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 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.
Edit: I wrote a long rebuttal last night. Wasn’t sober. Woke up, read it, and thought: Ain’t nobody got time for that.
So instead, just the core point:
It’s not a stretch to say privacy protects both our legal rights and our willingness to access and share information.
It is a stretch to claim that not recording and uploading everything I do in private will cause a “state of deformity and disease.”
That’s not physics. That’s selling data collection as snake oil. It’s an attempt to justify a world view without examining it’s ramifications.