> Consent and reach _are_ keywords, since I get to decide what and how much I share publicly, and what I keep private. I can at any point stop interacting with

> Consent and reach _are_ keywords, since I get to decide what and how much I share publicly, and what I keep private. I can at any point stop interacting with whoever I want, at which point they only have a fading mental profile of me. I'll just point out that I think this is where I find the flaw in your argument: You _don't_ get to decide what and how much you share in public. You might try, but you will never succeed, because it's impossible to not share what you don't realize you're sharing. I think this is why I find your argument entirely unconvincing: if you're incapable of knowing the extent of what you're sharing with other people in public, informed consent us impossible by definition. And if you don't know the extent of what you're sharing, how can you know how far that information can reach? Sure, being online makes collection and archival of what you share easier, but "more privacy" doesn't address the root cause, because the root cause is that you cannot be fully aware of what context you share with others in the world--both online and off. I don't think this is a problem, because I think this kind of unintentional information sharing provides all kinds of benefits to society at large. It's the kind of thing that drives "gut feelings" and other forms of intuition, and we'd be impoverished if everyone adopted the kind privacy maximizing standpoint you're advocating above. But opposing viewpoints are good, so I'm not super concerned if I fail to convince you of anything, really. Cheers!