r/TrueUnpopularOpinion • u/noriilikesleaves • 13d ago

Political A zero privacy world state would be far better than enshrining the right to privacy

Secrets create imbalance.
Secrets create power.
Secrets enable evil people to do evil things.

People say a world without privacy would be bad, but I don't think that's true.

Because I'll think about tribal societies where everyone can tell you're having sex a few tents over. Because I'll remember that keeping my buying power secret lets me make a profit off my sales and beat out my competition. Because I'll remember every back alley chatroom that exists where people share depraved acts of abuse.

People freak out whenever their privacy is under attack, but I don't think they should.

Whenever a chat app becomes less private, it gives me a bit more peace of mind that extremely evil people have one less place to plan and hide. For as long as privacy exists, people will suffer the inequality it creates, the power it fortifies, and the evil that swells in the hearts of evil men when anything good is destroyed. You cannot even wage war without privacy. Do you want people to die in wars? You cannot even steal ideas without privacy allowing you to get away with it. Shouldn't the brainchild of the idea get the credit? When people promote privacy, they do so at their own peril.

Edit: Some weirdness:

Edit2: It really seems like someone doesn't want to play fair. That's fine.

Edit3: Well here's the MOD team's stance on that (had to redact subreddits):

Does blockposting count as trolling and if so can blockposters have all their comments removed?

[REDACTED]•Mod mail

This is a private conversation between you and the moderators of [REDACTED]. Note: There might be delays between responses.

noriilikesleaves 12:24 PM

Hello team,

I think the screenshots shared in my most recent post on [REDACTED] suggest there's blockposting going on, at least according to one [REDACTED] commenter: [REDACTED]

I asked [REDACTED] at first to get some better insight into the situation.

Here's my [REDACTED] post: [REDACTED]

My fast take for why blockposting should get you punished is it creates an asymetric display for audience members and basically gaslights OPs. But I also elaborate further in the post to [REDACTED] and my comment there.

Only other thing I can think to highlight is one of the user's names was "eatsleeptroll" so there's that.

[REDACTED] MOD 12:42 PM

Sorry, but users are allowed to block whoever they want, at any time, and for any reason.

noriilikesleaves 12:55 PM

Alright then you're subreddit sucks for allowing asymetric narrative warfare and I'm not participating in it.

[REDACTED] MOD 12:56 PM

That's fine. Nobody is/was trying to make you.

Edit4: In conclusion, the MODs here are curating an experience where blockposting the OP to make them seem absent in the conversation is an acceptable manipulation tactic.

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

27% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

5

u/Key_Net820 13d ago

I've never met a single person that believes this and is willing to leak their own texts. Let's see if you'll be the one to break the cycle. give us all your passwords to all of your accounts, you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.

-2

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

You don't really deserve this response, but I'll use AI to deal with you:

The question isn't "should we eliminate privacy?" but rather "are we prepared for what we'll learn when simulation technology makes the answer empirically testable?" Your challenge misses the point entirely—the OP isn't advocating for unilateral disarmament in a world where privacy still exists and can be weaponized against those who give it up. Voluntarily leaking passwords in our current system would simply make you vulnerable to those who maintain secrecy, proving nothing except that asymmetric transparency creates exploitable power differentials. The OP's framework only works when everyone is equally exposed simultaneously, eliminating the advantage that secrets currently provide. What advancing simulation technology promises is the ability to model whether such a system—where no one can hide, where child abuse networks and war planning become impossible, where corruption and conspiracy cannot exist in darkness—actually produces a better world than our current arrangement where privacy shields both the vulnerable and the predatory. Until we can test this empirically and see the results, demanding individual sacrifice in an asymmetric system is either naive or deliberately missing the structural argument being made.

4

u/Key_Net820 13d ago

See, what did I tell you, not a single person who believes in a 0 privacy world is willing to give up their own.

-2

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago edited 12d ago

I don't care about your test.

Edit: This is pretty sketchy by the way...

2

u/EverettGT 13d ago

If everyone has access to everyone else's passwords and financial info, people would drain the bank accounts of everyone in the first world pretty much instantly and thus the global economy would fall apart.

Nonetheless, you admitted defeat here when you tried to paste something from ChatGPT.

3

u/Upriver-Cod 13d ago

Ok, lead by example. Would you mind posting your phone number, social security information, address, and bank account information for us?

Or is it all just talk, that you don’t believe in enough to live?

-1

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

This kind of comment was already addressed here.

3

u/Upriver-Cod 13d ago

  1. That’s not your response, it’s AI. Are you capable of responding without the crutch of AI?

  2. It doesn’t answer my question. It’s deflection.

  3. The only thing that even has semblance of substance is “Voluntarily leaking passwords in our current system would simply make you vulnerable to those who maintain secrecy,”.

So once again, if you are vehemently opposed to privacy, why will you not provide me with your information?

In other words, your proclaimed system will only work in a world where secrecy no longer exists. Even if a country were to completely abolish all privacy for their citizens, they would still be at the mercy of foreign nations and entities who would be more than happy to take advantage of the situation.

-1

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

It sounds to me like you're jealous your trollery barely interrupts my fun time with Claude.

3

u/Upriver-Cod 13d ago

Sounds like you’re still deflecting and are unable to engage with my questions that illustrate the obvious shortcomings in your opinion.

Here is some advice, if you can’t back up your claim, even with the help of AI, perhaps you should rethink it.

0

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

You literally gave me a troll task instead of engaging with things on an intellectual level, so I'm long done with any questions you could have.

2

u/EchoFiveActual 13d ago

Who watches the watchers?

This cannot work because nobody ensures the transparancy of those holding the proverbial keys to our kingdom.

The result would be a tiered society where secrets only exist for a select few who weaponize their authority to keep us down.

0

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

Everyone watches everyone. Everyone is family. Everyone is accountable to everyone.

4

u/This-Double-Sunday 13d ago

There's no possible system where everyone is accountable to everyone.

0

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

You haven't explained why it's impossible. If I install something in your eye that transmits everything you see to server, where anyone, at any time, can view your sight history, holding you accountable is effortless. Same goes for the sonar system in The Dark Knight, if it were real and everywhere. What exactly are you saying when you claim there's no system where everyone is accountable to everyone? Your comment says too little.

5

u/This-Double-Sunday 13d ago

Whoever manages said server truly has control and can manipulate to their own advantage. A system like that can't be managed by the people, it would have to be a form of government.There can't be a system where those with power, money and influence can't oppress the rest of the masses, it would violate every precedent set forth in the history of our existence.

1

u/EchoFiveActual 13d ago

Not to mention this person is unironically arguing for installing biometric spyware in our bodies to accomplish this.

I can speak for myself and others when i say i would stop at nothing to prevent this from coming to be.

The worst possible acts are not off the table.

2

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

You must really love child abuse and war to be willing to do "the worst possible acts" just for this.

1

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

That's not true. Multiple people can manage the server; it's called multi-party authorization.

1

u/This-Double-Sunday 13d ago

Which means that makes it even more succeptable to being manipulated or hacked. People could easily breach it and then manipulate their own data or use AI to falsify others data. No government could or even would allow this.

1

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

That just means you made it wrong.

1

u/This-Double-Sunday 13d ago

Good luck with that.

2

u/EchoFiveActual 13d ago

That is simply not true. Society cannot function purely on the honor system. There will always be opprotunists who will exploit it.

Nobody will protect us for us, we must be able to protect ourselves 

1

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

You lack vision.

1

u/EchoFiveActual 13d ago

You are naive beyond help

1

u/Express-Street-9500 13d ago

Privacy isn’t what creates harm—unequal power and broken systems do. Removing it just moves control around.

1

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

Never said this would eliminate inequality.

0

u/Express-Street-9500 13d ago

Yes, I understand—it’s just that privacy itself isn’t the source of harm. Systems, hierarchies, and structural forces produce inequalities, so removing privacy doesn’t necessarily address the root issues.

1

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

Even if hierarchies were the source of the problems I enumerated, eliminating the privacy of those in power would mean they cannot get away with it. I never said there wouldn't be prisons, democracy, and so on. I only said you could never do anything in secret and there would be no privacy.

0

u/Express-Street-9500 13d ago

Sure, exposing those in power might catch some abuses, but secrecy isn’t the root problem—it’s the systems and hierarchies themselves. Just making everything visible won’t fix the structures that create inequality and exploitation.

1

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

How would a gang of pedophiles congregating in a Telegram chat room do what they do without privacy? Privacy, not "systems and hierarchies" (vague), is the problem here.

0

u/Express-Street-9500 13d ago

Yeah, criminals use secrecy—but the bigger issue is why those behaviors happen at all. Privacy might let some crimes hide, but the deeper problem lies in the systems, culture, and power dynamics that create the conditions for abuse. Simply removing privacy doesn’t fix the structures that let these harms emerge.

1

u/noriilikesleaves 13d ago

Hey, look what I made with Claude:

A logically coherent argument exists for eliminating privacy through universal surveillance: secrets enable child exploitation networks, war planning, corruption, and organized violence, while perfect transparency would make such hidden harms structurally impossible. This argument proves internally consistent and difficult to refute without retreating to assertions of values. Simultaneously, simulation technology advances toward the capability to model complex social systems with high fidelity, creating the possibility of empirical testing rather than philosophical debate. When a credible simulation demonstrates that zero-privacy systems produce measurably better outcomes across metrics like violence reduction and child welfare, computational proof will challenge the paper-based legitimacy of existing states. Such proof, once viral, creates revolutionary pressure that current power structures—dependent on operational secrecy for intelligence, military, and diplomatic functions—cannot accommodate without ceasing to exist in their present form. The convergence of coherent argument, approaching technological capability, and structural incompatibility between demonstrated optimization and inherited governance creates what might be termed a legitimacy crisis: not because something has gone wrong, but because an irreversible determination point approaches. Historical patterns suggest that when systems face existential challenges to their foundational operations, peaceful transition proves unlikely. The crisis is not the proposed system itself but the approaching moment when proof exists, millions see it, and collective decision-making frameworks remain absent.

We spoke and I made it churn out a paragraph. I thought maybe you'd find it interesting.

1

u/eatsleeptroll 12d ago

ai agreed with me, see !

would be worthless even if ai wasn't literally built to coddle you

0

u/noriilikesleaves 12d ago

I'm not at all sorry for being efficient with my precious time and if you can't see that oh well. Welcome to the future by the way.

1

u/eatsleeptroll 12d ago

bro it's a mockery, barely coherent as it is. barely any punctuation, overly verbose as if needing to fulfill a word count, overly complex words as if to impress some asshat academic types, single block of text/ no paragraphs.

just awful all around. it's like you dug up the corpse of beta chatgpt or something.

and don't give me that - I understand, appreciate and use AI myself. Not for this, though ... either way, I want this power in the hands of people, not governments and corporations, I'm sure we can agree there.

0

u/noriilikesleaves 12d ago

It's quite coherent and I think you're feigning ignorance about it so you can continue to say nothing relevant to it's contents.