Rcrocket Distorts Sources Yet Again

[_Mister Scratch]

Many, myself included, have been excited about rcrocket's new foray into the world of blogging. And, of course, most of us here are familiar with his endless rants against anonymity. He has even attempted to back up his arguments with a legit source. Here he is quoting Sascha Segan, of PC Magazine's online edition:

“Face it, all ‘anonymity’ saves you from is accountability before your peers. It lets people release the worst in themselves through trolling and online fraud, and disconnects people from a reality where you're held responsible for the stupid things you say.” Segan’s position here is fairly self-apparent; without signing one’s name to a post, one can commit all sorts of fraud and deception, and when it concerns matters of faith and religion, the wrong can be particularly pernicious.

But is this really Segan's position? Is it true that Segan really is genuinely demanding that everyone renounce their online anonymity? Judge for yourselves, dear reader!:

Real privacy would help the people who actually need to be anonymous on the Net: corporate whistle-blowers, teenagers seeking advice from Planned Parenthood, that sort of thing. Just as in the non-Net world, there are limited situations where people need to be anonymous. But we should start from a presumption that people should be honest about who they are unless they have a real need for anonymity.

Sadly for Bob, we have all read the countless stories about the ways people's lives were harmed by the LDS Church or vindictive members thereof. It is really no stretch to label those who speak out as "whistle-blowers." Those who criticize the Church---such as Jeffrey Nielson or Meg Toscano---risk, and have risked, all kinds of horrible retribution. But, does this matter to rcrocket and his silly crusade? Of course not!

In any case, if anyone is interested, this is the link to Segan's article:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2193394,00.asp

For whatever reason, I could not get the link in rcrocket's blog to work. Anyways, Segan's article is entitled, "Less Anonymity, More Privacy," and he is not arguing that anonymity should be done away with. He is arguing that it should be lessened to that people can, ideally, begin to receive more privacy. But Segan clearly makes exceptions for those who are in a position to suffer retribution from vindictive "corportations" such as the LDS Church.

Sorry, Bob, but you've screwed up again!