The disadvantages of an increasingly transparent world outweigh the advantages - guest speaker

As this debate’s guest speaker, I am not here to take side or express any virulent opinion, but simply to clarify the facts and give new perspectives. In this state of mind you will notice that I will not use as much rhetoric as my fellow debaters, not because I am not convinced about what I am about to say, but simply because I want to remain as unbiased and as neutral as possible. (Continues below the fold...)

by EM

First of all, I’d like to remind you of some basic debating rules. The challenge here is not to enumerate the drawbacks or advantages of an increasingly transparent world, but to woo the audience so that your side wins the debate. In this context, it would be interesting for both sides to actually compare the pros and cons and not just affirm arguments, which would consequently make the debate more passionate and vivid.

That being said, I’d like to clarify some clash-points : the Boston bombings were legitimately brought up by the Opposing Team as a key argument. So just let me show you the tragic consequence of those video recordings you claim to be a miracle (go to link):

This shows that too much transparency can lead to people feeling like doing their own justice, and what tremendous value information has in our connected world.

                                                   

On the other hand, information can be very valuable. Before actually going on the field of war, many young soon-to-be-soldiers do not know what they will be expected to do, and enroll the army without being fully aware of what their future “job” is going to be about. For instance, this video, which created a huge buzz on the internet (more than 23 millions views on YouTube), shows the harsh reality of a battlefield in Afghanistan, reality sometimes hidden behind inspirational political speeches made by men whose only purpose is to justify expensive wars (link):

Thus, transparency can and should be understood as a way to access vital information without the media twisting it the way they want. Lobbyists cannot prevent you from building your own mind about a video, but they sure can influence (without any money being involved, of course) television news and influential channels to deliver information that may and will misguide you.

However, this definition does not seem to be the one our fellow debaters want to discuss, so I’ll just come back on what has been said and finish evaluating the accuracy of the Facebook clash point (if I may call it so).

„One can always have a Facebook account and still keep a high level of privacy. Users have a total freedom over their accounts.“ According to HM. In order to have a clear conscience, I must give you all the link to the Terms of Use you obviously read with patience and attention when you logged in to Facebook for the first time (link):

The most interesting section, apart from the second one where it is said that once you delete IP content, there may be some backup copies (understand there will be backup copies) for a reasonable period of time (and I’ve checked, they do not define reasonable is section 18), is the 14: Amendments. Facebook gives himself the right to change those terms if they send you a notice, notice which will be found on an independent page nobody knows about (I do accept dishonesty, but now one will buy it if you say you knew about that page). That’s where transparency meets its limits, so in my opinion (and I’m sorry for the opposing team, but the facts are there), Facebook cannot be brought up as a key argument to point out the advantages of transparency when the whole debate is about privacy.

So MS, you might want to rethink your posting-photos-of-you-dancing-naked policy, I’m afraid those pictures will not simply disappear in one click!

Anyway, it is important both teams, and especially for our two final speakers,  to focus on what really matters here, the core of the debate, and not on some facts that have been proven to be inaccurate.

The facts that I have tried to present to you in an unbiased manner (as if it were possible) should help you navigate around the rhetoric my fellow debaters are going to use to woo you to their side. So try and remember them ... and let the best side win!

EM