This strikes me as an extremist viewpoint. Portraying oneself more conservatively in less familiar company is often essential. Indeed, in some cases (private thoughts, for instance) the only appropriate company with which to share is oneself.
He's trying to create a debate around the topic as if there's some fundamental change to human behavior occurring here, when in fact nothing has changed, in fact the necessity for privacy has been nothing but reinforced. The irony is he probably has one of the most guarded public vs private personas on facebook. Total BS
People's reaction to the 'less conservative' aspects of each other would have to change if there was no way of hiding them. It is rather analogous to gay people 'coming out of the closet' and the whole gay rights movement but applied to a whole spectrum of preferences and proclivities. People's prejudices will eventually dissipate, especially when they are most likely 'coming out' in some way themselves. In fact those that genuinely are conservative in every area will probably find themselves in a minority. Of course if people have really bad secrets like they are a wife beater of something then this is unlikely to be accepted and there would rightly be moves to stop that behavior.
Has this ever happened anywhere? We've already seen absence of privacy in tribal societies, and those are exceptionally bad places to fail to conform. Only cities are large and anonymous enough to allow eccentrics to go unnoticed and thrive, which is what makes cities the wellsprings of prosperous liberal societies.
> It is rather analogous to gay people 'coming out of the closet'
Some of whom were murdered for it. There are still only a few areas (large cities, of course) where they are relatively safe. And it took them two generations just to achieve that!
Probably whenever significant technological/social change occurs.
> We've already seen absence of privacy in tribal societies, and those are exceptionally bad places to fail to conform. Only cities are large and anonymous enough to allow eccentrics to go unnoticed and thrive, which is what makes cities the wellsprings of prosperous liberal societies.
I think you could argue this in many ways. Are you arguing that increased privacy played a role in the development of civilisation? It's in interesting idea but I don't see much supporting evidence.
> Some of whom were murdered for it. There are still only a few areas (large cities, of course) where they are relatively safe. And it took them two generations just to achieve that!
Should we go back and stop it?
Not knowing stuff is vital to professional relationships. If I go to see a surgeon I don't want to see a compete record of all the stupid things he did while drunk at university. For that matter I don't want my children someday to see all the stupid things I did while drunk at university.
> If I go to see a surgeon I don't want to see a compete record of all the stupid things he did while drunk at university.
If it's irrelevant then it's spam. If it's relevant then it's useful. I'd want whatever data could help me make the best decision regarding surgery.