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.
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.