Just because he argues that privacy is unsustainable/sub-optimal doesn't mean that he has to facilitate its erosion. It is similar to how someone who demands privacy doesn't need to be prove his anonymity.
He is actively saying that privacy is a bad habit, but yet he won't demonstrate that he believes what he says by posting his history. Heck, all he has to do is screenshot (or copy/paste) everything from https://history.google.com/history to prove he's not "dishonest". And if "knowledge is inherently good" then it would be inherently good to know that he is not actively trying to subvert the government by browsing certain sites or reading certain books. It reads like someone drunk on idealism that believes information will never be distorted, used against them, misapplied, interjected with false data, and so on.
"doesn't mean that he has to facilitate its erosion"
It's not facilitating the erosion, it's adding evidence that what he says is backed up by fact, starting with himself. If he does not believe he should follow his own ideals, does he really believe them?
I cannot be sure, but I think he as arguing about it at societal level. This is my interpretation:
Given the technological improvements, privacy is unsustainable. If everyone realizes this and accepts it, we can reap the benefits of transparency. In a society that does not hold bad actions against those who already paid their due fine (or served the due time). Neither does that future society discriminate against people who are different. In that society, privacy will probably be beneficial only to the dishonest.
Now, I personally don't think if we can reach that stage of maturity, not anytime soon at least. But I think we are moving towards it faster than before and we are doing that because of the easy access to information especially the kind of information that we would otherwise keep private.
Right, I think that too and for the most part I agree. I have issue with the lack of those advocating for social-transparency to describe where the line is. Without having the serious conversation of where privacy and transparency are reasonably balanced, we're rushing into irrational decisions that have a long and lasting impact on society.
I have yet to see a single person who advocates for full transparency post their entire browser and search history, which to me feels odd. If they're advocating for full transparency and yet won't demonstrate that they themselves believe in the ideal enough to offer their own evidence and admission, I don't think they actually believe in those ideals fully, or more likely, have not articulated/discussed/discovered an appropriate middle-ground between these 2 concepts.
As much as I'd like not to have to hide anythings, society currently gives me no choice.
With the way society is currently designed, full personal transparency is pretty much social suicide.
Society was designed with some basic expectations of privacy. For example, we rely a lot on passwords and secrets to "prove" ownership and identity. Full transparencies implies that all my private keys, all my passwords, my credit card number, everything that is meant to be private is available to anyone. In a society that relies on no such concept of private knowledge, we wouldn't have this problem. But that's not the case right now.
The example above is just one reason why people shouldn't surrender their privacy just yet, and wait until the environment and context make it convenient. That said, we won't reach that state if we don't realize and accept that privacy is not we should rely on in the future. There are steps to take to make transparency practical and fair, and solutions like the ones mentioned in the above article are not any of them.
