[scoutt]

I don't get the link between privacy and freedom of speech. I can have private thoughts and private behaviors that don't necessarily have to do with speaking. In fact, many aspects of privacy have to do with what one does and thinks and not with what one says.

Or freedom of speech is related to privacy (by the author) in a way that I can surely upload a video to Youtube telling that my neighbor cheats his wife because of my freedom of speech?

Because in that case "my rights (freedom of speech) end where my neighbor's rights (privacy) begin" rule applies and that is, I believe, granted.

[raxxorrax]

Privacy can increase freedom of speech from the perspective that the statements you would say in public are always a subset of that what you would state privately. I think most people have one or two examples on mind. That is not because these opinions are unthinkable or misanthropic, but because the tolerance of the public is the lowest common denominator.

Freedom and equality are also competing concepts. If you make everyone equal, you have to limit the freedom of some people. Then again without equality your freedom is very likely limited.

[ben_w]

Various acquaintances have told me they are keeping quiet about things they believe because they don’t want their opinions to be held against them in future by anyone with a search engine.

Sometimes they’re quiet online about their sexuality, or that they are trans; sometimes it is about politics; sometimes it is about religion; sometimes drug use or attitudes about legalisation.

They all talked to me about those things IRL, but the lack of privacy online means they can’t comfortably reach out online to others in the same position as themselves.

[umilegenio]

I might have been unclear on this aspect. My point was that privacy can affect other rights in complex ways, including, as a way of example, freedom of speech.

In the example I was talking about in the article, I was trying to say that nowadays people have different norms and opinions on what is fair. That is great, however this means that without privacy I can hurt you simply by sharing something about you with a a certain community. For instance, I can take something you said in private, or one fact about you (i.e., you are a member of party X, or have a certain sexuality, or belong to a certain religion) and share with a community that will misinterpret or attack you for that.

In the past we allowed the press to violate privacy of important people for something nefarious (i.e., they hunt people for sport). Now everybody has the power to violate privacy of anybody for any reason they see fit.

So, now maybe we should forbid everyone to violate the privacy of anyone, otherwise we will lose freedom of speech, because will be afraid to say anything for fear of being taken out of context. Maybe we should all agree that if you disagree with somebody you cannot call a mob to defend your opinion, but you should call them with your speech. That is not an obvious choice to make. As others have commented, what about actually powerful people? Just disagreeing with them will not change their opinion, because they are more powerful than you. So, I am not saying that is easy to understand what to do, but that privacy can actually change how we use other rights.

[scoutt]

Ok. Thanks. Still I believe they barely overlap (privacy and freedom of speech). It's a grey area. For instance, I can violate your privacy and not telling it to anyone (peeking through your window), and I can also tell something about you in a community without violating your privacy (give an opinion, or take you out of context, or plainly lie, or defame you).

Or you can input all your info in my website, then I get hacked and all your personal info is now in a torrent somewhere (to mention something that has nothing to do with freedom of speech).

They overlap perhaps but I might just call it gossip.

So I don't believe it's a either freedom of speech-or-privacy battle, where one is the solution to the other, or the problem to the other.

Invading privacy is punished in most countries, and gets more serious if the info is published. The real problem is that doxxing and posting personal information in a community goes unpunished right now. The solution may be something I would never want, that is, non-anonymous internet access. At least paparazzis were known, they have a face and a name. You can sue them, and in case, punch them in the face if that's your thing.

It's true there is also a problem with the mob, but there is little that can be done about it. I recall the two guys making "dongle" jokes in a conference and getting fired when it reached Twitter.