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.'"
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."
Anonymity wouldn't be necessary if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anonymity wouldn't be necessary if there weren't so many jackasses out there trying to get us all pregnant with ads, malware or the like. Anonymity is an important part of a user's self-defense when using the internet. So in a way, she is right... it is unfortunate that we need to defend ourselves, but we do. We absolutely need to protect ourselves.
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.
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'.
Umm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Did he just compare not revealing your identity to strangers over the internet to killing unborn children?
Secret ballot (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is there anyone who doesn't? (Score:3, Insightful)
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]
Re:Anonymity wouldn't be necessary if... (Score:3, Insightful)
I just don't understand what the problem with anonymous speech is. Or to put it another way, I don't understand what's so great about having a name and number attached to everything. Anonymous speech is NOT a necessary evil; it's nothing less than a fundamental prerequisite to freedom. Why? Because the only way to eliminate anonymous speech is through aggression. Coercion. Physical force.
Beyond that, anonymous speech is simply a concept which is neither inherently good or bad. It can be used for good, and it can be used for bad -- just like every other thing in life we do (including trackable speech).
I personally think the world would be a better place if there were more anonymous speech, not less. The mindset that anonymous speech is automatically less valuable than trackable speech is very alarming.
In conclusion, the only rational way to judge a person's words is by their meaning. If there happens to be a name signed to those words, it does not increase the value of those words in any logical way.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is there anyone who doesn't? (Score:5, Insightful)
My GF has had an abortion. No big deal. Her words.
Retribution (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes there will be bad actors on both sides, but I'll pay that price as opposed to the alternative.
In Defense of the Anonymous Coward (Score:3, Insightful)
We are entering an age where everything will be recorded for eternity. Every word you speak, every transaction, any time you are in public in view of a CCTV camera or any time a friend of yours captures your image on their cellphone. It's only a matter of time before lax security at the corporations and governments that store the security will be breached and their promises of privacy will be meaningless. Your secrets will be easily found by any Google search. I want to make my opinion known without retailiation.
As far as defamation goes, why does anyone believe an anonymous source? An anonymous source which cannot be verified. Who cares if an anonymous source writes that you have sex with puppies on the Internet. Journalists spend a great deal of time and effort to maintain their credibility. Do we give everyone on the Internet the same degree of respect?
Child pornography is a huge problem. A huge problem which will not be solved at all by taking away anyone's privacy. Unfortunately, two perverts can exchange their collections using portable storage devices which will never touch the Internet. Why take away my privacy to implement a measure when criminals can just bypass it.
As far as terrorism goes, let the terrorists believe that they are communicating without giving up their identities. I'm not under the delusion that if the NSA really wanted to find me, they couldn't. I believe most terrorists avoid the Internet for this exact reason. Stripping the average person of their privacy will not catch terrorists. If everyone has their privacy protected(including terrorists), the terrorists are more likely to have a false sense of security and use the Internet, allowing governement action (with a warrant) to uncover their schemes. Otherwise you need an informant or deep cover agent. Take your pick.
I don't believe that piracy is an issue. I think most hardcore pirates are incorrigible and will never buy legitimate media. The people on the fence tend to pirate a bit and buy what they want. Think of it as marketing. They like first episode and then buy the box set because it fits nicely on their shelf. People actually do spend money sometimes.
You can take away my privacy if you can come up with a good reason. As far as I can see it, there isn't a good reason.
okay... (Score:1, Insightful)
We care what Esther Dyson thinks for exactly WHAT reason, now?
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?
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Abortion is really an interesting topic for debate.
One the one hand, you've got the people in favor of it claiming that abortion isn't "killing" anything because the fetus isn't alive and thinking yet.
However, following that logic, then mothers should have the ability to "abort" a child for several months following the birth. Not until several months after birth do memories (a basic building block of sentience) begin to form.
Further along that path of thought; mothers (or guardians, I guess) should be allowed to "abort" children with severe mental disabilities. If these children could not pass a sentience test then, in following the logic of the pro-choice followers, there should be absolutely nothing wrong with having them killed for convenience.
A brave new world indeed.
Re:I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Anoniminity isn't the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
People have thin skin, the desire for control, and the inability to look at context that's the problem.
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.
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?
Re:Why Not? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
Re:Why Not? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
.
Exactly. It encourages a sub-optimal solution (put up with oppressive corporations and governments, just hide from them) instead of the optimal one (everyone in the world stand up to them and fight them out of existence).
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.
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.
Re:I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
How about the right to free speech? This is so abridged that regular people feel the need to speak anonymously, lest they be fired from their work, denied a new job, sued, etc. So, it seems to me that anonymity is a symptom of the problem rather than the fundamental right that is being violated.
It reminds me of stars that use their name recognition to draw an audience to give political speeches. And then they get upset if those political views cause others to decide to not do business with them and it affects their careers. It seemed to me that they wanted to trade on their name to gain attention but didn't want to be responsible for their actions.
Along the same lines, I've had various professional accouterments (titles, uniforms, etc.) over the years. I had to be very careful sometimes that what I said would not be mistaken as representative of my employer. I found that this was easier if I didn't stress my employer and position when using my name or discussed things under a pseudonym.
With all this in mind... it seems to me that the option of being anonymous is a part of the ability to exercise free speech rather than a crutch due to other limitations of it.
Re:Why Not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Negative comment concerning Linux? Check. ;)
Pointing out that the poster should be happy, he is still alive? Check.
Modded insightful? Che...
Errr, I guess from now on all my comments regarding Linux will be posted as anonymous coward on Slashdot.
By the way: IMO Linux is a joke and will never amount to anything that could even remotely compete with MS software.
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.
Re:I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, how about this angle?
Years ago, when I was working the swing shift at a 7-11 store, my boss -- a great old guy by the name of Dave Clarke, now passed -- told me that if you're going to write something down that you want to say to somebody, you sign it. In fact, you sign it and date it, so people know when you said it. If you don't have the nerve to do that, then maybe it shouldn't be said. Maybe you're just being a petulant little jerk.
The more I thought about this, the more I took it to heart. Today I absolutely believe it. If you have something to say, then people should know that it was you who said it. I file it under that time-worn category that your grand-pappy would call "building character."
But imagine if, somehow, I never had the option to write something anonymously. What if we had future space-pens, and if I wrote a note and stuck it on the dorm refrigerator, they could analyze the ink and find out if it was mine? What if there was NO WAY for me to leave anonymous messages? Probably I would just not say half of the snotty things that occurred to me to say, out of fear of consequences. That would be beneficial to other people, I guess. But in a world like that, how I would I build character? How would I grow up to be a mature, responsible adult with integrity?
As irritating as it is to everybody who has already passed this particular milestone in their lives that I describe, building character basically comes down to learning to make good choices. Unfortunately, it's not a skill we're born with. If people are never even encouraged to try to learn the skill, my hunch is that they never will. Every choice that you take away from people limits their effectiveness as human beings. I believe this absolutely.
You made mistakes when you were younger. I made mistakes. It's unfortunate that grown-ups like us still have to live in a world where people still keep making mistakes, but c'est la vie. Mistakes are how we learn.
And at the end of the day, I absolutely know what Esther Dyson is saying and I agree 100 percent. On both counts. I think it's a shame that I can make a statement like "I am against abortion" and people will assume that I want to pass a law outlawing abortion. The two ideas aren't the same. And I, too, don't see a need to go around posting anonymous messages, but I actually fear the kind of world we'd live in if that were not possible. For several reasons.
P.S. Bruce, you've made your opinion on the signal-to-noise ratio on Slashdot plain many times, but I consider myself an intelligent person, and I for one browse at -1. Maybe it all comes down to expectations.
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.
Re:Anonymity wouldn't be necessary if... (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, the presence of a trackable name or number cannot possibly influence whether the logic is correct or incorrect.
Logic is logic. It is exactly as valid when anonymous or not. But, most discussions involve matters of fact, as well as logic. And, unless you feel everyone should know everything, I'm going to have to take the writer's word for, at least, some point of fact. So, I have to come up with some way to rate the writer's credibility. And standing behind something and putting your name to it, improves your credibility in my eyes.
You know, over the years slashdot has become more and more hostile to anonymous speech, and after 11 years here, I'm just about ready to hang it up. If you all really don't want us -- even when we have logical and useful points to add to the discussion -- then I just give up.
No, no, no. There's no reason not to have anonymous posts on /.. I could set my preferences to mod them to oblivion if I wanted. All I'm saying is that an anonymous poster has to do better than an "onymous" one to get the same amount of respect.
I'm not bashing anonymous speech at all. I think it plays a valuable role in all sorts of situations: corporate and governmental whistle-blowing, or for controversial stands on issues. But, if something is posted anonymously, I tend to examine their facts more closely.
As a bonus, on the internet the signal-to-noise ratio for anonymous speech is significantly worse then for attributed speech. Filtering out the anonymous is a quick and easy way to improve content.
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
But. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
This nonsense is getting to the point where rights aren't even a good thing anymore. By that I mean claiming that people have the "right" to be given health care, or the "right" not to be discriminated against, or the "right" to be married. Any right that grants benefits entitlements is not good.
Re:I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
So, it seems to me that anonymity is a symptom of the problem rather than the fundamental right that is being violated.
We'd have to agree to disagree. Suppose I saw my next door neighbor kill someone, and he's from a huge family of drunken rednecks. We currently get along because I go my way and they go theirs, but I want as little as possible to do with them. I want to tell the police but I do not want my name on the report lest I get killed.
Anonymity because you'll get fired if you write someone on your blog is sad. Anonymity because you'll die if you're caught speaking is a good thing.
Re:Why Not? (Score:3, Insightful)
So when did you *eat* meat the last time?
Or eggs?
Or anything else living?
Abortion is forbidden in Germany, if the child is already sentient above a certain level. Sure, that level is different for everyone.
Remember: There is to "sentient" or "non-sentient". It's a huge gradient.
I think it's the decision of the woman. With 6 billion (=milliard) people, and soon 10 billion (=milliard) humans on this planet, life is overrated by far. (I specifically do not exclude myself here!)
And I specifically do not "forbid" you to have another opinion or think I'm stupid in any way. I just use my right so say, others are. ;)
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. :-)
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the current rate of post-natal depression among new mothers, I think legalising such a barbaric act could be a very, very bad thing.
That's your view. And playing the devils advocate here...
Perhaps we would remove a lot of the burden on the health and welfare systems if we legalised it. Mothers won't suffer so much PND and will be less reliant on support services. There's also be less infants who are poorly cared for and hospitalised. We could certainly use the population reduction that it would bring - there's a lot of babies made simply for the sake of having sex. Perhaps if there were a lot less of them we wouldn't be in the shit we're in now?
There might be positives. You never know!
Re:Is she related to... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm quite the opposite... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem happens when they want their morals to govern everyone else's actions.
That is not generally a problem. Good laws don't restrict your actions more than are required to prevent harm to another person. Right?
ie You can do what ever you want, as long as you don't hurt another. The reason you aren't allowed to shoot someone isn't because I want to control you but because letting you do that hurts someone else. Were protecting them, not controlling you. See the difference?
This is where abortion gets tricky. If the fetus is a person, that it merits being protected from you. An anti abortion law isn't really about controlling you, as it is protecting them.
The dispute of course, is whether the fetus merits protection. If its its own person it does merit protection. If its not a person, then you should be left alone to decide for yourself what its fate will be.
To me, the mere fact of it being such a complicated issue is all the more reason why women should be able to make the individual choice for themselves.
Normally I'd agree with this. If society can't come to consensus, than it should be left to individual. However, this case has some nuances -- the first is that its a right to life case so I'm inclined to err on the side of life, even if its 'wrong'. And secondly, the life in question is an *independent* life, so the mother is not just deciding for herself, she is deciding for the new being as well. So again, I'm inclined to err on the side of caution here.
That's just me, making a moral judgement.
Despite all this I identify as pro choice without hesitation when it comes to rape, incest, medical risks, etc, and while I would vote pro choice in any ballot, I think abortion-as-birth-control or as convenience is reprehensible.
Even a healthy pregnancy is not nine months of sunshine and rainbows, and I'm not even going to mention the things birth can do to the female body.
Life after birth isn't all sunshine and rainbows either. My wife tells me that the first 6 months after our kids were born were far harder on her than the actual pregnancies themselves. Should we be allowed "post-partum abortions"? Surely not.
And as for what a pregnancy does to the body... a lot of that is more a sad reflection on society and its unrealistic, unhealthy standards of beauty than anything else. (I get that attraction to youthful beauty is to some extent hardwired in to our biology -- but the degree the obsession has reached in society is more sad than useful.)
Why does she hate freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Without privacy you have no actual freedom.
Without anonymity you have no actual freedom of expression.
Without freedom individual life is pretty meaningless, and choices are arbitrary.
Re:don't give up rights (Score:3, Insightful)
I was actually struck by how similar your post is to the following quote. So much so that I wonder if you've seen it before?
Either way, both you--and he--are very much correct. The quote:
There's nothing wrong with anonymity... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not against it at all. I use it for all my throw-away activity (sorry, that's
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.
Re:It's not a perfect world (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot to mention that in this imperfect world, we also have imperfect (and downright immoral/wrong) laws. Anonymity is a defense against bad laws, such as the criminalization of marijuana for instance, amongst many others. And in the case of women having abortions, this imperfect world also has finite resources along with a huge and continuously growing human population. While I wouldn't advocate forced abortions and such like the Chinese are known for, by choosing an abortion a woman is not only serving her own interests but those of humanity as a whole as well.
Re:Never apologize for freedoms... (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last botnet herder convicted of anything? It will never happen.
Heh. I think that you've missed something.
Most of those folks are out of the country. (Which country? Most *any* country.)
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
I sincerely doubt you can name even one case of that happening.
Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon and the Baseball Hall of Fame / Bull Durham tempest-in-a-teapot. Dixie Chicks (or at least Natalie Maines) and the Bush-from-Texas-embarrassment brouhaha. Those come immediately to mind.
Note that I don't mention Bill Maher as politics is his schtick (talking politics is his job) and I'm not aware of him actually suffering repercussions for anything he's said.
Also note that this is not about whether any specific comments were "right" or not. My criticism is restricted to stars who use their stardom to gain an otherwise unearnedly large platform for their opinion(s).
I don't have any favorable views towards churches mixing in politics either (especially when they lie).
Re:Why Not? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true, but then that conflicts with the first post, "Why not encourage anonymity? It doesn't affect anyone so why not encourage it?"
Anonymity does affect someone. It prevents the people in power having more power to control and influence the people they seek to maintain power over. Therefore the people in power do not want their minions to have Anonymity. It means people who want power over others, see Anonymity as a problem, as it prevents them identifying and controlling everyone effectively.
Therefore people in power would welcome a Big Brother style level of control, as they are the ones who can gain vastly more power from such a system, of monitoring everyone they control.
Each step is simply driven by the need to gain and maintain power over others. Anonymity is an annoyance to the ones who seek to control others. It shows exactly how the power seekers think about their need to control others. It also shows how far they would take things, if they had their way and currently they are getting their way, far to much to clamp down and control everyone.
Re:Why Not? (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd almost think that TFA was written as flamebait to generate maximum pageviews and that comment based news sites like /. were carrying it for the same reason!
Another analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Anonymity for defending the rights of free speech is the same as requiring women to wear a full veil so they're free to move in public.
People don't use their real names on the net to not have to fear any consequences. What they get is that they can say what they want without anyone listening and without changing anything.
Getting people to hide from each other is the best way to make them powerless and frustrated. They will cry and whine and protest in the virtual world and hide and do as they're told in the real world. It's so easy to vent your frustation online and then to do nothing and change nothing in the real world.
Yes, anonymity should be a right on the net. But being able to use your name and your identity and actually be an individual being (that is: a not divided being) is a right, too. Freedom does not mean doing what you want as long as you're able to hide, it means doing what you want in the open.
Anonymity is not free, it comes at a high price. Just like abortion it's not the easy way out.