Privacy is the most important concept of our time

I had some chickens on my lawn the other day. Someone driving by stopped, started video recording me, my family, my neighbors, and the birds with their phone (I assume that&#x27;s what he was doing, that&#x27;s what it looked like) for a minute or two, then he drove off. He didn&#x27;t say a word. He didn&#x27;t respond when I waved.<p>By my standards of social behavior that dude is a <i>fucking creep</i> and (years ago) I would have tried to go over and confront him, and get his license plate, and maybe even call the cops on him. I know it&#x27;s not illegal to photo&#x2F;film people in public, but (again, by my personal standards of social decency) this guy&#x27;s behavior is hella creepy.<p>Of course, the answer is: he&#x27;s a millennial and (to him) what he&#x27;s doing is perfectly normal. <i>Everybody</i> is a tactless voyeur now, and all your photons&#x2F;base belong to us. Anything worth looking at is already getting mobbed by the panopticon.<p>(My solution is to buy some land in the woods, cover it with surveillance gear and build large, intimidating robots to patrol the fence. But that won&#x27;t scale.)<p>The problem is, our whole civilization is <i>that guy</i>: the advertisers, the NSA, the crooks and creeps, <i>all</i> of them are after your data and have a head start.<p>We can&#x27;t put the tech&#x2F;genie back in the bottle (I don&#x27;t believe we can.) So that leaves us with creating a kinder, gentler dystopian hell.

The author goes too far when they suggest there should be laws (and one imagines punishments for those who break them) that prevent something being shared in one space from being shared elsewhere. For example, if I share something with my family, there should be a law that prevents a family member from making what I said public.<p>Not only would this be a nightmare to police but it would give rise to some anti-social outcomes. If I was flat out telling my family I didn&#x27;t like race X and wished that religion Y could be outlawed, and then shared in the public realm that racists are terrible and that freedom of religion for all is paramount...shouldn&#x27;t someone be able to call me out on it? And if not me, imagine a person of some power or influence: don&#x27;t we want to know when someone&#x27;s public political stance is different to how they really feel?

I think this essay conflates the notion of privacy and property and goes off the rails from there. I get what he&#x27;s trying to say, but I don&#x27;t think it has much to do with the the ordinary sense of the word privacy. If he&#x27;s saying that the boundary between the individual and the collective is a core social construct, then, sure. But there are other, much better discussions of that topic, going back thousands of years.

Privacy and the concept of property blur in the digital. This is interesting when taking the philosophy of natural laws and what a nation like USA is built upon (ideas of natural laws including property, defending life, and so on)<p>Encryption is the only way to have property in the digital universe, however the mechanics of property and cost are also entirely different. Once it exists it’s costless to reproduce in said form. However relying on encryption feels a little repugnant as it relies on transferring trust to a mathematical minority that truly understand it. And no encryption has ever gone unbroken with time. Should there even be a contrived concept of property in the digital universe?<p>Is there anywhere to learn more of these ideas or consequences in more detail? I’ve had various conversations of this but it would be nice to see a top down review of these ideas and actions in a modern light.

Not destroying our planet with GHG and rendering it inhospitable for millions of species, including humanity, is more important than a couple generations&#x27; data being spied on.

I wanted to like this essay, because I also worry about the loss of privacy today, but the goofy paragraph about borders turned me off. To believe that borders are conducive to peace sounds like a bad case of internet-brain.

To the author&#x27;s opening sentence - I also feel the definition of privacy can be difficult to pin down. I tend to think about privacy as a necessary prerequisite in most contexts to being authentic and truthful - consider what you would say about your employer in a public form versus what you would say to your partner or friend. It gets more complicated in online spaces, particularly when encryption enters. As social creatures, we have been evolving the nature of our non-digital interactions for a much longer time and we shouldn&#x27;t expect that we can simply design ways of interacting that preserve the complicated nuances of real-life social interaction. However, as more of our activities move online, we can and must do better.

Funny, just by reading the article&#x27;s title I&#x27;d say that the incapacity of sizing concept importance is a more important issue than privacy.

The problem with privacy as a concept is that it&#x27;s ultimately just a metaphor. Privacy can exist in the real world, where our perception is limited by physical distance and obstacles.<p>In the digital world, however, information has different barriers. We like to recreate the mechanics of physical information rules, like separating chats into &quot;rooms&quot;, where you be in a room and see the information being exposed there, or not.<p>But ultimately, these abstractions only serve us in in terms of usability; they don&#x27;t share the same implications for information control that they have in the real world. Data in a chat room does not exist only within that room: the &quot;room&quot; itself is ultimately just a view into a much more messy underlying digital data structures. Something you say in a digital closed space can be heard, seen and read by somebody who never once stepped foot into the space.<p>I don&#x27;t think &quot;privacy&quot; is still a meaningful concept in the online world. The rules of &quot;online privacy&quot; are fundamentally different to those of the physical world and I would prefer using a different word altogether to make this clear.<p>A few fundamental questions we need to answer before we can have any meaningful discussion on online privact:<p>- What is information?<p>- Is there an &quot;atomic&quot; unit of information?<p>- When is a non-atomic unit of information &quot;true&quot; or &quot;false&quot;?<p>- When are two units of information equivalent?<p>- When are two units of information the same?<p>- In what ways can we act on information?<p>- In what ways can information flow through a network?<p>- What legal connections can exist between a unit of information and a legal entity?<p>Many of these questions also lead into topics such as copyright and intellectual property, which makes sense given that these are ultimately also frameworks to control the spread of information, just with a different motivation.<p>Those are my thoughts anyway, and I haven&#x27;t exactly looked any of that up so there might already be a consensus in philosophy on how to answer some, maybe even all, of those questions.

I recommend looking into Privacy as Contextual Integrity. Privacy is not about control. It&#x27;s about appropriateness of information flows, not about private and public spaces.<p>If you&#x27;re interested please read Nissenbaum&#x27;s book on Privacy in Context.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sup.org&#x2F;books&#x2F;title&#x2F;?id=8862" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sup.org&#x2F;books&#x2F;title&#x2F;?id=8862</a><p>There is also an active community you can follow: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;privaci_way" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;privaci_way</a>

I don&#x27;t get the conception that the top problem our world have is people being judged about what they said. And that lynch justice is the greatest bane we face.<p>Don&#x27;t get me wrong, it&#x27;s a thing I highly dislike. But it&#x27;s a thing I worry the least about.<p>Right now, we have leaders across the globe that put themselves as representing the victims of mob justice and politically correctness.<p>But these are the people with power, these leaders. A lot of them, bulsano, and trump, make it a point to say whatever the want. Most of the time knowingly lie and cause harrasment to regular people who oppose them. These are the one that have real effective power in the world.<p>All this cancel culture &quot;violence&quot; is a mere slingshot to the literal nuclear weapons The representatives of their so called victims are holding.<p>The greatest bane to the world right now is attention theft. It&#x27;s the news cycle, the constant barrage of irrelevant information. The murder of effective discussion and thought.

This is a very misguided take, seeming to support that people saying terrible things should be left to their own devices because _some_ people &quot;get it.&quot;<p>I knew this author&#x27;s approach was doomed when I read:<p>&gt; So, to defend privacy we need to accept shared norms of behavior.<p>At least in the US, this simply doesn&#x27;t appear to be possible. Look at how our lives have changed (or not) during the COVID pandemic. Look at the recent debate between 2020 POTUS candidates. We don&#x27;t <i>DO</i> shared norms in the way that would be required to make true&#x2F;complete&#x2F;meaningful privacy a reality.<p>My expectation is that if it&#x27;s on the Internet, if it&#x27;s outside, if it&#x27;s in a crowd... it&#x27;s public (or can be made public). Everything you express can be observed and used, and that sucks. Does that have a chilling effect? Of course!

This seems unpersuasive to me. I mean, privacy is good, sure, I agree with that much. But it&#x27;s trying to pin too much on one concept. For example, this is a big part of the thesis:<p>&gt; A clear example of the loss of privacy is the rise of violent rethoric.<p>And I think that&#x27;s pretty clearly disproved by the fact that violent rhetoric is almost always deployed in closed, &quot;private&quot; communities. The more closed, the more violent (c.f. stormfront, 8chan, the occasional private facebook group) and the more public, the more moderated and reasonable[1] (c.f. here, or reddit, or twitter).<p>I can see an argument that the lack of privacy exacerbates differences. But it also cloisters extremism. And the essay needs to at least acknowledge that.<p>[1] Or at least &quot;nonviolently unreasonable&quot;.

Privacy (particularly medical privacy) is probably the most overrated issue of our time.<p>60M people die per year of preventable reasons, for example. Or the fact that we are very sensitive to extinction (single planet we are running some experiments on), another one.

Yeah poverty, population growth, hunger, disease, climate, politics really don&#x27;t even come close. Is it implied it is impossible to approach these without privacy? Possibly, it is harder without privacy, but certainly not probably impossible.

Skipping the semi-clickbait title. I like how the author goes into a deeper analysis of the concept, but I, too, don&#x27;t agree with stressing the privacy-freedom of speech link. Privacy is about denying other people the information that they may use to obtain power over you in some way. This may include politics, but mainly the personal things that shouldn&#x27;t concern other people at all.<p>Being able to say anything controversial <i>in private</i> is a somewhat worthless freedom in the context of politics. You might get that, in practice (in the past?), in some dictatorships, and still be subject to their arbitrary power. The important thing is the freedom of speech <i>in public</i>. People may not like you and dissociate from you, but your livelihood should not be in danger. No one, such as like your employer, should be able to force you into anything.<p>The thing missed in many idealistic analyses like that is that the society has to grant you some standard of living and social environment in order for this to work. You have to be economically safe enough to speak relatively freely. People have to look at you and assume good intentions and stress the value of your liberty, even if they don&#x27;t like what you&#x27;re saying or doing. It&#x27;s easy to see that even in the West you can still be deprived of this because of ethnicity or economic situation. This doesn&#x27;t justify taking away the freedoms that people have, but shows that this isn&#x27;t and never was a fully solved problem.<p>I would agree with the author that laser-focusing on government power is deeply mistaken: everyone in society has some degree of power over all the people that they interact with. We have to confront this fact consciously.<p>Observing Eastern Europe, I&#x27;ve become especially wary of using the concept of freedom of speech for demagoguery (which this piece, to be clear, doesn&#x27;t do). In countries like Russia and increasingly Poland you can practice various kinds of Western-&quot;problematic&quot; speech with loud applause from the government and its constituency. This is eagerly sold by the ruling group as &quot;freedom&quot;, even though offending the ruling religion can land you in arrest. Yeah, I&#x27;m now doubly careful if people really mean full freedom for everyone, or just take only the empty word for the purposes of their favorite unfreedom.

Just out this month is an excellent book:<p><i>Privacy is Power: Why and How You Should Take Back Control of Your Data</i> by Carissa Véliz<p>Written by a philosophy professor of Ethics and AI at Oxford.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Privacy-Power-Should-Take-Control&#x2F;dp&#x2F;1787634043&#x2F;ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&amp;keywords=privacy+veliz&amp;qid=1601649069&amp;sr=8-1" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Privacy-Power-Should-Take-Control&#x2F;dp&#x2F;...</a>

If you think privacy is the major concern of most people then no offence, but you&#x27;ve had a pretty privileged life.<p>I doubt it&#x27;s even the major concern of most people in Western countries due to unemployment, poverty, debt etc. let alone developing nations which have the real risk of actual famine and so on.

Some interesting thoughts in the article.<p>I definitely agree with the necessity of having clearly defined and apparent spaces of privacy on social media platforms and this is actually something I am working on developing.<p>It’s funny they mention that content posted to a public space should possibly be color-coded in red, because this is exactly what we do on our platform. We have three shareability control options: On&#x2F;Off the platform (public) – labeled in red, On the platform (can be shared with others, but only others that are on the platform) – labeled in white, Unshareable (truly private, only the people you sent the message&#x2F;post to can view that content) – labeled in green.<p>The app is called Omnii and is focused on allowing people to own and control their data. The app is currently in Beta on the Google Play Store if anyone is interested :)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;play.google.com&#x2F;store&#x2F;apps&#x2F;details?id=com.twistedapps.omni" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;play.google.com&#x2F;store&#x2F;apps&#x2F;details?id=com.twistedapp...</a>

I&#x27;m sorry, but this guy is a goofball. He proposes all kinds of rules but hasn&#x27;t thought deeply, on a systems level, about what it means to have and enforce rules.<p>Rules about information are hard to define precisely and are often gamed. Information rules require the government getting involved in information transfers at a very deep level. It opens up society to all kinds of more serious threats in regards to civil liberties and totalitarianism.<p>Its very easy to say &quot;we should have rules to do XYZ&quot;. Its much harder to say what those rules should be and figure out how to prevent those rules from creating ambiguity that enriches lawyers and impoverishes everyone else.<p>Everyone wants to make rules with good intensions but they are too arrogant to understand the systems implications of such endeavors. Everything has unpredictable second order effects, and OP is totally clueless. He should first work on some cross border applications that implicate user data and then he should make posts on the Internet about privacy.

This is a well written piece. It describes an issue that, while you could say there are more important issues, is certainly the most important issue in tech.<p>However, there is an issue with it that prevents me from sharing it, and that is the comparison of current social punishments for speech to lynching. I think there are many people who could be won over by the line of argumentation made, but will immediately tune it out because of that comparison.<p>In the American context, lynching usually refers specifically to a campaign of violence and murder against black people. In the debate about consequences for public speech, a common argument is that public racialized abuse should face consequences. I think that this will immediately turn off skeptical readers who may be receptive to the message.

I don&#x27;t get the link between privacy and freedom of speech. I can have private thoughts and private behaviors that don&#x27;t necessarily have to do with <i>speaking</i>. In fact, many aspects of privacy have to do with what <i>one does and thinks</i> and not with <i>what one says</i>.<p>Or freedom of speech is related to privacy (by the author) in a way that I can surely upload a video to Youtube telling that my neighbor cheats his wife because of my freedom of speech?<p>Because in that case &quot;my rights (freedom of speech) end where my neighbor&#x27;s rights (privacy) begin&quot; rule applies and that is, I believe, granted.

I think that we should also demand laws requiring hardware manufacturers to implement physical switches for controlling the cameras and microphones of devices they produce. There are so many software exploits that nowadays no one could be sure whether her&#x2F;his smartphone or laptop is not filming&#x2F;listening to her&#x2F;him when in private. It seems like an easy thing which can be done to improve privacy, but it seems like the governments all over the world are moving in the opposite direction as it was disclosed by Snowden.

“You can’t make another Facebook... Competition is impossible”<p>Facebook solves multiple problems for users, but if we just focus on community...<p>I’m seeing people adopt solutions like Discord and Slack as Facebook alternatives .

&quot;Over the last 16 months, as I&#x27;ve debated this issue around the world, every single time somebody has said to me, &quot;I don&#x27;t really worry about invasions of privacy because I don&#x27;t have anything to hide.&quot; I always say the same thing to them. I get out a pen, I write down my email address. I say, &quot;Here&#x27;s my email address. What I want you to do when you get home is email me the passwords to all of your email accounts, not just the nice, respectable work one in your name, but all of them, because I want to be able to just troll through what it is you&#x27;re doing online, read what I want to read and publish whatever I find interesting. After all, if you&#x27;re not a bad person, if you&#x27;re doing nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide.&quot; Not a single person has taken me up on that offer.&quot; Glenn Greenwald in Why privacy matters - TED Talk<p>&quot;[...] But saying that you don&#x27;t need or want privacy because you have nothing to hide is to assume that no one should have, or could have, to hide anything -- including their immigration status, unemployment history, financial history, and health records. You&#x27;re assuming that no one, including yourself, might object to revealing to anyone information about their religious beliefs, political affiliations, and sexual activities, as casually as some choose to reveal their movie and music tastes and reading preferences.&quot; Edward Snowden in Permanent Record

1. Clean air most of the time. 2. Clean water available. 3. Enough food to thrive. 4. A safe place to properly rest and live. 5. A fair job that gives enough to save&#x2F;invest money. 6. Having friends you can depend on. 7. Respect from authorities (health, equity, privacy, etc would come into this?)<p>Now imagine the many important concepts these points require to reach.

In my opinion, privacy and freedom are tightly coupled.<p>There is always a tradeoff, simply because what is beneficial at the individual level might not be at the population level and vice-versa.<p>The precedence of the state or any social groups over individuals is a complex subject.

I upvoted based on the title. Usually I would frown on that, but the title itself is correct in my opinion. Correct enough that regardless of the content of the article, the title should be discussed.

I would say the fact that we are fucking up the environment and rendering it inhospitable for human and other forms of life is the most important concept of our time -- but yeah, privacy is up there.

Ofcourse it is. Privacy is taken serious by people around the world. But you know it, companies like Google, Facebook will eventually get your whole data in some way.

This is a much more compelling piece and it is what brought me here this AM because it was an email in my inbox and if you haven&#x27;t seen it, I think it gives good context for this piece (which is why I am sharing it, not to dis this piece):<p>Social Cooling<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=24627363" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=24627363</a><p>From this article:<p><i>Privacy is about boundaries. It is not about hiding something from someone but allowing to create a space with rules decided by its members. I like to compare it to borders. Some people say that borders are a restriction, something that limit freedom of movement and we do not need in the contemporary world.</i><p>I have a serious medical condition. I was treated like a hypochondriac for much of my life, then got a life-changing diagnoses in my mid thirties.<p>I like to joke &quot;My problem got a better name than <i>lazy</i> or <i>crazy</i>&quot; but people continued to call me <i>crazy</i>. They just call me <i>crazy</i> for talking about getting healthier when that isn&#x27;t supposed to be possible.<p>I&#x27;ve been banned from a number of forums and part of that is because people find it so incredibly <i>offensive</i> for me talk to about getting myself healthier. I am routinely treated like I am doing something nefarious if I talk about &quot;Hey, this home remedy was helpful to me&quot; even if it has nothing to do with my deadly condition and even if other people are saying similar stuff and being well received.<p>So I generally backed way off of trying to be helpful and tried to limit my discussion of health stuff more to just asking questions for my own edification or more general discussion of the topic. It doesn&#x27;t matter. People who just absolutely <i>hate</i> me for being a former homemaker who is getting well when that isn&#x27;t supposed to be possible will not let that go and have hounded me and informed me I deserve to be harassed for my &quot;crazy talk.&quot;<p>So, like, let&#x27;s assume I really am crazy and making crap up because I have some bizarre need for truck loads of extremely negative attention online. Why the hell do you care?<p>Pat the crazy lady on the head and say &quot;Wow, sucks to be her&quot; and move the fuck on.<p>Of course, the real problem is that I am not crazy. Actual crazy people don&#x27;t get typically get anywhere near this much hostility.<p>I get hostility because I&#x27;m a threat to something. I&#x27;m a threat to social norms. I&#x27;m a threat to current medical mental models. etc.<p>So I spent a lot of years trying to avoid ending up dead for thinking I know something medically useful, the way Semmelweis was more or less murdered for suggesting doctors should clean their hands before birthing babies.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ignaz_Semmelweis" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ignaz_Semmelweis</a><p>This is possibly one of those comments I will regret and maybe delete. I have had too little sleep and yadda and I am spending less time on HN here lately. On the one hand, I am medically handicapped, so I have a long history of going through periods where I don&#x27;t post much.<p>But the difference is I am healthier. I&#x27;m not failing to be here due to being too sick to deal with HN. I&#x27;m busy working more and trying to establish a business and blah blah blah and I&#x27;m also burnt out on the drama of being a prominent woman here and also also I had to put up with that shit to save my life and I don&#x27;t have to put up with that shit anymore. My life is saved. I can go do other things now, like try to develop a fucking middle class income.<p>I do have a point. And that point is this:<p>Privacy is the right to make health choices for <i>yourself</i> that maybe don&#x27;t make sense to other people, without having to justify it to a mob that wants you fucking dead for the crime of not going along with the party line.<p>Privacy is the right to make discoveries that are potentially scientifically significant and world changing -- if the mobs don&#x27;t kill you for daring to have an original thought and mention it in public.<p>Privacy is the right to have some control over your own life, even if you are gay and some uptight heterosexual person doesn&#x27;t like that or you have an undiagnosed genetic disorder while the world acts like you are just neurotic instead of actually sick.<p>I can&#x27;t say I agree with the proposals at the end of this article. I think articles like this should probably be treated like a jumping off point for discussion of the issue, not a manual for how to settle it.<p>Leaping to conclusions for how to settle it are sort of antithetical to protecting privacy and the free speech this article and others like it posit are one of the things they value. We need to be able to freely debate things.<p>We didn&#x27;t need &quot;privacy&quot; laws or social norms protecting privacy back when having a private life was the default norm that you didn&#x27;t need to work making happen.<p>I think it was J. Paul Getty who got outed in some newspaper article as the richest man on the planet and he wasn&#x27;t happy about that. Before someone blared that news everywhere, no one had any idea what he was worth and it was easier to drive a hard bargain.<p>We are seeing public debate of a great many things that, historically, a lot of people didn&#x27;t really <i>need</i> to take a stand on. If you were gay and socially savvy enough, you lived with a same-sex &quot;roommate&quot; and people close to you knew it was really your lover, but a lot of other people didn&#x27;t know and didn&#x27;t need to know and whatever.<p>And this circumstance is pushing the development of rights for some groups, so it&#x27;s not all bad. So I am not saying we shouldn&#x27;t be working towards things like rights for LGBTQ people.<p>It&#x27;s sort of like how rock stars used to be able to be anonymous in their home town. And then MTV came along, among other things, and rock starts stopped being anonymous faces in a crowd. Everyone knew their face and there were consequences for that in terms of their private lives. They lost a lot of their privacy and their ability to live a more or less normal life when they weren&#x27;t on tour.<p>Everyone is now losing that right to live a &quot;normal&quot; life. And if we don&#x27;t give push back against it, you are going to find the world getting drastically less healthy, both socially&#x2F;emotionally&#x2F;psychologically and also physically and in other ways.<p>The current pandemic grows out the fabric of the social order we have currently. It&#x27;s partly about the ability for many people to travel internationally at high speed in a way that wasn&#x27;t possible a few hundred years ago.<p>But it&#x27;s also about other things that I can&#x27;t as readily connect back and I get tired of trying to make that argument. I have had assholes on the internet who imagine they are &quot;sciency&quot; tell me &quot;Thirteen years of steady forward progress on your medical condition is a wild coincidence. Stranger things have happened.&quot;<p>Anyway, this is rambling and likely to be deleted soon. I guess I will shut up now and go do other things for a bit while I wonder why the hell I do this crap to myself.

Privacy is dead. Why do we think we have anything close to agency over our self when advertising and — in general — profiteering by trafficking in the private lives of individuals is the force that it is today?

The urgent need for privacy fades as stigmas extinguish.

I wish screens could only display text.

No. I&#x27;d say there are a few things before.<p>- notion of time<p>- distance and space<p>- experience<p>- depth of social bonding and cultures<p>- even magic and mysticism.. (in the days of full and unalterable data with logic processing)

“privacy is about boundaries”

In the &quot;First World&quot;, true. Not so sure folks in places like Syria, west Africa, ...

Climate Change is.

I think this a fantastically important topic and good post, but also misses some important things (which i dont know but there are defienitely missing ones) and focuses very much on recent tech-sphere promiment issues .<p>some points<p>-privacy is probably most important for most people in their private relationships and social life (instead of the emphasis on these recent issues)<p>-could be made more comprehensve&#x2F;extended we have some regulations for privacy in personal relations, e.g. sexting&#x2F;sex-pics publication<p>(that could be extended to more activities) (this is not related to the private relationships mentioned one point above)<p>-there is a difference between privacy for separating life&#x2F;having different identities and forgiving&#x2F;importantness-view-reduction of past behaviors (some european countries heavily limit prepetrator-&#x2F;convicted-personal-info-transmission, mainly on the belief that this aids rehabilitation(reduces reperpetration-rates) but possibly also on the belief that then the crime is paid for&#x2F;there shouldn&#x27;t be further punishing for it (incl social one) but they dont approve of crime&#x2F;dont see crime as a separate legitimate identity)<p>--it is very interesting that there seem to be no(?)&#x2F;very limited norms around past-information-transmission&#x2F;its legitimacy ((eg after 10 years things shouldnt be mentioned) (there are systems that deal with wrong-thought(seen as wrong) behavior like of course personal forgiving, church forgiving of sins etc that are about legitimacy of taking into account(shouldn&#x27;t be (negatively) taken into account) (maybe this indirectly speaks a bit to the main subpoint indirectly because then it would also get somewhat delitimized to talk about it&#x2F;continue to frequently talk about it (which could well be seen&#x2F;meant to affect the talked-about person negatively) but this is then more an indirect effect)<p>-violence&#x2F;(counter-)aggression seems to most pronounced in personal relations, e.g. people aggress&#x2F;retaliate (like for other unwanted behavior) and try to reduce status of orig aggressor, eg just saying theyre bad or associating them with low-status categories (eg theyre ugly or dumb or do something (if it happens often enough probably gets turned into insult thats somewhat divorced from originally maybe somewhat seriously meant relationship-supposation, e.g. son of a whore etc)) (again by just saying that or telling negative gossip etc)<p>* -privacy is very important for&#x2F;very important component of self-expression (and identity trying(so latter part of former ofc (so e.g. really)) * (maybe most important part why privacy matters)<p>-for these more politcal&#x2F;abstract&#x2F;not directly personal discussions something you could have specific settings like Chatham-house-rules while still maintaining productivity-oriented rules in other parts (so Chatham-house-rules for a restaurant-meetup or discord, but disturbing discussions in workplace could be brought up to HR etc) (chatham-house-rules instead of more restrictive rules like around medical privacy etc) (this is a bit work in progress)

It&#x27;s important but &#x27;most important of our time&#x27;?

&gt; It was not a time of freedom, but anarchy, where bands of barbarians could roam into your lands and pillage everything.<p>Please, do not use anarchy as a synonym of disorder, violence or war.<p>Pity a blog post about defining a word and an idea starts with a wrong definition of a word and an idea.<p>i.e: Anarchy is about self governance, which theoricaly leads to more freedom than whatever we have now in most country.