Privacy is a fundamental right that protects autonomy, personal dignity, and the freedom to engage with society without fear of judgment or control. It acts as a crucial safeguard against authoritarianism. Without it, every choice we make can be monitored, recorded, and scrutinized by those in power. History shows that surveillance is often used not to protect people, but to label harmless behaviors as suspicious or deviant, creating pretexts for further erosion of rights.
But beyond its role in protecting civil liberties, privacy is essential for personal growth and mental well-being. We all need space to be ourselves, to practice new skills without perfection, explore interests that might seem uncool or immature, enjoy “guilty pleasure” media, or simply act silly, without worrying about how it will be perceived or used against us. These moments aren’t trivial. They’re where creativity, healing, and self-discovery happen. Privacy gives us room to evolve, to make mistakes, and to be human
This! 1000x this!
I’ve spent years educating myself on tech, privacy, psychology etc trying to answer this question. The root thoughts are berried so deep it’s hard to find the signal in the noise.
I’ve seen more concise explanations similar to yours in the past year than I have in the previous decade.
I think the collective consciousness may finally be getting to a place where they’re starting to ask the right questions, and thankfully concise answer like this are imo the right directions to point people.
Couldn’t agree more. The rise of digital surveillance has sparked a necessary counterwave, a deeper reexamination of why we valued privacy in the first place.
And while I’d love to claim credit, it sounds like you and I map have taken a similar deep dive into the topic. I’m really just standing on the shoulders of thinkers who’ve been wrestling with this far longer and more deeply than I have. My response was just an attempt to distill the ideas that resonated most, hopefully with a little clarity.
Information wants to be free. And to let it flow freely is the least-effort solution.
By letting information flow freely we approach a state where everybody knows everything about everything and everybody. This could be pretty great and seems the easy and natural way to go. A kind of superdemocracy. By inhibiting this evolution we create a state of deformity and disease.
I appreciate the sentiment that “information wants to be free,” and there’s real value in open access to knowledge. But I’m not sure that vision logically extends to all information, including the deeply personal, being universally accessible.
People aren’t just data packets. We’re complex, evolving individuals. The idea that we could, or should, live in a world where “everyone knows everything about everyone” assumes both a superhuman capacity for processing information and a uniform comfort with exposure, which simply doesn’t reflect human reality. If we’re imagining a sci-fi ideal like the Borg collective, where minds are fused into a single hive consciousness, then sure, total information flow makes sense. But that comes at the cost of individuality, autonomy, and the very idea of personal choice. And that’s not a future I’m eager to embrace.
Anyway, here’s my key point. Protecting personal privacy doesn’t hinder the free flow of information, it enables it. The right to privacy safeguards your ability to seek information freely, without surveillance or judgment. It’s what allows you to use encryption, a VPN, or a private browser to explore ideas, access censored content, or speak anonymously. Without privacy, the powerful can track, pressure, or punish dissent, chilling free expression rather than encouraging it.
So I agree, knowledge should be free. But personal lives shouldn’t be public records. Privacy isn’t the enemy of openness, it’s one of its strongest defenders
But I’m not sure that vision logically extends to all information…
I see it more as a physical fact. Keeping a secret takes more effort than open communication. Information propagates like a fart.
assumes both a superhuman capacity for processing information
Well that would be google. You don’t need to carry the information around with you, you just need to know how to craft the right query.
and a uniform comfort with exposure,
It might just be the taboo of the hour too.
But that comes at the cost of individuality, autonomy, and the very idea of personal…
That’s a stretch
Anyway, here’s my key point. Protecting personal privacy doesn’t hinder the free flow of information, it enables it.
That’s a big stretch. Literally “inhibiting the flow increases the flow”. I mean I see your argument. But the constraining force here isn’t free information, it’s judgement and persecution.
So I agree, knowledge should be free.
Mine wasn’t an argument of moral imperative but physics. And fighting physics is exhausting.
I see it more as a physical fact. Keeping a secret takes more effort than open communication. Information propagates like a fart.
That’s not universally true. Information is lost and forgotten all the time, often simply because doing nothing to preserve or share it was easier. Silence, deletion, decay, these are also low-effort outcomes. And even if uncontrolled dissemination were the default, the effort something takes doesn’t determine its value.
Well that would be google. You don’t need to carry the information around with you, you just need to know how to craft the right query.
In that case, I misunderstood the scope of your earlier point, thanks for clarifying. But in that case, without universal, equal access to that kind of informational power, your “superdemocracy” becomes unevenly distributed. If only some people have the time, tools, or training to effectively query and interpret vast data, then knowledge, and influence, still concentrates in the hands of the few. Asymmetry persists. So I don’t see how this would notably improve anything. It sounds like the world we have now, except you can google what I had for dinner, and the government can have easier access to uncover and silence dissent. Still not a future I’m eager to see.
It might just be the taboo of the hour too.
Perhaps. But I’m not aware of any society or historical period where some form of personal privacy wasn’t valued, whether in the home, in correspondence, or in thought. Given its consistent role in mental health, identity formation, and safe exploration, I’d argue privacy isn’t just cultural noise, it’s closer to a foundational human need.
That’s a stretch
Fair, in light of my more accurate understanding of you point, it is a bit. In relation to my original assumption, i.e. the Borg, not at all.
That’s a big stretch. Literally “inhibiting the flow increases the flow”. I mean I see your argument. But the constraining force here isn’t free information, it’s judgement and persecution.
This one, however, isn’t a stretch at all. You’re saying the real barriers are judgment and persecution, and that’s exactly the point. Privacy protects against those very forces. In practical, measurable terms, privacy enables the free creation and dissemination of information by giving people the safety to explore, speak, and share without fear.
Yes, in a frictionless, consequence-free hypothetical, where no one is punished for their thoughts or curiosity, maybe privacy would be redundant. But that’s not the world we live in. In this world, surveillance chills inquiry. People self-censor. Whistleblowers hesitate. Artists, activists, and ordinary users hold back. So privacy doesn’t inhibit information flow, it prevents its suppression.
You seem to want to strip away the context that gives privacy its meaning, as if it were a mechanical variable rather than a social safeguard. Maybe you’re asking whether privacy has intrinsic value? But like nearly everything, value is relational. What’s the value of information if it’s weaponized the moment it’s shared? What good is “free flow” in a world where no one dares to think aloud?
Is there intrinsic value in recording and sharing everything, regardless of consequence? Only if we assume people don’t need space to grow, err, or change. And if no one cared about power.
Mine wasn’t an argument of moral imperative but physics. And fighting physics is exhausting.
Ah, but that’s the stretch. As I said, information doesn’t always spread, it decays, disappears, gets ignored. Entropy cuts both ways. And even if uncontrolled dissemination were an immutable law, I don’t find the argument that “it’s tiring to resist nature” a compelling reason to surrender a right that enables dignity, safety, and selfhood.
Frankly, I find the alternative far more exhausting: living in a world where every action, search, or stumble is permanent, public, and subject to interpretation by those in power. That’s not liberation. It’s a different kind of labor, one with no off switch.
Privacy is a fundamental right that protects autonomy, personal dignity, and the freedom to engage with society without fear of judgment or control. It acts as a crucial safeguard against authoritarianism. Without it, every choice we make can be monitored, recorded, and scrutinized by those in power. History shows that surveillance is often used not to protect people, but to label harmless behaviors as suspicious or deviant, creating pretexts for further erosion of rights.
But beyond its role in protecting civil liberties, privacy is essential for personal growth and mental well-being. We all need space to be ourselves, to practice new skills without perfection, explore interests that might seem uncool or immature, enjoy “guilty pleasure” media, or simply act silly, without worrying about how it will be perceived or used against us. These moments aren’t trivial. They’re where creativity, healing, and self-discovery happen. Privacy gives us room to evolve, to make mistakes, and to be human
This! 1000x this! I’ve spent years educating myself on tech, privacy, psychology etc trying to answer this question. The root thoughts are berried so deep it’s hard to find the signal in the noise. I’ve seen more concise explanations similar to yours in the past year than I have in the previous decade. I think the collective consciousness may finally be getting to a place where they’re starting to ask the right questions, and thankfully concise answer like this are imo the right directions to point people.
Couldn’t agree more. The rise of digital surveillance has sparked a necessary counterwave, a deeper reexamination of why we valued privacy in the first place.
And while I’d love to claim credit, it sounds like you and I map have taken a similar deep dive into the topic. I’m really just standing on the shoulders of thinkers who’ve been wrestling with this far longer and more deeply than I have. My response was just an attempt to distill the ideas that resonated most, hopefully with a little clarity.
Glad it landed.
This is very well put! Great comment :3
Ok. A counterargument.
Information wants to be free. And to let it flow freely is the least-effort solution.
By letting information flow freely we approach a state where everybody knows everything about everything and everybody. This could be pretty great and seems the easy and natural way to go. A kind of superdemocracy. By inhibiting this evolution we create a state of deformity and disease.
Information doesn’t “want” anything, you’re personifying a concept.
It’s a figure of speech.
It means that information propagates extremely easily.
Sounds like you’ve just answered your question about why privacy is important.
I appreciate the sentiment that “information wants to be free,” and there’s real value in open access to knowledge. But I’m not sure that vision logically extends to all information, including the deeply personal, being universally accessible.
People aren’t just data packets. We’re complex, evolving individuals. The idea that we could, or should, live in a world where “everyone knows everything about everyone” assumes both a superhuman capacity for processing information and a uniform comfort with exposure, which simply doesn’t reflect human reality. If we’re imagining a sci-fi ideal like the Borg collective, where minds are fused into a single hive consciousness, then sure, total information flow makes sense. But that comes at the cost of individuality, autonomy, and the very idea of personal choice. And that’s not a future I’m eager to embrace.
Anyway, here’s my key point. Protecting personal privacy doesn’t hinder the free flow of information, it enables it. The right to privacy safeguards your ability to seek information freely, without surveillance or judgment. It’s what allows you to use encryption, a VPN, or a private browser to explore ideas, access censored content, or speak anonymously. Without privacy, the powerful can track, pressure, or punish dissent, chilling free expression rather than encouraging it.
So I agree, knowledge should be free. But personal lives shouldn’t be public records. Privacy isn’t the enemy of openness, it’s one of its strongest defenders
I see it more as a physical fact. Keeping a secret takes more effort than open communication. Information propagates like a fart.
Well that would be google. You don’t need to carry the information around with you, you just need to know how to craft the right query.
It might just be the taboo of the hour too.
That’s a stretch
That’s a big stretch. Literally “inhibiting the flow increases the flow”. I mean I see your argument. But the constraining force here isn’t free information, it’s judgement and persecution.
Mine wasn’t an argument of moral imperative but physics. And fighting physics is exhausting.
That’s not universally true. Information is lost and forgotten all the time, often simply because doing nothing to preserve or share it was easier. Silence, deletion, decay, these are also low-effort outcomes. And even if uncontrolled dissemination were the default, the effort something takes doesn’t determine its value.
In that case, I misunderstood the scope of your earlier point, thanks for clarifying. But in that case, without universal, equal access to that kind of informational power, your “superdemocracy” becomes unevenly distributed. If only some people have the time, tools, or training to effectively query and interpret vast data, then knowledge, and influence, still concentrates in the hands of the few. Asymmetry persists. So I don’t see how this would notably improve anything. It sounds like the world we have now, except you can google what I had for dinner, and the government can have easier access to uncover and silence dissent. Still not a future I’m eager to see.
Perhaps. But I’m not aware of any society or historical period where some form of personal privacy wasn’t valued, whether in the home, in correspondence, or in thought. Given its consistent role in mental health, identity formation, and safe exploration, I’d argue privacy isn’t just cultural noise, it’s closer to a foundational human need.
Fair, in light of my more accurate understanding of you point, it is a bit. In relation to my original assumption, i.e. the Borg, not at all.
This one, however, isn’t a stretch at all. You’re saying the real barriers are judgment and persecution, and that’s exactly the point. Privacy protects against those very forces. In practical, measurable terms, privacy enables the free creation and dissemination of information by giving people the safety to explore, speak, and share without fear.
Yes, in a frictionless, consequence-free hypothetical, where no one is punished for their thoughts or curiosity, maybe privacy would be redundant. But that’s not the world we live in. In this world, surveillance chills inquiry. People self-censor. Whistleblowers hesitate. Artists, activists, and ordinary users hold back. So privacy doesn’t inhibit information flow, it prevents its suppression.
You seem to want to strip away the context that gives privacy its meaning, as if it were a mechanical variable rather than a social safeguard. Maybe you’re asking whether privacy has intrinsic value? But like nearly everything, value is relational. What’s the value of information if it’s weaponized the moment it’s shared? What good is “free flow” in a world where no one dares to think aloud?
Is there intrinsic value in recording and sharing everything, regardless of consequence? Only if we assume people don’t need space to grow, err, or change. And if no one cared about power.
Ah, but that’s the stretch. As I said, information doesn’t always spread, it decays, disappears, gets ignored. Entropy cuts both ways. And even if uncontrolled dissemination were an immutable law, I don’t find the argument that “it’s tiring to resist nature” a compelling reason to surrender a right that enables dignity, safety, and selfhood.
Frankly, I find the alternative far more exhausting: living in a world where every action, search, or stumble is permanent, public, and subject to interpretation by those in power. That’s not liberation. It’s a different kind of labor, one with no off switch.
Information doesn’t “want to be free” the companies that want my personal habits and interests have invested a whole lot of effort in acquiring it.