Last Updated on 2025-03-20 by Joop Beris
Sometimes you have one of those “What the hell did I just read?” moments. One of those moments for me was earlier this week when someone shared the manifesto “Abolish privacy” with me. People who read my blog, know that I have pretty strong opinions on privacy and I have addressed the topic here many times. At first I thought that I was reading parody or something generated by a Postmodernism Generator. But no, the authors are apparently serious about wanting to do away with online privacy and the reasons for those are…let’s call them special. Below is my critique of the manifesto.
Radical argument
The manifesto titled “Abolish Privacy” presents a radical argument that seeks to dismantle privacy as a concept, claiming it is exclusionary and rooted in liberal individualism. While the authors likely intend to provoke thought, their thesis is not only misguided but also dangerous. The abolition of privacy would lead to severe consequences for individuals, marginalized communities, and society as a whole. This response will systematically deconstruct the flaws in their argument, demonstrating why privacy is not only essential but must be strengthened rather than discarded.
A charitable reading
Before deconstructing the manifesto, lets’s take a charitable approach first to see if we can make the authors’ case more logically sound and defensible. A charitable reading might emphasize the following key poins:
- Privacy as a Tool for Exclusion and Power Imbalance
One could argue that privacy has historically been used as a mechanism of control, allowing those with power to hide their actions while leaving marginalized groups exposed. Wealthy elites and corporations benefit from financial secrecy, while governments demand ever-increasing surveillance over ordinary citizens. In this framing, abolishing privacy could mean dismantling these imbalances, ensuring that those in power are as accountable and transparent as everyone else. - Potential for a More Honest and Open Society
A privacy-free world could, in theory, lead to a society in which deception, corruption, and hidden oppression are no longer possible. If privacy is abolished equally, there would be no dark corners for abuse, manipulation, or covert oppression. Everyone would be held accountable for their actions, fostering a culture of radical honesty and reducing social injustices caused by secrecy and data ownership. - Privacy as a Barrier to Collective Solidarity
We could read the manifesto as arguing that privacy entrenches individualism at the expense of collective well-being. By insisting on personal boundaries, people reinforce isolation rather than fostering communal trust. If everything were transparent, people might become more cooperative, leading to a society where personal struggles are shared rather than hidden and where people feel a stronger sense of collective identity and responsibility. - The Case for Privacy Being a Temporary Social Construct
It might be suggested that privacy is a relatively modern invention, largely tied to capitalism and property ownership. Earlier human societies often functioned in more communal settings where personal space was minimal. If privacy is merely a temporary construct, perhaps it is not essential, and societies could transition to a post-privacy model without necessarily losing autonomy or dignity.
Problems with the charitable reading
Even when read in this charitable way, this manifesto faces serious challenges. It assumes that transparency would be equally enforced rather than selectively applied, which is unlikely. It also assumes that removing privacy would necessarily create trust rather than fear, and it overlooks the psychological necessity of private reflection and personal autonomy.
With that out of the way, let’s deconstruct the manifesto.
With that out of the way, let’s deconstruct the manifesto.
Flaws in the manifesto
1. No definitions
One of the most fundamental flaws of the manifesto is its failure to define what it means by “privacy.” Without a clear definition, the argument remains ambiguous and difficult to engage with meaningfully. Privacy can refer to multiple distinct concepts, including legal protections, personal autonomy, online security, and institutional secrecy. By neglecting to specify which aspects of privacy they seek to abolish, the authors make it nearly impossible to critique their claims directly, as their argument has no clear boundaries. A well-structured argument requires precise definitions, yet the manifesto’s broad dismissal of privacy as an exclusionary liberal entitlement renders it weak and unconvincing. Furthermore, their failure to define privacy ignores its varied cultural and historical significance and importance, as well as its crucial role in protecting marginalized groups.
2. One-sided and oversimplified approach
The assertion that privacy is inherently exclusionary is a gross oversimplification. Privacy rights have historically been a safeguard for the vulnerable, offering protection from authoritarianism, corporate overreach, and social persecution. The claim that privacy is a construct of liberal individualism ignores the fact that marginalized groups, such as political dissidents, LGBTQ+ individuals, and victims of abuse, rely on privacy to navigate hostile social and political environments. In many parts of the world, privacy is the only barrier between individuals and oppressive surveillance states that would otherwise crush dissent.
The survival of marginalized groups, both historically and in the present, often depends on their ability to keep certain aspects of their lives private. Enslaved peoples relied on secrecy to plan escapes and revolts; persecuted religious minorities have historically used clandestine gatherings to maintain their faith; and LGBTQ+ individuals, in regions where their identities are criminalized, depend on privacy to avoid violence and persecution. Indigenous communities worldwide have fought to keep their sacred practices and knowledge private, protecting them from cultural appropriation and colonial exploitation. The loss of privacy would not empower these groups—it would make them more vulnerable to control, suppression, and erasure.
3. Privacy is not unique to Western liberal traditions
Contrary to the claim in the manifesto, the notion of privacy is not unique to Western liberal traditions. Many pre-colonial societies placed great value on personal and communal privacy. In several African cultures, such as among the Igbo and Yoruba, personal space and the discretion of family matters were key elements of social structure. The concept of “inner compounds” in traditional African homes ensured that private matters were kept within family circles, reinforcing trust and autonomy. Similarly, in Indigenous North American societies, such as the Anishinaabe and Lakota, privacy was embedded in spiritual and social customs. Individuals had the right to retreat into nature for vision quests or private reflection without external intrusion. In many Asian societies, such as in feudal Japan, privacy was intertwined with concepts of honor and personal dignity, as seen in the carefully structured living spaces that allowed for personal contemplation and restricted access to certain areas within homes and temples. These examples demonstrate that privacy is not an invention of liberalism but a deeply human need recognized across cultures and historical periods.
4. Privacy is needed to form personality
The formation of personality and identity is also deeply tied to privacy. Without private spaces to reflect, experiment with different ideas, and engage in self-discovery, individuals are denied the ability to develop a strong sense of self. Privacy allows people to form their thoughts free from immediate external judgment, fostering independent thinking and creativity. It provides a necessary boundary between public and personal life, enabling individuals to process emotions, make decisions, and grow without fear of constant scrutiny. Removing privacy would mean subjecting every personal moment to external influence, preventing people from fully realizing their own individuality and autonomy.
5. Harm of privacy erosion
The manifesto also fails to acknowledge the tangible harms of privacy erosion. Consider the impact of mass surveillance. Governments and corporations, when left unchecked, exploit personal data for profit, political manipulation, and social control. The Cambridge Analytica scandal, for instance, exposed how data mining was used to influence democratic elections. The abolition of privacy would only accelerate such abuses, making individuals completely vulnerable to coercion, misinformation, and algorithmic control. The authors of the manifesto completely neglect to address these concerns.
6. False dichotomy
The manifesto conflates the idea of collective societal needs with the rejection of privacy, as if one cannot have both. This is a false dichotomy. Privacy does not have to come at the expense of community well-being; rather, it serves as a foundation for a free society. The ability to express oneself without fear of reprisal, to seek information without being monitored, and to communicate without undue scrutiny are all critical to both individual liberty and collective progress. A world without privacy would be a world where self-censorship is the norm, where free thought is stifled, and where those in power dictate the limits of acceptable discourse.
7. More egalitarian without privacy?
The manifesto assumes that eliminating privacy would somehow lead to a more egalitarian society. This is a deeply flawed premise. Historically, societies that have stripped away privacy have done so to consolidate power, not to distribute it more equitably. The rise of surveillance capitalism and authoritarian digital regimes demonstrates that when privacy disappears, control becomes concentrated in the hands of the few. The powerless do not gain more power in a privacy-free world; rather, they lose the few protections they had. The authors fail to provide any substantive mechanism by which abolishing privacy would lead to greater justice and equality.
8. The need for personal space
Finally, the argument against privacy overlooks the fundamental human need for personal space, autonomy, and dignity. Privacy is not merely a legal construct; it is a psychological and social necessity. People need private spaces to think, to reflect, and to engage in personal growth. To deny this is to deny the very essence of human agency. This need even goes beyond the human species, it goes for animals as well.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the manifesto’s call to abolish privacy is not just flawed but reckless. It disregards historical lessons, ignores the realities of surveillance abuses, and offers no viable alternative that safeguards individuals from harm. Rather than discarding privacy, society should focus on reinforcing and democratizing it, ensuring that privacy rights are accessible to all rather than eroded or abolished. If anything should be abolished, it is not privacy—but the systems that seek to exploit and undermine it. While I applaud the authors’ call for a new approach to online privacy, I fear their approach is not the way to go about it.