• presoak@lazysoci.alOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • TaterTot@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.