Well, that’s a complex topic that can’t possibly be done justice to in a brief comment. But to put it as succinctly as possible, modern governments are already so powerful that given the existing means at their disposal, additional surveillance won’t change things much. Your argument can in fact be used to argue against its relevance—all the sundry 20th century totalitarians had no problem doing what they did without any surveillance technology to speak of.
My view, which would take much more space than is available here to support by solid arguments, is that the modern Western system of government will continue sliding gradually along the same path as now, determined by bureaucratic inertia and the opinions fashionable among high-status groups; both these things are fairly predictable, as far as any large-scale predictions about human affairs go. Whether these developments should be counted as good or bad, depends on many difficult, controversial, and/or subjective judgments, but realistically, even though I’m inclined towards the latter view, I think anyone with a little prudence will be able to continue living fairly comfortably under the government’s radar for the foreseeable future. Even in the conceivable scenarios that might end up in major instability and uncertain outcomes, I don’t think surveillance technology will matter much when it comes to the trouble that awaits us in such cases.
On the other hand, I see a very realistic prospect of social norms developing towards a zero-privacy world, where there would be no Orwellian thought police coming after you, but you would be expected to maintain a detailed public log of your life—theoretically voluntarily, but under the threat of shunning and unemployability in case you refuse it. Already, employers, school admissions bureaucrats, etc. are routinely searching through people’s trails left on Facebook and Google. What happens when an even greater portion of one’s life will be customarily posted online? How long before not having a rich online trail is considered weird and suspect by itself?
Already, an easily googlable faux pas will be a horrible millstone around your neck for the rest of your life, even if the government couldn’t care less about it. What will happen when far more stuff is online, and searchable in far more powerful ways?
Already, employers, school admissions bureaucrats, etc. are routinely searching through people’s trails left on Facebook and Google. What happens when an even greater portion of one’s life will be customarily posted online? How long before not having a rich online trail is considered weird and suspect by itself?
While we’re simply stating our beliefs...
I view this as merely a transition period. You say we cannot both maintain our old puritanical public standards and ever increasing public disclosure. I agree.
However, the latter is driven by powerful and deep economic & technological & social trends, and the former is a weak creature of habit and tradition which has demonstrated in the 20th century its extreme malleability (just look at homosexuality!).
It is a case of a movable object meeting an unstoppable force; the standards will be forced to change. A 10 year old growing up now would not judge harshly an old faux pas online, even if the 30 and 40 year olds currently in charge would and do now judge harshly. Those 30 and 40 year olds’ time is numbered.
On the whole, I don’t think that people are becoming more tolerant of disreputable behaviors and opinions, or that they are likely to become so in the future—or even that the set of disreputable traits will become significantly smaller, though its composition undoubtedly will change. Every human society has its taboos and strong status markers attached to various behaviors and opinions in a manner that seems whimsical to outsiders; it’s just that for the last few decades, the set of behaviors and opinions considered disreputable has changed a lot in Western societies. (The situation is also confused by the fact that, similar to its inconsistent idealization of selectively applied “free-thinking,” our culture has developed a strange inconsistent fondness for selectively applied “tolerance” as a virtue in its own right.)
Of course, those whose opinions, preferences, and abilities are more in line with the new norms have every reason to be happy, and to them, it will look as if things have become more free and tolerant indeed. Trouble is, this is also why it’s usually futile to argue the opposite: even by merely pointing out those things where you are now under greater constraint by social norms than before, you can’t avoid the automatic status-lowering association with such things and the resulting derision and/or condemnation.
Realistically, the new generations will react to reduced privacy by instinctively increasing conformity, not tolerance. Ultimately, I would speculate that in a world populated by folks who lack the very idea of having a private sphere where you can allow yourself to do or say something that you wouldn’t want to be broadcast publicly, the level of tolerance would in fact go way down, since typical people would be brought up with an unrelenting focus on watching their mouth and their behavior, and lack any personal experience of the satisfaction of breaking a norm when no one untrusted is watching.
On the whole, I don’t think that people are becoming more tolerant of disreputable behaviors and opinions, or that they are likely to become so in the future—or even that the set of disreputable traits will become significantly smaller, though its composition undoubtedly will change.
It is commonly said that status competition is zero-sum. This seems a more certain invariant than what you just wrote above. If that’s the case, then any change in the degree of tolerance will be perfectly matched by a corresponding change in the degree of conformity—and vice versa.
The picture you paint, however, is of the average person becoming more of a pariah, more unemployable, fewer friends, because they are haunted by that one ineradicable disreputable behavior in their past. This picture violates the assumption that status competition is zero-sum—an assumption which I have a stronger confidence in than I do in your claim that we are not going to become “more tolerant”. In fact your claim is ambiguous, because there is surely no canonical way to compare different sets of taboo behavior so that the degree of tolerance of different cultures can be compared. It is a similar problem to the problem of adjusting for inflation with price indexes. I have more confidence in our ability to measure, and compare, the fraction of the population relegated to low status (eg unemployability), than I do in our ability to measure, and compare, the magnitudes of the sets of taboos of different societies.
The picture you paint, however, is of the average person becoming more of a pariah, more unemployable, fewer friends, because they are haunted by that one ineradicable disreputable behavior in their past.
Maybe I failed to make my point clearly, but that is not what I had in mind. The picture I paint is of the average person becoming far more cautious and conformist, and of a society where various contrarians and others with unconventional opinions and preferences have no outlet at all for speaking their mind or indulging their preferences.
Average folks would presumably remain functioning normally (within whatever the definition of normality will be), only in a constant and unceasing state of far greater caution, hiding any dangerous thoughts they might have at all times and places. The number of people who actually ruin their lives by making a mistake that will haunt them forever won’t necessarily be that high; the unceasing suffocating control of everyone’s life will be the main problem.
What the society might end up looking like after everyone has grown up in a no-privacy world, we can only speculate. It would certainly not involve anything similar to the relations between people we know nowadays. (For example, you speak of friends—but at least for me, a key part of the definition of a close friend vs. friend vs. mere acquaintance is the level of confidentiality I can practice with the person in question. I’m not sure if the concept can exist in any meaningful form in a world without privacy.)
In fact your claim is ambiguous, because there is surely no canonical way to compare different sets of taboo behavior so that the degree of tolerance of different cultures can be compared. It is a similar problem to the problem of adjusting for inflation with price indexes.
That’s a very good analogy! But note that none of my claims depend on any exact comparison of levels of tolerance. Ultimately, the important question is whether, in a future Brinesque transparent society, there would exist taboo opinions and preferences whose inevitable suppression would be undesirable by some reasonable criteria. I believe the answer is yes, and that it is unreasonably optimistic to believe that such a society would become so tolerant and libertarian that nothing would get suppressed except things that rightfully should be, like violent crime. (And ultimately, I believe that such unwarranted optimism typically has its roots in the same biases that commonly make people believe that the modern world is on an unprecedented path of increasing freedom and tolerance.)
There is of course also the issue of thoughts and words that are dangerous due to people’s specific personal circumstances, which is more or less orthogonal to the problem of social norms and taboos (as discussed in the third point of this comment).
Thanks—I have nothing specifically in reply. Just to be clear about where I’m coming from, while I am not convinced that the future will unfold as you describe, neither am I convinced that it will not. So, I agree with you that popular failure to devote any attention to the scenario is myopic.
I’ll throw some complexity in—those social standards change, sometimes as a result of deliberate action, sometimes as a matter of random factors.
The most notable recent example is prejudice against homosexuality getting considerably toned down.
I agree that there’s a chance that just not having a public record of oneself mightl be considered to be suspicious.
I’m hoping that the loss of privacy will lead to a more accurate understanding of what people are really like, and more reasonable standards, but I’m not counting on it.
Well, that’s a complex topic that can’t possibly be done justice to in a brief comment. But to put it as succinctly as possible, modern governments are already so powerful that given the existing means at their disposal, additional surveillance won’t change things much. Your argument can in fact be used to argue against its relevance—all the sundry 20th century totalitarians had no problem doing what they did without any surveillance technology to speak of.
My view, which would take much more space than is available here to support by solid arguments, is that the modern Western system of government will continue sliding gradually along the same path as now, determined by bureaucratic inertia and the opinions fashionable among high-status groups; both these things are fairly predictable, as far as any large-scale predictions about human affairs go. Whether these developments should be counted as good or bad, depends on many difficult, controversial, and/or subjective judgments, but realistically, even though I’m inclined towards the latter view, I think anyone with a little prudence will be able to continue living fairly comfortably under the government’s radar for the foreseeable future. Even in the conceivable scenarios that might end up in major instability and uncertain outcomes, I don’t think surveillance technology will matter much when it comes to the trouble that awaits us in such cases.
On the other hand, I see a very realistic prospect of social norms developing towards a zero-privacy world, where there would be no Orwellian thought police coming after you, but you would be expected to maintain a detailed public log of your life—theoretically voluntarily, but under the threat of shunning and unemployability in case you refuse it. Already, employers, school admissions bureaucrats, etc. are routinely searching through people’s trails left on Facebook and Google. What happens when an even greater portion of one’s life will be customarily posted online? How long before not having a rich online trail is considered weird and suspect by itself?
Already, an easily googlable faux pas will be a horrible millstone around your neck for the rest of your life, even if the government couldn’t care less about it. What will happen when far more stuff is online, and searchable in far more powerful ways?
While we’re simply stating our beliefs...
I view this as merely a transition period. You say we cannot both maintain our old puritanical public standards and ever increasing public disclosure. I agree.
However, the latter is driven by powerful and deep economic & technological & social trends, and the former is a weak creature of habit and tradition which has demonstrated in the 20th century its extreme malleability (just look at homosexuality!).
It is a case of a movable object meeting an unstoppable force; the standards will be forced to change. A 10 year old growing up now would not judge harshly an old faux pas online, even if the 30 and 40 year olds currently in charge would and do now judge harshly. Those 30 and 40 year olds’ time is numbered.
On the whole, I don’t think that people are becoming more tolerant of disreputable behaviors and opinions, or that they are likely to become so in the future—or even that the set of disreputable traits will become significantly smaller, though its composition undoubtedly will change. Every human society has its taboos and strong status markers attached to various behaviors and opinions in a manner that seems whimsical to outsiders; it’s just that for the last few decades, the set of behaviors and opinions considered disreputable has changed a lot in Western societies. (The situation is also confused by the fact that, similar to its inconsistent idealization of selectively applied “free-thinking,” our culture has developed a strange inconsistent fondness for selectively applied “tolerance” as a virtue in its own right.)
Of course, those whose opinions, preferences, and abilities are more in line with the new norms have every reason to be happy, and to them, it will look as if things have become more free and tolerant indeed. Trouble is, this is also why it’s usually futile to argue the opposite: even by merely pointing out those things where you are now under greater constraint by social norms than before, you can’t avoid the automatic status-lowering association with such things and the resulting derision and/or condemnation.
Realistically, the new generations will react to reduced privacy by instinctively increasing conformity, not tolerance. Ultimately, I would speculate that in a world populated by folks who lack the very idea of having a private sphere where you can allow yourself to do or say something that you wouldn’t want to be broadcast publicly, the level of tolerance would in fact go way down, since typical people would be brought up with an unrelenting focus on watching their mouth and their behavior, and lack any personal experience of the satisfaction of breaking a norm when no one untrusted is watching.
It is commonly said that status competition is zero-sum. This seems a more certain invariant than what you just wrote above. If that’s the case, then any change in the degree of tolerance will be perfectly matched by a corresponding change in the degree of conformity—and vice versa.
The picture you paint, however, is of the average person becoming more of a pariah, more unemployable, fewer friends, because they are haunted by that one ineradicable disreputable behavior in their past. This picture violates the assumption that status competition is zero-sum—an assumption which I have a stronger confidence in than I do in your claim that we are not going to become “more tolerant”. In fact your claim is ambiguous, because there is surely no canonical way to compare different sets of taboo behavior so that the degree of tolerance of different cultures can be compared. It is a similar problem to the problem of adjusting for inflation with price indexes. I have more confidence in our ability to measure, and compare, the fraction of the population relegated to low status (eg unemployability), than I do in our ability to measure, and compare, the magnitudes of the sets of taboos of different societies.
If there are a lot of pariahs in a connected world, then they will form their own subcultures.
Constant:
Maybe I failed to make my point clearly, but that is not what I had in mind. The picture I paint is of the average person becoming far more cautious and conformist, and of a society where various contrarians and others with unconventional opinions and preferences have no outlet at all for speaking their mind or indulging their preferences.
Average folks would presumably remain functioning normally (within whatever the definition of normality will be), only in a constant and unceasing state of far greater caution, hiding any dangerous thoughts they might have at all times and places. The number of people who actually ruin their lives by making a mistake that will haunt them forever won’t necessarily be that high; the unceasing suffocating control of everyone’s life will be the main problem.
What the society might end up looking like after everyone has grown up in a no-privacy world, we can only speculate. It would certainly not involve anything similar to the relations between people we know nowadays. (For example, you speak of friends—but at least for me, a key part of the definition of a close friend vs. friend vs. mere acquaintance is the level of confidentiality I can practice with the person in question. I’m not sure if the concept can exist in any meaningful form in a world without privacy.)
That’s a very good analogy! But note that none of my claims depend on any exact comparison of levels of tolerance. Ultimately, the important question is whether, in a future Brinesque transparent society, there would exist taboo opinions and preferences whose inevitable suppression would be undesirable by some reasonable criteria. I believe the answer is yes, and that it is unreasonably optimistic to believe that such a society would become so tolerant and libertarian that nothing would get suppressed except things that rightfully should be, like violent crime. (And ultimately, I believe that such unwarranted optimism typically has its roots in the same biases that commonly make people believe that the modern world is on an unprecedented path of increasing freedom and tolerance.)
There is of course also the issue of thoughts and words that are dangerous due to people’s specific personal circumstances, which is more or less orthogonal to the problem of social norms and taboos (as discussed in the third point of this comment).
Thanks—I have nothing specifically in reply. Just to be clear about where I’m coming from, while I am not convinced that the future will unfold as you describe, neither am I convinced that it will not. So, I agree with you that popular failure to devote any attention to the scenario is myopic.
The interesting thing is that is isn’t just going to be reasonable individual choices.
I assume there will be serious social pressure to take some faux pas seriously and ignore others.
I’ll throw some complexity in—those social standards change, sometimes as a result of deliberate action, sometimes as a matter of random factors.
The most notable recent example is prejudice against homosexuality getting considerably toned down.
I agree that there’s a chance that just not having a public record of oneself mightl be considered to be suspicious.
I’m hoping that the loss of privacy will lead to a more accurate understanding of what people are really like, and more reasonable standards, but I’m not counting on it.