3 ms·

It is probably a reference to the "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" cartoon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_

• jancsika 9y ago
  That may be true, but the further the reference gets from the original context, the more likely it becomes an appeal to authority that ends up misleading people instead of enlightening them. Here are some important examples of quite powerful entities that do not accept the logic that you can't erase something once it's flowed on the internet: the RIAA, MPAA, DEA, various (most?) middle eastern countries, Great Britain (through the influence of the GCHQ), Mastodon servers located in Germany (see their ToS regarding holocaust denial), whitehouse.gov and various other sites that erase public statements after their criticism goes viral, various entities trying to shut down sci-hub (who will probably eventually succeed), and Barbara Streisand. Taken together, these entities can make it practically impossible for non-technical people to access data that has a $0 marginal cost. So it's misleading to flippantly refer to the New Yorker cartoon's implication of general equalizing power of the internet as part of a fundamental critique of business models built around publishing data that has $0 marginal cost. In that context, the comment by m-j-fox-- while maybe low effort-- serves an important function of undercutting the low effort premise upon which the article under discussion depends. Thus I give this higher effort defense of said comment. edit: clarification