To answer your question… Do you close the door when you take a shit ?
Because it’s not the first 99 people that know all about you that are the problem, it’s the 1 in a 100 who are out to grief or scam or steal or coerce.
People love to share about themselves, and that’s fine… unless there’s a malicious actor prompting them to overshare.
People love to gossip about each other, and that’s usually tolerable… until rumor is weaponized.
Privacy rights can be likened to a strong door keeping the wolves out.
Another option would be to do away with the wolves.
Which is cheaper for our society?
The door is cheaper.
History has shown, time and time again, that any wolf-eradication program will, almost immediately, be taken over by the wolves themselves and used for their own cruel ends.
How would you do away with the wolves today, if the non-wolves could become wolves tomorrow?
I don’t see that as a possible option at all.
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
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.
I agree: knowledge should be free. But that doesn’t mean all information, especially private lives and deeply personal details, should be universally accessible.
People aren’t data packets. The idea that “everyone should know everything about everyone” assumes superhuman recall and universal comfort with exposure, neither of which exist. If we’re talking sci-fi (like the Borg), total transparency works for them because individuality and autonomy is erased. But that doesn’t work for people as we currently exist.
Here’s the key: privacy doesn’t hinder open information, it enables it. Encryption, VPNs, private browsing, these tools protect your ability to seek and share freely, without fear of surveillance or retaliation. Without privacy, power chills dissent. People stop asking questions.
So yes, free knowledge matters. But personal lives aren’t public records.
Privacy isn’t the enemy of openness.
It’s its best defense.Edit: Reworked this to streamline my point. Some of the phrasing no longer matches the quotes you used in your response, the the general points remain the same.
Because knowledge is power and most people don’t like giving whomever power over them for no reason. Also, it shouldn’t matter why privacy is important to people, the fact that it is should suffice to protect it.
It’s important because we say it’s important?
Hmm. That seems a little sketchy. Reality becomes whatever’s popular. Propaganda becomes the ruling force. Etc.
