn't a perfect world we live in.
don't give up rights (Score:5, Insightful)
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H.L. Mencken
Re:Anonymity Overrated (Score:5, Funny)
Parent