I was a little surprised to see someone else express opinions so similar to my true feelings here (which are stronger than my endorsed opinions), but they’re not me.
Here are two relevant quotes:
It’s not surprising if privacy has value for the person preserving it. It’s very surprising if it has social value.
Trivially, information puts people in better positions to make decisions. If it doesn’t, it logically has to be due to their perverse behaviors.
It seems self-evident that we are all MASSIVELY worse off because sexuality is somewhat shrouded in secrecy. If we don’t agree on that point, not regarding what happens on the margins, but regarding global policy, I simply consider you to be part of rape culture and possibly it would be immoral to blackmail you rather than simply exposing you unconditionally.
Another (in the context of sexuality and privacy)
Coordinated concealing information is always about perpetuating patterns of abuse.
Ben says his endorsed views are not this extreme but he certainly seems to have some extreme views about whether sharing more information is almost always good. His position on this is presumably downstream of how ‘perverse’ he thinks human society is. I personally think that it is pretty obvious that, in currently existing society, sharing more information is not almost always good for society. And that privacy is not primarily a way to prevent abuse.
A society with no privacy is essentially a society of perfect norm and law enforcement. I do not think that would be a good society. Ben and others presumably agree many current norms and laws are quite bad. But they also seem to think that in a world without privacy all norms and laws would become just. Perhaps the central crux is ‘in a world without privacy would laws and norms automatically become just?’.
It seems to me like you changed the subject halfway through your comment, from systemic to marginal effects. I’m on the record as having very different opinions about the two.
Your description of the crux seems too extreme to me, but I do think it’s pretty likely—and certainly not obviously false as Zvi seems to think—that in a world without privacy, nasty power structures would pay a heavy price.
Ben Hoffman’s views on privacy are downstream of a very extreme world model. On http://benjaminrosshoffman.com/blackmailers-are-privateers-in-the-war-on-hypocrisy a person comments under the name ‘declaration of war’ and Ben says:
Here are two relevant quotes:
Another (in the context of sexuality and privacy)
Ben says his endorsed views are not this extreme but he certainly seems to have some extreme views about whether sharing more information is almost always good. His position on this is presumably downstream of how ‘perverse’ he thinks human society is. I personally think that it is pretty obvious that, in currently existing society, sharing more information is not almost always good for society. And that privacy is not primarily a way to prevent abuse.
A society with no privacy is essentially a society of perfect norm and law enforcement. I do not think that would be a good society. Ben and others presumably agree many current norms and laws are quite bad. But they also seem to think that in a world without privacy all norms and laws would become just. Perhaps the central crux is ‘in a world without privacy would laws and norms automatically become just?’.
It seems to me like you changed the subject halfway through your comment, from systemic to marginal effects. I’m on the record as having very different opinions about the two.
Your description of the crux seems too extreme to me, but I do think it’s pretty likely—and certainly not obviously false as Zvi seems to think—that in a world without privacy, nasty power structures would pay a heavy price.