[frgtpsswrdlame]

>I have no issue with my search data/post viewing history providing me better results or better ads. The real damaging data to people and society at large is a different set of data.

Hmm, I disagree. It seems to me that both sources of data are dangerous. Yes, showing "You have 10 likes" is bad for users as social media companies iterate their way towards addiction but your search data is a toxic asset beyond just showing ads. Let's say google leaked everyone's search history tomorrow. How many marriages are going to be ruined? How many politicians are going to resign? How many future politicians will decide to never run? How many firings and never-hirings will there be based on that history?

People should be able to live normal lives without being surveilled - by governments or corporations.

[komali2]

What if the opposite happened? What if we all suddenly had undeniable confirmation that shitloads of people watch mannequin porn, and so fuck it, why be embarrassed by it?

[frgtpsswrdlame]

It doesn't seem to work that way. When Ashley Madison leaked did people stand up and go "whoa millions of men are trying to cheat on their spouses, maybe we shouldn't be embarrassed about this"? No, they said "whoa there are millions of fucked up men."

What about when all those celebrity nudies leaked? Did people stand up and say "maybe taking and sending nude photos isn't something we should be embarrassed about"? No, they said "look at this crazy photo of <Celebrity>!"

[rexpop]

No, we said, "whoa, there are millions more fucked up men."

[majewsky]

You have a very optimistic model of people.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

Not necessarily. If literally everybody is open to the same level of scrutiny of their lives, how quick will they be to judge others, lest they in turn be judged?

[breatheoften]

I think its more likely that the judgement will spread in a highly non-uniform manner that reflected existing social biases with some people being vastly more negatively affected by having their secrets exposed than others.

Given equal access to the sources of shame of all three, would we really expect society to apply equal judgement standards to a mother, a billionaire asshole white guy, and a black guy from the inner city?

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

How is that kind of bias mitigated by privacy though?

[breatheoften]

My interpretation of the argument was that taking privacy away from those who had it wouldn't necessarily cause harm because in some aggregated way everyone would have something to lose and so people would be tempered against 'throwing the first stone'.

I think that notion is false because the negative effects of the loss of privacy will spread unequally and opportunity created for those to exploit the unequal consequences against their foes.

[rabidrat]

Very quick, it turns out. Judging others is a deflective tactic against being judged yourself. "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is great spiritual wisdom but most people don't abide by it.

[AnIdiotOnTheNet]

That's sorta my point. If no one had any privacy, then any time you judge others you open yourself to being judged. It's like punching someone in the face, you could do it but they'll probably punch you back.

So yeah, maybe you could make a big deal about congressman so-and-so having a diaper fetish or whatever, but then people will probably want to look into your porn browsing history.

[rabidrat]

They've just been punched in the face, they can't reasonably punch back. (Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth).

I know it seems like universal surveillance could level the field and make people less likely to judge, but in practice it doesn't work that way. You say "people will probably want into [the judger's] porn browsing history", but in reality, they don't. The preemptive strike generally wins, and counterstrikes generally look like defensive posturing. So removing all privacy just gives more power to the bigger asshole.

[blattimwind]

Look at research into school bullies; it's a somewhat similar phenomenon to what you're envisioning.

---

Lisa: I can't believe I'm jealous of a baby!

Bart: Hey, so am I! When you're a baby, you can just spend all day rolling around on the floor. (sighs) I miss those days.

Nelson: Then roll, baby! (Bart rolls on the bus floor) Ha Ha! Floor Baby!

Lisa: You're laughing at him for something you made him do.

Nelson: Well… you're gay!

Lisa: People who call other people gay are often covering up their own latent homosexuality.

[blattimwind]

Broadly speaking, prejudice can be and often is (much) stronger than family ties, even if the perceived misdeed does not impact the family.

How well do you expect things to go if you move these sorts of situations into a context without any kind of strong, positive emotional bond?

A liberal society works not because things are allowed, but because people don't know. (And are taught to not stick their noise into other people's business).

[antpls]

> How many marriages are going to be ruined?

Not many, considering marriages are less popular among young people nowadays.

> How many politicians are going to resign?

Not many, considering older politicians maybe don't spent their time on internet, and younger politicians are aware of the state of privacy on internet

> How many future politicians will decide to never run?

Maybe we will discover than many more people are "cleaner" than we thought, and will become influencers

> How many firings and never-hirings will there be based on that history?

That's a good point. However, the mega-corporation isn't 100% of the employment. Small enterprises and freelancer just want the work to be done and get pay, without wondering about who did what in their lives.

As another comment said, maybe watching porn and being interested in more than one partner isn't that bad after all. It only shows the dumbness of the artificial rules older authorities (such as religion, army, states, etc) imposed on crowd to keep control on them.

Edit : anyway, I support the idea of a private internet space for everyone, where people can express their ideas and experience with new concepts without fearing retribution. Words don't kill people.