[MildlySerious]

I think there are valid concerns, generally speaking, but I for my own selfish reasons prefer to have the option of keeping my information private.

I have no interest in being a public person, to any degree whatsoever. Not because I want to do shady things, but because there are objectively no advantages to having your privacy taken away.

Creating a successful business is fundamentally connected to publicity, and if I succeed in creating publicity for my product/business/company I inevitably create publicity for myself. As things are those two things are inseparably connected. I personally hate it.

This is a far fetched, but the thought that someone innovates or creates something of value, and the payback may be that people want to kill them or kidnap their family because it happens to be a vaccine, or paparazzi hound them for the rest of their life because the media wants to cash in on them just sucks.

While I of course don't expect any of that to ever happen to me, I have thought about what if it happens. If someone is not willing to take that risk their only alternative is to be someone else's workhorse until retirement. It seems like a really bad and arbitrary filter (not the only one by any means) for who is and isn't able to take a shot at building something for themselves.

It doesn't really make sense to me that your willingness to give up your privacy is this connected to one of the biggest decisions you can make in life to grow and build meaningful stuff.

[7952]

I think a lot of the need for public disclosure is tied up with the benefits you get from starting a business. Perhaps the default should be for people to do more as private citizens rather than working through a company. Place more limits on what is a legitimate use for a business. But also make it easier for individuals to trade.

[jtsuken]

How nice you brought up the vaccine example.

So would you like to a live in a country where the government can mandate a vaccine and you have no way to find out who owns the VAXXPROD company, whose vaccines are mandated? What if the owner by pure coincidence is the nice of the Vax Minister?

On the other hand, how will John Doe's privacy be affected if it was public information that he owns Flush Pty Ltd, as long as Flush Pty Ltd is not doing anything of public interest?

Obviously, would get into the realm of public interest if John Doe also owned Flush-A, Flush-B, ... Flush-Z Pty Ltds, and these were purportedly competing for the tenders to install toilets in the City Council Building. Or would you rather keep this information private?

[MildlySerious]

Your questions address a completely different part of this conversation that I acknowledged, but specifically clarified wasn't what I was commenting on. The moral dilemmas that may be hiding in this change are already discussed elsewhere in the thread.

[jtsuken]

"there are objectively no advantages to having your privacy taken away..."

Your words, correct?

My claim is that whenever you do something of high consequence, it is safer for you and the society to have your privacy taken away. (or the link between whatever you do and your name be public knowledge)

*The vaccine produced by an anonymous scientist*

*The car crashtest and certification site operated by an anonymous owner*

*The airplane designed by an anonymous engineer*

Talking about airplanes. An air traffic controller in Switzerland is a largely anonymous job. But after causing an aviation accident (a rather high-consequence deed) it would have been safer for the controller, if he and the police assumed that the air traffic controller's name and location were public knowledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitaly_Kaloyev

The information that John Doe operates XYZ Pty Ltd does not affect their privacy too much, but if either John Doe or XYZ do or even consider doing something of high consequence, they better know that the link is public.

there are objectively no advantages to having the link between your name and your high-impact activity be hidden.

[MildlySerious]

I was referring to my own interests - as the one who would be losing his privacy - not the consequences for society. I made that very clear in the first sentence of my OG comment. There are no advantages to me losing my privacy. That is, me specifically. Not individuals in general. Me. As I was saying from the start.

The discussion you seemingly want to have you can have plenty of times elsewhere in the thread, so why instead ignore everything I said and pivot the conversation to the one thing I said multiple times now wasn't what I was talking about?

It is perfectly valid and I appreciate that you want to talk about the bigger picture of this change, and how it affects different aspects of society. That conversation should go along with conversations about individual experiences and expectations and interests, not happen in their stead.