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.'"

Comments

Why Not?

[zach297]

Why not encourage anonymity? It doesn't affect anyone so why not encourage it?

Re:Why Not?

[Anonymous Coward]

So may people incorrectly think that the powerful deserve to be defended from the powerless, completely losing sight of the fact that it is unnecessary since the powerless are incapable of attacking the powerful. These well meaning people are merely reinforcing the inequity. With anonymity the person in your example at least has the option of making their comment. Without anonymity the powerless person loses the power to make the comment, even it it is true, because it they do they will have to defend themselves against the powerful.

Hint: The vast majority of attacks on anonymity that you hear come from powerful people. This is because the powerless generally do not have a voice. Powerful people have a vested interest in maintaining their power.

The problem is not anonymity. The problem is that people need to learn to think critically and evaluate everything that is said to them. That way they can spot BS, whether it comes from an anonymous source or not.

Re:Why Not?

[lgw]

Why not just create tools that take the annoyance out of trolls, anonymous or otherwise?

I've been "browsing at -1" since Slashdot invented moderation, and the system of denying attention to trolls *works*. The amout of trolling, and especially crapflooding, on Slashdot has fallen *dramatically* over the last 5 years or so. When's the last time anyone saw a GNAA post? We get less than one racist or gay porn copypasta post per story these days, and clever goatse.cx links almost non-existant.

There was no change in the difficulty of being anonymous here. There was little change in the maturity of Slashdot readers (arguably the average was less mature while the trolling was falling fastest, in the last year before Digg), yet trolling and crapflooding has almost vanished, compared to the bad years.

I don't think we need to discourage anonymity. We need to vigorously discourage trolling, and ignoring the trolls is the best way. Technology can help with that.

Is she related to...

[rossdee]

Is she related to Freeman Dyson, (inventor of the Dyson Sphere)

I agree

[Bruce Perens]

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.

Re:I'm quite the opposite...

[jav1231]

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."

Re:I'm quite the opposite...

[vux984]

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.