you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 4 months ago (10 children)

You're using an alias, so your first sentence is already a lie.

But it doesn't matter. Complete transparency would be a death sentence for all political opponents under authoritarian regimes. It would be a huge risk for them elsewhere.

It would allow companies that control the Web infrastructures and its software to have even more power over the Internet users.

It would make many technologies completely useless or unusable: online banking, electronic votes... Wikipedia would be dead, that would be a major setback

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] [S] -3 points 4 months ago (10 children)
  • [+] 8 points 4 months ago (6 children)
  • [+] [S] 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    That's not an ideology, that's a dream. It's trivially true, but it doesn't apply to the real world. Nothing you do can bring reality closer to that, and you'll just open yourself to harm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] [S] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah but we're talking about your idea now.

    We don't need to reach utopia, but the supposed benefits of total nonprivacy only come when it's total. Then it'll never happen, as long as someone benefits from hiding.

    Econ 101 is about the benefits af free market. All the classes after are about why it can't be achieved and how to deal with that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] [S] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I don't know whether I agree with all of these, but the list is probably longer and there will be many good ideas. That doesn't mean total nonprivacy is possible, or a good idea.

    The best ideas in your list are probably more about transparency in low-trust environments, rather than personal privacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    I appreciate and respect your honesty regarding your real name, but given the world we live in, I would still recommend you hide it here. I still stand corrected.

    I really don't see how authoritarian regimes would be affected negatively (for them) by transparency?

    Regarding Wikipedia, I think a lot of contributors would hesitate to give their real name. If it was the norm, maybe the usages would be different, but I think I wouldn't have personally contributed if I knew that people I know could find my works there. And I haven't even done anything weird.

    For banking, secrecy is a cornerstone of the system, even IRL. What the banks manage to do IRL would still need to be done on the Internet. Public transactions IRL is unthinkable and it would be online

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    For banking, people just don't want other people to know what they do with their money, and how much money they have. Culturally I think it would be very hard to change. Not talking about dildos and such, but what you buy is really a window into your private life. When you start having children for instance, privacy becomes very important.

    Thanks for the answers, it's an interesting perspective even if I strongly disagree. I wish people wouldn't downvote without giving their opinion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)