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.'"
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."
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.
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'.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
Why not encourage anonymity?
Because it also encourages the lack of accountability that goes along with it.
Or, put more crudely.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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 who believe differently from them, following a tradition that killed the man that believed that the heart pumped the blood. 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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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?
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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. 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). It's like the original Forum of Greek polises (polisi? poli?)- no matter how crazy your ideas you can always find someone with whom to discuss them, and it made Greece better for it.
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.
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?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
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.
2 1337 4 u!
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I agree with you on that 100%, but we will never live in a perfect world...
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
...said "Brian Gordon?" :)
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.
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.
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.
Breakfast served all day!
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.
"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
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. :-)
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
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.