This seems unpersuasive to me. I mean, privacy is good, sure, I agree with that much. But it's trying to pin too much on one concept. For example, this is a big part of the thesis:
> A clear example of the loss of privacy is the rise of violent rethoric.
And I think that's pretty clearly disproved by the fact that violent rhetoric is almost always deployed in closed, "private" 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).
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.
[1] Or at least "nonviolently unreasonable".
> A clear example of the loss of privacy is the rise of violent rethoric.
And I think that's pretty clearly disproved by the fact that violent rhetoric is almost always deployed in closed, "private" 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).
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.
[1] Or at least "nonviolently unreasonable".