Slashdot Mirror
Esther Dyson Grudgingly Defends Internet Anonymity
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.'"
But the same could be said of abortion.
No, the nonliving mass of cells in the woman's uterus doesn't count.
I don't see how less people is a bad thing when our planet is so overpopulated already that we're seriously looking at running out of important resources within the next decade. Which does not even begin to mention that unwanted children are probably not going to turn out to be upstanding citizens.
I, personally, am proud to be pro-abortion. Babies may be cute, but some day they'll grow up.
Great Intellect...
Anonymity obviously isn't needed. Look at the examole from the article:
Dyson wasn't acting anonymously when she made the inflammatory comparison between anonymity and abortion - and only an asshole would do that.
I can be equally effective w/o being churlish: "Esther Dyson's opinions are a bad practice that she still has rights to." There, see - I didn't compare her opinions to abortion.
Contrast it with this: "Esther Dyson expressing an opinion is similar to an abortion: a bad practice that she should still have rights to." Big difference!
It's not a baby until it's born.
That's not an opinion, that's a technical fact. It's a fetus.
You can argue about aborting a fetus, but don't fall into the verbage trap anti-choice people try to pollute the conversation with.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.'"
Just proof that because one relative in a family is bright doesn't mean many of the others will be as well.
I've always been against abortion for a perfectly logical reason. It assumes that mothers have the legal right to terminate their child's life any time through such and such time frame of it's development. I believe that only the state has the right to terminate the lives of criminals. I just don't that that mothers should have the right to terminate the little unborn children for the crime of picking the wrong uterus to grow in.
I believe that sterilization should be mandatory for anyone that does chose to have their offspring terminated.
If you are pro choice flip it around and extend it all the way:
If your mother has the right to kill you at 6 weeks development, why shouldn't she or the other partner have the right to kill you at any time after your birth?
I believe in prevention, but just because you screwed up your birth control, doesn't mean that you need rights to kill developing humans. Of course, I don't think biological mothers should have nearly the rights that they think that they do. If they don't want the child, it shouldn't be killed, that's wasteful, the state should take it and raise it to their standards. The "state" is defined in this case as your surrounding community. If we as a community decide that all orphans are going to be feed into a meat processing plant, that's what would happen. If we as a community decide that we want to fund orphanages to raise those kids as productive citizens despite their parent's wishes, then that's what would happen.
Your first point is wrong. Not just a little wrong. A lot wrong. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are repeating someone else's bullshit.
Your second point, if not already wrong will be before too long.
Finally, your entire premise was false. The original poster was "distorting" no facts. In fact, he said that the same logic that could justify abortion of a fetus could be used to justify the murder of an infant. His argument, unlike yours, was made up of arguable points.
I'm afraid all of this means that I'll be revoking your internet posting privileges. Please unplug your router so that the serviceman can pick it up when he stops by your house this evening.
I guess some people prefer euphemisms to morality. Whatever, I suppose civilized behavior ain't for everyone.
If I never hear about Esther Dyson it will be too soon. These items always smell of public relation plants. After the cluster fuck she made of ICANN as inaugural ceo we invarialby hear of her fucking investesments in Russia, her business enterprises, and her fucking newsletter -- what, is it up to 3.0 yet? Don't correct me please, I can't bother to look it up.
Few are the IT veterans who don't know Esther Dyson
There's got to be a joke about anonymity in here somewhere, but has anyone else never heard of Esther Dyson before this article?
Maybe I'm not an Internet Veteran? I think I know what Usenet is, doesn't that get me in the club?
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
Brilliant, hours after the links to the originating site have been posted, here comes mr steve-jobs-cock-lives-up-my ass to tell us all how wrong he is. Thanks for that macboy, you made my day.
PS can you right-click yet?