Basically anything you say or do can and will potentially be held against you in the court of public opinion if an AI bot finds it.
“Privacy” in the modern sense is less about protecting you from personal embarrassment or financial loss, and more about protecting society from the dangers of mass data collection.
Historical examples of mass datasets that were misused:
- The Nazis used demographic records (birth, death, marriage records, etc.) to identify Jews and other undesirables in conquered countries.
- Japanese Americans were identified for internment in part through illegal use of census information.
- The Rwanda genocide was facilitated by tribal information being printed on drivers licenses.
In none of these examples were the data collected for the evil purposes it was eventually used for. In some cases, the evil purposes were completely forbidden by the rules governing the data, but they were used anyway.
Information is a form of knowledge. Knowledge is power. And power in the wrong hands is dangerous.
Because it’s not you who decides you have something to hide, which means it can change on a whim. Current example: the situation in the USA.
The more information you give, the more they have to use against you.
How to manipulate you, how to trick you, etc.
Also if you’re exposed as a certain type of person (gay/trans/brown/black/etc) are being targeted in some countries.
If your exposed showing knowledge in some subjects then they could target you. Example is how they are targeting some news reporters for reporting the truth.
A lot of good answers in here here’s one more
The more data companies have about you the more they can arbitrarily charge you more.
For example, they realize that those people who listen to heavy metal and talk to themselves are more likely to get into a car wreck.(Please understand this is a made up example). So because Someone can use your car and your phone to listen to you, And they can also figure out your music habits. Now they realize they can just charge you more for insurance. Yet the reality is you may have never had a car accident in your entire life. So why are you getting charged more for insurance?
Now this is just one example, but I think you can understand why your privacy is very important.
Also talk to any attorney they will tell you even a halfway decent attorney can get a watermelon convicted of murder. So you’re right to privacy in your own home and you’re right privacy for your phone you write privacy in general is very important. Because evidence could be made to say pretty much anything you want .actually that falls under unreasonable search and seizure and privacy, but you still get the idea. Privacy is very important
Why is privacy important? Be specific.
That’s how I prompt AI, not how I would address [a community of] people. But that’s just me, I guess.
None of your goddamn business.
very meta
Privacy is a fundamental right that protects autonomy, personal dignity, and the freedom to engage with society without fear of judgment or control. It acts as a crucial safeguard against authoritarianism. Without it, every choice we make can be monitored, recorded, and scrutinized by those in power. History shows that surveillance is often used not to protect people, but to label harmless behaviors as suspicious or deviant, creating pretexts for further erosion of rights.
But beyond its role in protecting civil liberties, privacy is essential for personal growth and mental well-being. We all need space to be ourselves, to practice new skills without perfection, explore interests that might seem uncool or immature, enjoy “guilty pleasure” media, or simply act silly, without worrying about how it will be perceived or used against us. These moments aren’t trivial. They’re where creativity, healing, and self-discovery happen. Privacy gives us room to evolve, to make mistakes, and to be human
This is very well put! Great comment :3
This! 1000x this! I’ve spent years educating myself on tech, privacy, psychology etc trying to answer this question. The root thoughts are berried so deep it’s hard to find the signal in the noise. I’ve seen more concise explanations similar to yours in the past year than I have in the previous decade. I think the collective consciousness may finally be getting to a place where they’re starting to ask the right questions, and thankfully concise answer like this are imo the right directions to point people.
Couldn’t agree more. The rise of digital surveillance has sparked a necessary counterwave, a deeper reexamination of why we valued privacy in the first place.
And while I’d love to claim credit, it sounds like you and I map have taken a similar deep dive into the topic. I’m really just standing on the shoulders of thinkers who’ve been wrestling with this far longer and more deeply than I have. My response was just an attempt to distill the ideas that resonated most, hopefully with a little clarity.
Glad it landed.
Ok. A counterargument.
Information wants to be free. And to let it flow freely is the least-effort solution.
By letting information flow freely we approach a state where everybody knows everything about everything and everybody. This could be pretty great and seems the easy and natural way to go. A kind of superdemocracy. By inhibiting this evolution we create a state of deformity and disease.
Information doesn’t “want” anything, you’re personifying a concept.
It’s a figure of speech.
It means that information propagates extremely easily.
It means that information propagates extremely easily.
Sounds like you’ve just answered your question about why privacy is important.
I agree: knowledge should be free. But that doesn’t mean all information, especially private lives and deeply personal details, should be universally accessible.
People aren’t data packets. The idea that “everyone should know everything about everyone” assumes superhuman recall and universal comfort with exposure, neither of which exist. If we’re talking sci-fi (like the Borg), total transparency works for them because individuality and autonomy is erased. But that doesn’t work for people as we currently exist.
Here’s the key: privacy doesn’t hinder open information, it enables it. Encryption, VPNs, private browsing, these tools protect your ability to seek and share freely, without fear of surveillance or retaliation. Without privacy, power chills dissent. People stop asking questions.
So yes, free knowledge matters. But personal lives aren’t public records.
Privacy isn’t the enemy of openness.
It’s its best defense.Edit: Reworked this to streamline my point. Some of the phrasing no longer matches the quotes you used in your response, the the general points remain the same.
But I’m not sure that vision logically extends to all information…
I see it more as a physical fact. Keeping a secret takes more effort than open communication. Information propagates like a fart.
assumes both a superhuman capacity for processing information
Well that would be google. You don’t need to carry the information around with you, you just need to know how to craft the right query.
and a uniform comfort with exposure,
It might just be the taboo of the hour too.
But that comes at the cost of individuality, autonomy, and the very idea of personal…
That’s a stretch
Anyway, here’s my key point. Protecting personal privacy doesn’t hinder the free flow of information, it enables it.
That’s a big stretch. Literally “inhibiting the flow increases the flow”. I mean I see your argument. But the constraining force here isn’t free information, it’s judgement and persecution.
So I agree, knowledge should be free.
Mine wasn’t an argument of moral imperative but physics. And fighting physics is exhausting.
Edit: I wrote a long rebuttal last night. Wasn’t sober. Woke up, read it, and thought: Ain’t nobody got time for that.
So instead, just the core point:
It’s not a stretch to say privacy protects both our legal rights and our willingness to access and share information.
It is a stretch to claim that not recording and uploading everything I do in private will cause a “state of deformity and disease.”
That’s not physics. That’s selling data collection as snake oil. It’s an attempt to justify a world view without examining it’s ramifications.
Information doesn’t “want to be free” the companies that want my personal habits and interests have invested a whole lot of effort in acquiring it.
What’s your credit card number? I am curious.
Do you have children? What are their names and where do they go to school when you are not watching over them? again I am curious.
What do you care for deeply and value most? Is it your family, a friend? Who are they and what would you do to avoid them from any pain, again I am curious.
What is your daily routine? When can I expect to see you in a specific location and when will you be away from your possessions in your home? What kind of security do you have on your physical space and digital space? I am curious.
What kinds of things do you like and not like? What would you do if I could provide you the things that you favour? Or what of if I subtly introduced those things that you dislike purposefully? I am curious.
What do you get paid at your work? What if I was negotiating my salary and seeking a promotion above you, what if I made more than you and did less?
What do you make of generative AI? And what if I had your likeness passed on to a model to mimic your look, your sound, your appearance and mannerisms and opinions? What if I made you say or do or support something that you don’t stand for? What then?
What if you made a living off something and you only received payment once you had presented this thing to the client or intended audience, what if you showed me what this was before you did this and got paid? Would that bother you? Would that affect your income at all?
The human condition is not one of a utopia, mind your own business as best you can but don’t expect that everyone has been given an equal footing in this world. For your sake and the sake of others, privacy is a matter of respect at a micro, macro and global scale and beyond that it has implications to intellectual property, the ability for a single person or a nation to maintain resources and income, and allow at the most basic level a person to have a conversation with themselves or with god and be truely vulnerable without any judgement whatsoever.
Because I’m happy when I have privacy and unhappy when I don’t.
Because knowledge is power and most people don’t like giving whomever power over them for no reason. Also, it shouldn’t matter why privacy is important to people, the fact that it is should suffice to protect it.
It’s important because we say it’s important?
Hmm. That seems a little sketchy. Reality becomes whatever’s popular. Propaganda becomes the ruling force. Etc.
Actually, yes! What is “important” in a general sense is a similar question to that of the meaning of life. In the end there is no external, absolute rule of nature that decides this for us but we must create our own values. And privacy is such a value. In part you can derive it from others like personal freedom but that only moves the question. Different opinions on what our values should be and how to resolve conflicting ones in specific situations is the subject of ethics and has been debated since humans could debate.
Its not about hiding information, its more about potecting information.
If privacy doesnt matter, why do you close the door to your house/flat? Why are there locks? Because you are a criminal?
Do you really need to ask this question with LLMs around? We had big data for several decades and when it emerged, nobody gave a fuck about privacy cause of “who would even want to look at me specifically?”.
Now we get to the point where everyone can be analysed via AI. All the types of questions could be answered almost automatically:
- What do I need to say to this group of people to be elected?
- List all vulnerabilities of person X.
- List all the people that look like they have money and not enough connections to protect themselves.
Etc etc.
Gifting your data to tech fash corpos is a form of suicide.
Because it’s not the first 99 people that know all about you that are the problem, it’s the 1 in a 100 who are out to grief or scam or steal or coerce.
People love to share about themselves, and that’s fine… unless there’s a malicious actor prompting them to overshare.
People love to gossip about each other, and that’s usually tolerable… until rumor is weaponized.
Privacy rights can be likened to a strong door keeping the wolves out.
Another option would be to do away with the wolves.
Which is cheaper for our society?
The door is cheaper.
History has shown, time and time again, that any wolf-eradication program will, almost immediately, be taken over by the wolves themselves and used for their own cruel ends.
How would you do away with the wolves today, if the non-wolves could become wolves tomorrow?
I don’t see that as a possible option at all.
I don’t know.
The design of the door is a well-researched topic. The elimination of wolves, less so.
One approach would be to feed the wolves. A well fed wolf has little interest in breaking your door.
One approach to keeping the wolves fed might be UBI.
An old approach is religious indoctrination.
is a well-researched topic. The elimination of wolves, less so.
There’s plenty of research on wolves, their disappearance/eradication, and (incentivised, supported) reintroduction to Europe.
A well fed wolf has little interest in breaking your door.
I find this symbolism stupid. Wolves aren’t exactly well known to attack doors.
One approach to keeping the wolves fed might be UBI.
They were talking about sheep becoming wolves, not wolves going hungry. Wolves will be wolves. A UBI won’t change that.
Because the more a stranger knows about you the more tempted they are to use that information against you - even if their intentions are pure at first.
