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.
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.