Can i have password to your account, please?

Let me guess you are straight white male with no history or worker organizing or any kind of “illegal” activity.

Tell us;

• All your passwords including of your financial things like bank accounts.
• Your family problems, sexual life style and inheritance.
• Show us your intimate pictures.

You hate privacy right, so you don’t need that kind of privacy either. Anyway, this seems to be more of a bait post than anything else.

People deserve privacy because there are many things they want to protect, and it’s their prerogative on how much they’re willing to share.

A lot of the things we hide could be used to hurt us if someone with malicious intent had access to them. Our account logins, our bank accounts, ways to access our houses.

You are so awesome. Not a single fault in your conviction, your reasoning, or your personality. Who among us mere mortals could ever change your mind? The answer: none. Because we do not hold a candle to you or we simply do not care. Thank you for rage baiting with us today.

You’re using an alias, so your first sentence is already a lie.

But it doesn’t matter. Complete transparency would be a death sentence for all political opponents under authoritarian regimes. It would be a huge risk for them elsewhere.

It would allow companies that control the Web infrastructures and its software to have even more power over the Internet users.

It would make many technologies completely useless or unusable: online banking, electronic votes… Wikipedia would be dead, that would be a major setback

Tell me your dick size and will tell you why you need privacy.

most argumentation from your side is just common trolling or logical fallacies, which makes me think that I’m correct.

This, itself, is a logical fallacy. A fallacious argument is not “incorrect” or “wrong” it’s just invalid, meaning it does not meet the formal requirements of logical validity, not much else. Things can be both fallacious and correct.

There are many things that should be public: laws, standards, political donations.

Some things are beneficial when public, but are considered acceptable to be private: source code, recipes, political opinions, criminal history.

Some things can cause significant harm if not kept private: passwords, home address, government issued id, Jewish heritage during WW2.

“I need privacy, not because my actions are questionable, but because your judgement and intentions are.”

Tell me your views on if children deserve privacy?

Number 1 argument for me is, your data can be used to manipulate you, postly politically. You might not be a big target because you use Lemmy and linux and a vpn or whatever but other people that are not interested in tech are

Even if its not political manipulation, maybe its optimizing ads so you buy more. Which then can be used to manipulate you politically as you lack the funds to stand up for your morals. And even if you personally do, because you might have a privileged background, others might not and for them its absolutely worth fighting for.

Benn Jordan has a great video about it

I think I understand the theory behind your idea, as in not that a single person or a group of people be transparent and open, but that everyone do it at the same time. It can lead to interesting discussion.

I think it falls apart because it would also require the immediate disappearance of bad faith and mistakes. Let’s say your real name is public. A bad actor could call up your bank, tell them your name, security questions (your dog’s name or whatever, since the animal adoption records would also be public), your account number (which is already more or less public today), and get access to your money. If they don’t do it right away, call back later with even more info and socially engineer customer support to get in.

Then there are marginalised groups of people who are in danger every day when they’re in public because of race, gender, religion, etc depending on location. If all that was public also, they’d get attacked even more on the regular.

What about when someone is critical of a government that while public to the degree of your preference, is in a great degree of control over the population by means of public funding restriction or fines? The existence of that person or group would be inconvenient at best to them, so they could just find out everything about the group, track them down and disappear them. Yes, that would be public as well, but the rest of the population would be too scared to do anything about it.

Also for me personally, I’m not interested in the input of other people about how I live, what I do and how I spend my money. And definitely not interested in any ads tailored to me based on my data.

So, you love absolute transparency, but you hate privacy. Alright. Then you will answer my questions truthfully.

Where do you live? How much income do you have per month? What is your bank account number? Do you use VISA or Mastercard? What is your credit card number including the expiration date and the CVC?

And no, I am not a troll, troll.

Please send me login info (login+password+otp) for all your email accounts, instant messaging accounts, social media accounts etc and allow me to peruse (and maybe publish). Consider yourself lawyered.

Hey, appreciate you opening the floor for genuine discussion. I’ll do my best to give you real arguments rather than the usual noise you’ve probably encountered.

First, a key distinction that often gets muddled: Privacy isn’t secrecy. Nobody’s arguing for a right to conceal wrongdoing. Privacy is about control over information flow—deciding when, to whom, and how much you disclose. Rejecting privacy because some people use it to hide bad things is like rejecting doors because some people lock them for bad reasons.

The power asymmetry problem: “Absolute openness for everyone” sounds egalitarian, but in practice it creates an infrastructure that benefits the powerful. If all transactions, communications, and associations are public, who has the resources to actually exploit that data? Corporations for profiling, governments for political monitoring, employers for discrimination, insurers for risk assessment. Ordinary people can’t process or act on that ocean of data—but Facebook, Google, and state agencies sure can. So paradoxically, radical transparency tends to increase power concentration rather than flatten it.

Chilling effects are real and documented: When people know they’re being observed, they self-censor. This affects dissent, minority viewpoints, identity exploration, support group participation, even just the freedom to make mistakes and grow. There’s a reason secret ballots exist—transparency in how you voted would enable intimidation. The principle scales.

The open source thing is interesting: You mention using mostly open-source software, which is itself a privacy-preserving choice. Open source lets you audit what your software does, resist opaque surveillance, and maintain control over your computing environment. So you’re already practicing a form of privacy advocacy at the infrastructure level, even if you reject it at the personal data level. Maybe the tension is that you want institutional transparency (governments, corporations accountable to the public) but don’t see the need for personal privacy—and those aren’t actually in conflict. You can want both.

**On being statistically outnumbered: **Fair point that majority opinion isn’t proof of correctness. But I’d suggest the pushback you’re seeing isn’t purely ideological—many people arrive at privacy preferences through lived experience: harassment, doxxing, stalking, discrimination, political persecution, identity theft. These aren’t hypothetical edge cases.

What I’d genuinely propose instead of absolute openness: Contextual integrity—the idea that information flows are appropriate when they respect social context. Your health data belongs with your doctor, not advertisers. Political donations belong with regulators for accountability, but not necessarily with your employer. Corporate filings should be public, but your browsing history shouldn’t.

The real question isn’t “privacy vs. transparency” but “what deserves transparency and what deserves protection?” And those answers differ depending on whether we’re talking about a government official’s finances or a regular person’s medical records.

I’m curious though—what specifically drives your transparency preference? Is it institutional accountability? A belief that human nature handles openness well? Something else? I’d like to understand the steel-manned version of your position better, because I think there’s a real conversation to be had about where the lines should actually be drawn.

I suggest you see this video: nbtv.media/…/i-have-nothing-to-hide-the-dangerous…

It’s nice to have dreams, but in current society, with human nature, this dream of full transparency is never gonna work. Even if I believe people to be inherently good, you can never count on altruism (on a large scale).

So, when they come to your door in 1943 and ask if Anne Frank is upstairs, you’ll be fully transparent.

common trolling or logical fallacies

You can practice transparency extremism on yourself. Your life your choices.

But don’t you think making others share everything against their will is unethical?

I wouldn’t try to convince you to hate privacy. Honestly I envy you. Being privacy-conscious is increasingly difficult, expensive, and honestly sucks a whole lot.

Give me all of your account passwords, right now.

The first thing the Nazis did when they marched into the Netherlands, the took the religious information from the citizens register to deport all Jews.

Oppressive regimes are using information to track down dissidents and let them vanish.

If you want to blast out every detail of your life, be m guest.

But forcing your idea of life and safety down everyone’s throught is not the way to go.

Another way to think about this whole privacy debate is something I see way too rarely in non-European and English-speaking communities: data protection. Sometimes you don’t care if others know this or that, but knowledge is power, and knowledge about you is power over you.

Example: An employer might not employ you because they find out that you have mental health issues. In Germany, an employer cannot legally request this information, but if you were transparent about it from the beginning, you might have a hard time finding a job.

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_auf_Lüge

Also, don’t feel down because of the downvotes; some people are apparently afraid of “(…) polite and fruitful discussion” and would rather suppress opinions they disagree with.

This ideology only works in a world where authority as a concept doesn’t exist. If humanity ever achieves a global anarchist utopia, then you can try this idea out.

Until then, those with less power benefit immensely from hiding their identity from those with great power. Today, people in many nations live under increasingly invasive surveillance. This surveillance serves to prevent them from reacting to their material conditions (labor organizing, protesting, any sort of resistance).

I think you might agree that anything that prevents a person from adapting to changing material conditions is a bad thing. It creates a life of suffering and oppression that is inescapable. Privacy mitigates this by allowing the oppressed to resist this effect without experiencing the retaliation of the oppressors.

In summary, the need for privacy exists as a hedge against authoritarianism. If humanity manages to organize in such a way where that is no longer a problem, THEN this conversation might be more interesting.

I disagree but like the discourse