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.'"
Why not encourage anonymity? It doesn't affect anyone so why not encourage it?
Is she related to Freeman Dyson, (inventor of the Dyson Sphere)
I don't allow ACs on my own blog. And perhaps that is part of the reason that the signal/noise ratio is much better than here. There are still "handles", and in the end the only thing I have to identify most subscribers is an email (which can itself be anonymous). But even that much reduction in anonymity seems to prompt people to behave better.
Bruce Perens.
Broadband is not a technology issue, it's really a financial issue. How should it be funded? Should it be subsidized? I tend to think not. Broadband is a miraculous technology, and it ought to be able to pay its own way. We need competition; we also need attractive enough propositions [in which] companies will invest.
Broadband CAN pay for itself... and companies do spend money on infrastructure. The problem is that they won't put broadband everywhere. They only put it in places where they believe there will be a high rate of return on investment. "Cherry picking" leaving every place else without anything more than dialup which is barely acceptable for email. If the nation is to move forward and have broadband everywhere, companies will NEVER do it of their own volition. They have to be required to do so by government mandate. This is what utilities commissions are for. They just don't often include requirements for broadband... yet. And they should.
Every [employer] should have the right to [know what you did last weekend], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
Every [government] should have the right to [know your personal beliefs on every issue you have ever cared to discus], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
Every [corporation] should have the right to [research your life to be used for directed marketing], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
Every [insurance company] should have the right to [your medical history], but it's not something one wants to encourage.
I don't think many people like the symptoms, but maybe we should stay focused on the actual problem.
Wanna stop abortions of convenience? Give the father a right of writ of abortion. Give him the same ability under the law and that shit will stop tomorrow. "You're honor, I can understand my ex-girlfriend wanting to have my baby and I wish her well but I'm not at a point in my life where kids are plausible. I wish to invoke my right to abort my rights and responsibilities to this child. You know, the same option she not only has under abortion law but also adoption."
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.
You yourself admit its tricky to define.
Most pro-lifers think an unthinking fetus IS a person, so for them it IS a moral problem.
And they aren't "wrong" for thinking that. Its a perfectly rational position. After all, your suggestion that simple self-awareness is required before you can be considered a person raises questions about certain classes of mental handicap, people in comas, brain damage, etc... these are a people that are not self aware. And a fetus actually has a very good chance of achieving self-awareness. Like you said, 'person' is tricky to define. So if someone believes the definition includes an unborn fetus, I can see the argument is reasonable, whether I agree with it or not.
Further, your arm analogy has multiple flaws. An arm is not, was not, and will never be an independent person. A developing fetus has its own unique DNA, and is steadily sliding along a continuum towards being an independent person. I don't see a logical error being committed by arguing that a living organism with its own DNA that is actually developing into a fully 'normal person' should be protected more than a limb.
And it certainly seems reasonable that it shouldn't be protected LESS than your limbs?
And that's where it gets interesting... you can't just go in and get your arm lopped off because you feel like it. And its indisputably 'just' a part of you. Yet it would be pretty challenging to find a doctor willing to amputate your arm without a medical necessity. A fetus is arguably a person, and at the very least developing into a person. In fact, where I live at least, it would probably be HARDER to get a healthy arm amputated than to arrange for the abortion of a healthy fetus.
Hell, I'm pro-choice and that even seems out of whack to me.
If we had a way to create a one login to a single individual, stuff like making a new style of government could take place. Instead of a congress to represent everyone, everyone who cared could vote on every bill up. You could even have people be jurors in every case out there. The old time where everyone could not be in the same place has passed, we are living in a new time where everyone can gather in the same place. Now I'm not saying this is a superior style of government and trials, I'm just saying it is possible.
God spoke to me.