Esther Dyson Grudgingly Defends Internet Anonymity 516
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.'"
Re:Is she related to... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, Freeman Dyson is her father. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_dyson [wikipedia.org]
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:3, Informative)
Now...owning a penis also encourages a lot of bad behavior. I think our right to own penises far outweighs any perceived right to not have to deal with penis owning assholes.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why Not? (Score:4, Informative)
Forum of Greek polises (polisi? poli?)
poleis
Re:Why Not? (Score:1, Informative)
You're close, but for the first 100 years of the US Constitution, votes were both publicly cast and counted, because the framers thought that anonymous voters were cowards. The concept of a secret ballot actually originated in Tasmania [wikipedia.org] and was gradually phased into US elections after poll violence became a problem.
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.
Re:Is there anyone who doesn't? (Score:3, Informative)
I've had one. No regrets. Not quite in the category of "put on a condom", but not something I lose sleep over.
Re:Why Not? (Score:3, Informative)
Mods should take a look at this, as they obviously have difficulty distinguishing a troll post from an offtopic one. A troll post such as this would achieve its core goal - to use misinformation to state their point, goading people into replying to correct or admonish the original poster while the poster gets to sit back and have a good laugh at the people who didn't recognize the post for what it was. The bathroom stall posts that are here every day? Those are offtopic, maybe even a little disturbing, but they are not effective trolls.
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!
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.
Re:Why Not? (Score:5, Informative)
I think you have just created the perfect troll.
No, he didn't. [jerryleecooper.com]
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:3, Informative)
That's funny. Ya know, if you have post-natal depression and you kill your baby, you can't be convicted of a crime.
I wouldn't count on that. It strongly depends on how your jurisdiction handles the insanity defense with regards to homicide. The insanity defense is not a free and easy to use "get out of jail card" like a lot of people think it is, but due do that perception many jurisdictions don't even have an insanity defense anymore in the wake of the attempted assassination of Reagan (and instead have "guilty but mentally ill" which means that you serve your prison sentence once you're no longer insane).
And that ignores that there are several major different theories of the insanity defense which may treat post-natal depression differently. In the most common version, you must either not know that what you are doing is wrong or be unable to understand the nature and quality of your actions. Proving either for post-natal depression may be hard (and yes, as a collateral defense, the burden of persuasion is on the defense in many jurisdictions).
But I'm sure that the above was just a continuation of a tasteless joke about "traditional" values and not the result of watching too many TV dramas, right?
Wow, what a surprise. (Score:3, Informative)
The same person who thought the Clipper chip and the government escrow of encryption keys was just okie-dokie and that we should trust experts like her to say the security was good enough is uncomfortable with anonymous speech. I'm shocked.
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:4, Informative)
Right now women really have no motivation to keep from getting pregnant with anyone but the poorest of guys. It's a free lunch for them.
Anyone who would label nine months of pregnancy followed by an expensive delivery a "free ride" for the woman has clearly never lived with a pregnant woman. Pregnancy puts a woman's body through the ringer and damn near incapacitates them, and at the end you either pay a ton of money for surgical removal of the baby or suffer in agony as its rips through a too-small opening to get out.
Poor, single women who repeatedly get pregnant aren't making smart choices when they get pregnant, but for some of them if they made smarter choices they wouldn't be poor and single and pregnant in the first place. Getting pregnant certainly is not a way out of being poor and single.
Oh, and day care costs so much that it's impractical unless you have just one child and a reasonably-paying job. If you make lousy wages or have multiple children you're just hosed.
Of course you're an AC just trolling...
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:3, Informative)
A free ride? Man, that's quite the laugh, isn't it?
Maybe if they get knocked up by a millionaire or something. Most states child support laws don't come close to covering half of the real costs of raising a child. And there are several states where need is not taken into account at all (thus a very wealthy woman can still get child support payments from a poor man.)
The rules are all out of whack.
Re:Why Not? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I agree (Score:5, Informative)
Two words: Dixie Chicks.
Re:Why Not? (Score:1, Informative)
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.
You know their names? They're just as anonymous as people on the internet.
Re:I agree (Score:3, Informative)
And then they get upset if those political views cause others to decide to not do business with them and it affects their careers.
Can you name one example where said star was publicly upset that their business was impacted as a result of their political statements?
Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon and the Baseball Hall of Fame / Bull Durham tempest-in-a-teapot.
More bull. Here is what Robbins said:
Reached Wednesday night, Robbins said he was "dismayed" by the decision, He responded with a letter he planned to send to Petroskey, telling him: "You belong with the cowards and ideologues in a hall of infamy and shame."
Robbins and Sarandon, his longtime partner, have been active in peace rallies to protest the war in Iraq. In his letter, Robbins said he remained "skeptical" of the war plans and told Petroskey he did not realize baseball was "a Republican sport."
"To suggest that my criticism of the President put the troops in danger is absurd.... I wish you had, in your letter, saved me the rhetoric and talked honestly about your ties to the Bush and Reagan administrations.
"You invoke patriotism and use words like 'freedom' in an attempt to intimidate and bully. In doing so, you dishonour the words 'patriotism' and 'freedom' and dishonour the men and women who have fought wars to keep this nation a place where one can freely express their opinions without fear of reprisal or punishment."
Catholic New Times, May 4, 2003 [findarticles.com]
There is not a word in there even remotely hinting at dismay over loss of business or impact on their careers. Not a single word.
See my response to the other poster regarding the Dixie Chicks. Nothing from them complaining about losing business, not a word complaining about damage to their careers. But plenty of words stating that the people doing the boycotting are doing it because they are essentially "wrong thinkers."
Re:I agree (Score:3, Informative)
I should have posted this the first time - the Dixie Chicks actually reaped great economic returns from that so-called "boycott"
Despite the controversy -- or perhaps because of it -- the Chicks continued to prove their commercial viability, selling almost six million copies of Home and mounting the top-grossing country tour of 2003. Now, as they prepare to reenter the spotlight, some speculate that the group might be poised to shun the industry that shunned them.
Rolling Stone [rollingstone.com]
It would seem pretty strange for them to complain about a boycott hurting their careers when in fact they were the most successful act in Country that year, now wouldn't it?