I think you need to be more specific with your criticism. There are roughly two kinds of > "information wants to be free" proponents The newer kind, who are

I think you need to be more specific with your criticism. There are roughly two kinds of > "information wants to be free" proponents The newer kind, who are of the "post-privacy" persuasion, who don't believe privacy is actually possible in this evermore connected world. Sometimes this includes a value statement of whether that's something good or not. And then there is the traditional kind who's philosophy can be rougly summarized as "Public information should be free, Private information should be protected". The slogan "information wants to be free" describes the tendency of information to proliferate and the value this brings to societey, and in any useful interpretation does not mean "Every single bit of information should be free .. whoops I forgot that my browser history is information". Documentation of the exploitation of children clearly falls within the boundy of information that is private and should be protected, yet these things are shared all of the time, highlighting how information "wants" to be free. I don't see how you are constructing a hypocricy here.