I’m ideologically transparency extremist. This means I want absolute openness for everyone. Overwhelming majority of people on lemmy and other places disagree with me, which means that statistically I’m wrong.
I have some strong arguments for my side and most argumentation from your side is just common trolling or logical fallacies, which makes me think that I’m correct.
Even with that, the software I use is probably more private than solid portion of members of this community, becuase almost everything I use is open source.
I want to give your side another chance. I hope for polite and fruitful discussion.
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
Removed by mod
With complete transparency, a corrupt government can execute any group they want (disabled, homosexual, black, immigrant, etc).
If everyone was completely transparent about everything, a corrupt government would not be able to form. Unfortunately there are people without empathy who will hide their actions, and use other people’s information against them.
I can’t force a government to be completely transparent, but I can save my own life by not disclosing certain information about myself to them.
I don’t hide my bank account and password because I’ve done something wrong or I’m afraid that people will see what I’ve spent money on. I hide my bank account and password because I’m afraid that someone will take all of my money, then I’ll starve to death.
Thanks.
In my perfect society transparency is selected by the society because of it’s benefits. After that nobody would be able to hide anything. So your bank account would be public, but nobody would take from it, because their actions would be public.
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.
We are on lemmy, others have even wilder ideas of utopia.
Privacy is an issue of the current world too. We don’t need to reach the utopia to improve the society
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.
Reducing privacy can improve the current world too. I have a list of anti privacy laws that could be implemented even today and would improve society:
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.
How would you enforce that?
Ban all encryption, monitor the entire internet. It’s relatively easy from technical side
People can still meet offline.
It’s not hard to track them
But you don’t know what they plan. The organised criminals do it regularly.
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
There’s literally nothing anyone can do using just name.
Authoritarian regimes would have to be transparent too.
I see contributing to Wikipedia as a thing one should be proud of. I don’t use my real name only because nobody does.
Why can’t transactions be public? I don’t know any hard barriers that prevent it
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.
Thanks. I’m close to changing my mind.