Your overall point is not clear to me, but I can affirm that I do not agree with your supporting arguments. My list was of examples, not reasons. And, of cours

Your overall point is not clear to me, but I can affirm that I do not agree with your supporting arguments. My list was of examples, not reasons. And, of course, each has varying levels of impact. And how many reasons should one need to respect basic human privacy? Would you assert these human rights aren’t worth defending until they’ve been invaded? I just can’t see where the stipulation is, where the justification for your skepticism lies. Your point of you comparisons with face-to-face interactions are lost on me entirely. Race, demeanor, height, sex, weight, and more are all determinable with enough collected data, and discrimated on accordingly. It’s the data that makes the discrimination more similar to physical interaction in terms of affect, but more scalable. Physical interactions take far more time and necessitate an emotion of conscience, both of which are often undermined in electronic communication, and always undermined in the process of data collection. Similarly, I’m super confused about your point about political privacy. Are you seriously asserting everybody posts all of their political opinions on social media? Of course, I am referring to what they don’t post publicly. This should be a given, no? Anyhow, US law aggressively protects the ballots citizens cast in elections, and all the while any of these spying corporations readily determine this with a minuscule margin of error from citizen’s visited news outlets, search queries, social networks, etc. Anyone who has viewed their own personal Facebook data can confirm so. Of course, physical violence is not an immediate concern over the internet. If that’s your point, then OK. It’s lessened in both directions and this is a different topic entirely.