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.'"
Yes, Freeman Dyson is her father. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_dyson
No data, no cry
While I don't disagree that casting ballots anonymously is essential to a free election, when the framers of the US Constitution were around, voting was not anonymous. It was a very public spectacle where everyone cast their vote in the open. This of course enabled intimidation which became a real problem. Thus the adoption of the secret ballot where you dropped your ballot into a box. This too was plagued by problems because the ballots were printed by the individual political parties and looked blatantly different, so it was not very anonymous, though a definite improvement. Finally came the standardized ballot printed by the government.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Forum of Greek polises (polisi? poli?)
poleis
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
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.
I've had one. No regrets. Not quite in the category of "put on a condom", but not something I lose sleep over.
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!
Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
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.
I think you have just created the perfect troll.
No, he didn't.
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...
People are never as simple as their stereotypes. This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, and Emacs-lovers.
Actually, it looks like it's a "talkback" post in reply to this, which is a reply to this gem. Classic stuff.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Two words: Dixie Chicks.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"