4 ms·

In case A, a village member knows a private fact about you. In case B, an arbitrary person or collection of people across the globe know private facts about yo

In case A, a village member knows a private fact about you. In case B, an arbitrary person or collection of people across the globe know private facts about you. The hypothetical individual in case A has _drastically_ different incentives regarding disclosure or use of that information. I wouldn't even call it superficially similar. The modern example would be that your roommate knows fact X, vs. some larger group, or the entire world, knows fact X. The former can, but not necessarily will, lead to the latter.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Hm, disagree. Socially, its only important if someone you have to deal with, knows something about you that they shouldn't. That the set 'people you have to deal with' is larger now is true, but maybe not critical.
- esotericn 8y ago
  Larger groups don't act the same way as smaller ones. If your sister dies tomorrow, you'd probably be quite upset. If I die tomorrow, you wouldn't care even if you found out. Consider that your roommate, parent, village member, whatever, finds out that you're gay. It's a small group. They have the information to know whether that getting out would be good or bad for you, whether you'd like that information to be disclosed. On a global scale that discretion just doesn't exist at all. Facebook doesn't _care_. A random worker who sees that information doesn't _care_. The information can make its way to someone who _does_ matter to you (or at any later point suddenly you may matter to them).
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    You seem to be arguing from the position that people in these villages were good to each other, and that bullying wasn't a thing. You clearly never lived in a small town.
    - esotericn 8y ago
      Not at all. > They have the information to know whether that getting out would be good or bad for you, whether you'd like that information to be disclosed. Nowhere did I state that they will necessarily act benevolently. The fact is that they have a choice. At a large scale that decision making process doesn't exist. Your actions become 'data'. You can move away from bad roommates or out of your village. You can't move out of the world.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Hm, disagree. Socially, its only important if someone you have to deal with, knows something about you that they shouldn't. That the set 'people you have to deal with' is larger now is true, but maybe not critical.

esotericn 8y ago
Larger groups don't act the same way as smaller ones. If your sister dies tomorrow, you'd probably be quite upset. If I die tomorrow, you wouldn't care even if you found out. Consider that your roommate, parent, village member, whatever, finds out that you're gay. It's a small group. They have the information to know whether that getting out would be good or bad for you, whether you'd like that information to be disclosed. On a global scale that discretion just doesn't exist at all. Facebook doesn't _care_. A random worker who sees that information doesn't _care_. The information can make its way to someone who _does_ matter to you (or at any later point suddenly you may matter to them).
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  You seem to be arguing from the position that people in these villages were good to each other, and that bullying wasn't a thing. You clearly never lived in a small town.
  - esotericn 8y ago
    Not at all. > They have the information to know whether that getting out would be good or bad for you, whether you'd like that information to be disclosed. Nowhere did I state that they will necessarily act benevolently. The fact is that they have a choice. At a large scale that decision making process doesn't exist. Your actions become 'data'. You can move away from bad roommates or out of your village. You can't move out of the world.