4 ms·

Taking an entirely utilitarian view as you have is nothing new nor unconventional. The counterarguments, for privacy and protecting it, are far from irrational

Taking an entirely utilitarian view as you have is nothing new nor unconventional. The counterarguments, for privacy and protecting it, are far from irrational and have been made by some of the greatest scholars of the past centuries. This is a well studied and documented debate. There are even many concrete examples over the past 100 years, in recent history and in living memory, of where privacy has been eroded, and the abuse that follows it. Your own idolization of the utilitarian view is nothing provocative, nor is it rational -- just ignorant of history. Your own "thinking" on the topic is also like religious devotion, analogous to one that ignores evolution, and not even because you reject it, but because you've never taken the time to read about it.

oska 7y ago
Well said (although I wouldn't have included the bit about evolution). I wondered if the GP had ever heard of Jeremy Bentham and his Panopticon as I read their comment.
- decasteve 7y ago
  You’re right about the religious analogy — I wouldn’t normally go there. Bentham’s Panopticon is what I thought of as well. Not to mention the writings on privacy by Janna Malamud Smith.
wildermuthn 7y ago
> The counterarguments, for privacy and protecting it, are far from irrational and have been made by some of the greatest scholars of the past centuries. I don't doubt it. But when I wrote that I was being unconventional, I wasn't talking about the academy. I was talking about the HN zeitgeist. While the sample size is small here, don't you find it curious that 1 out of 17 responses agreed with me? And that I was called a bootlicker and demon. And that you yourself jumped to conclusions about who I am and what I've done with my life. I would normally ignore the personal stuff, but in this context it makes sense. Because, ironically, if/when privacy erodes completely, we won't have to guess anymore about one another. And I'll make the HN-unconventional assertion that both your response (and this response itself) would have been a bit more understanding, more insightful, and more fruitful for the both of us. As it is, we're essentially blind to one another right now as pseudo-anonymous names on forum.

oska 7y ago

Well said (although I wouldn't have included the bit about evolution). I wondered if the GP had ever heard of Jeremy Bentham and his Panopticon as I read their comment.

decasteve 7y ago
You’re right about the religious analogy — I wouldn’t normally go there. Bentham’s Panopticon is what I thought of as well. Not to mention the writings on privacy by Janna Malamud Smith.

wildermuthn 7y ago

> The counterarguments, for privacy and protecting it, are far from irrational and have been made by some of the greatest scholars of the past centuries. I don't doubt it. But when I wrote that I was being unconventional, I wasn't talking about the academy. I was talking about the HN zeitgeist. While the sample size is small here, don't you find it curious that 1 out of 17 responses agreed with me? And that I was called a bootlicker and demon. And that you yourself jumped to conclusions about who I am and what I've done with my life. I would normally ignore the personal stuff, but in this context it makes sense. Because, ironically, if/when privacy erodes completely, we won't have to guess anymore about one another. And I'll make the HN-unconventional assertion that both your response (and this response itself) would have been a bit more understanding, more insightful, and more fruitful for the both of us. As it is, we're essentially blind to one another right now as pseudo-anonymous names on forum.