[newacct583]

This seems unpersuasive to me. I mean, privacy is good, sure, I agree with that much. But it's trying to pin too much on one concept. For example, this is a big part of the thesis:

> A clear example of the loss of privacy is the rise of violent rethoric.

And I think that's pretty clearly disproved by the fact that violent rhetoric is almost always deployed in closed, "private" communities. The more closed, the more violent (c.f. stormfront, 8chan, the occasional private facebook group) and the more public, the more moderated and reasonable[1] (c.f. here, or reddit, or twitter).

I can see an argument that the lack of privacy exacerbates differences. But it also cloisters extremism. And the essay needs to at least acknowledge that.

[1] Or at least "nonviolently unreasonable".

[GoblinSlayer]

Likely just a prejudice, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238326248_Swearing_...

http://www.seth-smith.org.uk/images/laughter/expletives.pdf

https://www.businessinsider.com/brainstorming-sessions-begin...

http://keele.ac.uk/media/keeleuniversity/facnatsci/schpsych/...

https://www.medicaldaily.com/bad-words-people-who-curse-and-...

[umilegenio]

It is not really a big part of the thesis, rather an observation.

What you say about private communities is also true. However, I was referring more to the fact that everybody seem to nonchalantly use violent words and dangerous statements to express their disagreement, i.e., people are not just wrong, they are evil bastards that must be removed from public life and the nation itself.

[raxxorrax]

The thesis is pretty weak. Image boards can be visited by everyone and there are no membership cards. There isn't anything more public than that.

If you think of stormfront when talking about privacy, you seem to have learned that from pretty strange sources.

"Privacy cloisters extremism" is a pretty insane statement to be honest.

[newacct583]

Image boards are inherently anonymous, though, which is the point. You're right that I used the term "private" ambiguously I guess, but your interpretation seems to be deliberately uncharitable. 4chan et. al. clearly "care about privacy"! And they're homes to objectively more extreme rhetoric than places like here where many folks use their real name.

[GoblinSlayer]

98% of that rhetoric of indigenous population is lulz though.