4 ms·
Good point, but even if the loss of privacy was symmetrical, it would still be a problem. Somewhat smaller problem, perhaps, but still a very serious problem.
by jensen123 11y ago
Good point, but even if the loss of privacy was symmetrical, it would still be a problem. Somewhat smaller problem, perhaps, but still a very serious problem.
In a world without privacy, the only things you could do/say/write would be the things that would offend nobody. You could not drink alcohol, since that would offend the teetotalers. You could not fly somewhere on vacation, since that would offend the environmentalists. You could not watch pornography or hire prostitutes since that would offend some feminists or religious conservatives. You could not eat meat, since that would offend vegans. You could not drive fast since that would offend those obsessed with safety. You could not make much money, since that would offend the socialists. You could not eat potato chips or drink soda since that would offend the health nuts. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Because, if you offend someone, that person will like you less and punish you in various ways. Not hire you for a job, not rent you an apartment, not invite you to a party, not cooperate if you're a co-worker, not have sex with you, not do you a favor, not do business with you, not greet you, not open the door for you when you have your hands full of groceries, not hold the elevator when they see you coming etc. etc. etc.
A world without privacy, even if that lack of privacy was totally symmetrical, and you could observe everything the government did, would be a world where you could not do/say/write a whole lot.
- StavrosK 11y agoThat's less "a world without privacy" and more "a world with easily offended people". This is not at all my experience in my culture. Here, if someone offends you, well, they're either a dick. Some people are dicks, you just shrug and move on.
- jensen123 11y agoMaybe your culture is healthier than mine. But the other day, there was a link to the Wikipedia article on the con man who sold the Eiffel Tower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Lustig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Lustig At the bottom, there is the "Ten Commandments for Con Men". They include "wait for the other person to reveal any political opinions, then agree with them" and "let the other person reveal religious views, then have the same ones". There is a reason why con artists do this. People in general tend to like people who are similar to themselves, and often dislike people who are different. Privacy makes it possible for people who are different from each other to live in harmony.
- StavrosK 11y agoNo, I definitely agree that we need privacy, I'm just saying that that's a bad example. A better argument and would be that, without privacy, there can be no social change, as e.g. homosexuality would forever be considered a mental illness and "treated". With privacy, society can involve in private until the new forms are strong enough to become mainstream.
- jensen123 11y agoOk, I see. Yeah, I see now that some of my examples (potato chips etc.) were not very good. Lack of privacy preventing social change is a great point.