.will
inconsistent disproportions of signal and noise.

Thus Kuran emphasizes an important and often neglected fact: that private pressure can impair liberty, and obstacles to free speech and honest interchange often come from our fellow citizens. The desire to protect one’s reputation, by declining to say things that other people think bizarre or offensive, is deeply rooted in human beings; and so Kuran finds a crucial distinction between a person’s private preferences (what he actually wants) and his public preferences (what he says, in public, that he wants).

Take this in context of the discussion of Facebook privacy. The more open Facebook identities become, the more repressive the site becomes. It’s a bit counter-intuitive. The quantity of information broadcast is inversely related to liberty, at least when the author can be held accountable to ‘eir preference.

Is free speech only liberating when it is anonymous? Without associating the taboo with the person, the internet is at it’s most infamous. Unfortunately, there is no stretch in likening the anonymous actions of the unaccountable to that exemplified by road-raged drivers. Apparently, people, liberated, are jerks without empathy. Is my misanthropic bias showing?