He is actively saying that privacy is a bad habit, but yet he won't demonstrate that he believes what he says by posting his history. Heck, all he has to do is screenshot (or copy/paste) everything from https://history.google.com/history to prove he's not "dishonest". And if "knowledge is inherently good" then it would be inherently good to know that he is not actively trying to subvert the government by browsing certain sites or reading certain books. It reads like someone drunk on idealism that believes information will never be distorted, used against them, misapplied, interjected with false data, and so on.
"doesn't mean that he has to facilitate its erosion"
It's not facilitating the erosion, it's adding evidence that what he says is backed up by fact, starting with himself. If he does not believe he should follow his own ideals, does he really believe them?
"doesn't mean that he has to facilitate its erosion"
It's not facilitating the erosion, it's adding evidence that what he says is backed up by fact, starting with himself. If he does not believe he should follow his own ideals, does he really believe them?