Ask Lemmy

Privacy affects a number of things, so it's hard to give any broad answer, but here's a few individual examples I guess.

• You close the door when you use the bathroom. We are simply uncomfortable with being perceived in a vulnerable situation like that by other people in most circumstances. To get rid of privacy would be to get rid of your bathroom door, and make yourself uncomfortable when you simply don't have to be.
• You store your passwords and don't share them with anyone. To give up privacy would be to give up all the access to your private accounts.
• You might not state exactly how much money you have when you're in public. Without privacy, people with a lot to lose would suddenly be easily identifiable targets for bad actors that could kidnap them, extort them for ransom, etc.
• Online search habits can identify things about you. A lack of privacy means targeted advertisements can convince you to buy things you wouldn't waste your money on otherwise, (cough cough instagram showing teen girls beauty ads specifically when it detected they were feeling insecure), or that governments and corporations can influence your decisions and opinions away from your best interests (cough cough Cambridge Analytica scandal)
• Being open isn't always beneficial. You might lie to a child about where puppies go when they die, because making that currently private information public to the child would only make the situation harder for them.
• Harassment relies on identifiable information about you. If you had to publish your name, address, phone number, and email with every account you made because privacy didn't exist, any statement someone dislikes could lead to major problems for you. This means self-censorship, and constantly living in fear if your ideas exist outside someone else's acceptable worldview who happens to also be willing to cause you harm.

Obviously these are just a few examples, and there are ways in which a lack of privacy can also be beneficial. For example on my harassment point, you could also argue it's bad that neo-nazis have anonymity, because it makes it hard to stop their dangerous rhetoric, but that could again be countered by saying neo-nazis are much more likely to harass and threaten people, who themselves then need privacy.

It's a similar argument to free speech. It might not be good for everyone in all cases, but limiting free speech (or in this case, not having or limiting privacy) would lead to oppressive ideologies gaining power faster than non-oppressive ones, would dull human expression and make things more monolithic, and generally make any form of democratic or outside-the-norm expression extremely difficult if not impossible, so we accept the potential downsides in favor of the much larger upsides.