I would guess that the author doesn't speak Esperanto (but pardon me if I'm wrong).

Saying that it's absurdly easy is just as absurd. Esperanto might be relatively easy, yes, but it nonetheless takes a great deal of effort to master, like any language.  But even then, claiming that one or the other language is easy or difficult is unscientific - it greatly depends on the languages spoken by the learner and other things. I would imagine that a monolingual Russian speaker would have a much easier time learning Slovak than Esperanto. Even though the grammar of Esperanto is pretty easy and it's also very regular, you still have to learn thousands of words and 41 affixes (which can be really confusing).

I'd also disagree with Pedro Simões. There are far more reasons to learn a language besides the number of speakers. In fact, it's even the other way round - the smaller the language, the more special it feels to speak it! I'm learning Icelandic, a language of no more than 400,000, and it's immensely rewarding!

It is easy, yet as any language you have to spend some time and afford to learn it :-) but it brings a lot of satisfaction.

I would recommend: www.lernu.net

Hmm, sounds great, but it's not spoken anywhere and there are virtually no native speakers. If I learn a language, I learn it to communicate with people, but if you learn Esperanto, you can't communicate with almost anyone. 

In my opinion, Indonesian is as easy as Esperanto and it has 250 million speakers and it's the official language of four countries. Indonesian has no gender, conjugation, tenses, plural, declension, tones, it uses the latin alphabet and there are many similar words to English. If you want an easy language, try to learn Indonesian. It's more useful than Esperanto. 

I do not really think that there is an easy to learn language at all. You have to spend your time and efforts to learn anyway. I have just started learning Esperanto and I see already some problems. First, there are clearly some inconsistencies in grammar. Why, e.g. an accusative ending at all? Isolated languages like Chinese and others do not need any endings to mark a complement for an action. Position alone is sufficient. As many others I stumbled over Esperanto on Duolingo. However, I started seriously learning vocabulary etc. So, some prepositions seem to need the complement case (ending in -n), others not.

Second, it seems clear that someone from a European cultural background has the advantage of vobabulary learning, although that is now subjective. Someone who knows French, German and English can understand the words more easily. However, learning is different. The word for war is milito. Why? In English it is war, in French it is guerre in Latin bellum. It is related to Latin milites, however, but the meaning is different. The postman, leterportatisto, is easy to understand. However, non-European learners do not have the advantage of those word building memories.

Third, the affixes are a source of errors. This system clearly is borrowed from agglutinating languages. However, it seems to be very subjective to me when and how to use some affixes. Esperanto encourages us to build new words by using them. But do we always make sense? Do we articulate what we really mean and transport to someone else, a reader or listener?

Lingvoj konektas la mondon, sed Esperanto plifaciligas tion.

Esperanto esta lerninda lingvo. Mi rekomendas ĝin.

---

Languages connect the world, but Esperanto facilitates that.

Esperanto is a learnable language. I recommend it.

www.lernu.net