You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: On Creating a More Accepting Society - a response to @dan 's post on "Radical Transparency"
Privacy is nothing more than a response to a perceived threat, real or otherwise. I submit that the threat perceived is based on our past experiences with persons, singularly (as in friend) or in aggregate (as in governments). If the source of the threat is people then only by "fixing" people can you obviate the problem.
So how does "transparency" change an individual so that they will not use the advantage they have gained through additional information?
We as a species proudly declare that "Information is power!" That does not bode well for transparency solving the problem.
Your first sentence is really profound and hits a main point. Forcing someone into full exposure is not going to fix people's discomfort and mistrust, it's only going to increase it while denying them any outlet. It seems only to make sense under he pretense that humans are naturally incapable of taking care of themselves, and that we need AI to keep us in check, a sentiment I see becoming more and more popular but very misguided. If transparency began from the top down, I do not think any of us would still feel this way. How to achieve that though...