From school I have a 20 minute walk so I get bored and this idea came to 
my mind while remembering a post[1] I read on pinterest called "Is Love 
Unethical?" I do not actually defend this, becuase idk I like having private 
thoughts, that are not wrong but some people might find wrong, and I am not 
actively harming anyone, and not harming anyone really + this would mean
I would have to expose my friends or people that are right/I agree with and
that would be unwholesome, cold, calculative... I genuinely don't want to 
do what I say below
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Why privacy is not optimal (maybe, I don't really care):

1. Consent is optimal
2. You must be informed or at least as informed as possible to consent
3. Privacy hides information from the public
4. You can't consent to the fullest if a person is hiding information about
them
5. Privacy is not the most virtuous thing to do

Example:
You have Cassius, a sadistic degenerate who likes to fart in public transport
so other have a bad time, and then you have Galius, who would punch Cassium
in the face if he ever sees him, but since Cassius is not announcing publicly
that he farts intentionally he can't really do it, but he is not punching him
because he doesn't believe in violence or whatever, he is not doing it because
he is UNINFORMED, he is consenting to Cassius having all his teeth in his mouth
because he doesn't know, then, its uninformed consent.

So may say, as one of my friends (who is in his first year of philosophy in
university) that in this framework(?) informed consent doesn't really exist,
so we may have to redefined it, and eliminate the binary and turn it into a
spectrum (its the 21th century after all...), or maybe designate a baseline
consent, where nonconsensual falls into a binary of yes/no and consensual falls
into a spectrum of being a more informed or uniformed consent.

You may think that im proposing (im not really proposing anything because I
am not going to make a search history public public or anything) would be
enforced through force, but I think it would work better if its framed as an
individual virtue, you are more virtuous if you have no privacy, and less virtuous
if you hide where you went to eat yesterday, but you aren't "bad".

Also my friend said that how do you qualify when is information enough, or
when is it too little, and I think that here the maximum would be infinity
and that these persons should try their best, if they are not able to share
more information or don't feel comfortable it's ok (even if they simply don't
want).

He also said that what happens if a person is lying, I don't think this is
really worring because: 1. I can already lie and say I don't throw rocks
at feral dogs (I don't) 2. If people actually renounced to their privacy
I think there would be more less people lying that people actually doing it
so It's the same as banning E2EE just because criminals use it.

I also thought about like: You have that worthless Cassius again, and his
friend Julia, Julia is a very pious person and has renounced to her privacy,
and when Cassius tells her that he farts sadically in the bus she goes and
publishes it on her blog, so more people can make a more informed decision.
But before this she must have told Cassium that their conservation would
not be private, because she is virtuous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] https://i.pinimg.com/736x/81/16/6f/81166f4ebdf2e5b479e29db5074c62de.jpg

What is "Love," exactly?

The matter is the subject of much debate. If the nature of one's whole self is not transparently known, is love an informed decision? It is entirely possible that no one truly loves "you", the self you alone percieve, being the only listener to your own thoughts, and the only knower of your own worst impulses.
It could be argued that you have no right to love- you, who are worse than others, guilty of all the most unpleasant forms of internal treachery. You seek to make yourself manageable, but in doing so, the threat of your presence is disguised. If you feel alone now, have you considered whether you might deserve it? Have you considered that others do not deserve the burden of loving you?

Rereading this I realised almost all of my idea is just the original one LMAO
I added almost nothing.
The author was not cooking in the second paragraph, specially at the end, have
they considered that other might have a duty/for other may the right thing to do
may be helping you go forwards? And the "you might deserve it?" or you might not
LMAO, that is the type of thought process that arrives at victim-blaming...