In a small town, the lack of secrecy is (generally) mutual. People are aware of the reputation they gain and can usually address any rumors or allegations directly. Furthermore, there's still the option to physically move away, and one can presume that there will be other communities to join while leaving behind social baggage.

When it comes to the internet, the metaphor breaks down. Most people are (by design) unaware of the degree or even the presence of surveillance around them. The parties collecting the information (corporations, government agencies, and a few individuals) remain unknown, and their motivations reach far beyond those of rumormongers or gossips. Because they don't share in the same small community, the powers that watch us don't have to fear direct or indirect repercussions from the ways they use our data for or against us. This should be much scarier than any threat of individual antagonism or public shame.

There's also no effective way to 'leave' the internet. As this article illustrates, it's difficult or impossible to avoid revealing even a single specific piece of information, let alone your whole identity. It's more than the fact that we "really like" our involvement in the online community, it's a necessity for the vast majority of us to sustain ourselves socially and financially. We will inevitably reveal many things about ourselves by our actions online, and this data will never disappear.

I agree that we need to move forward from the way things are rather than trying to back out at this late hour. However, I very much disagree that this is in any way comparable to the way things have been, or a reemergence of previous societal trends. This is a new problem created from our many advancements, and we need to find new ways to address it.

I am not arguing that we shouldn't have children at all, but responsibly limiting our population seems like a critical supporting factor in any qualitative advancement we want to make as a species. This is especially true since much of the world doesn't seem likely to do the same any time soon.

Somehow overpopulation didn't make his list of existential risks? Seems like a glaring hypocrisy for someone who claims to have an interest in saving the species.

Yes, it's hard work being more knowledgeable, productive, smarter, better, than people around you. This is particularly a problem in software development since it takes an intense and often fleeting concentration to be really productive. Interruptions, especially those stemming from the ignorance or poor choices of others, provoke an immediate frustration and bitterness which seems (and probably is) justified.

Being justified, however, doesn't mean it's helpful. When I'm faced with these situations I often find myself analyzing in my head all the reasons that I shouldn't have to deal with this, why the person who brought it up is an idiot, how much better it would be if I could just be left to get things done. None of this thinking is productive, or even gratifying, except in the shallowest sense.

As hard as it is, the appropriate response to ignorance, idiocy, or other negative stimuli is NOT to be negative, but instead focus on positive solutions. Change the system where you can (as close to the source as possible) but don't compound wasted time by spending your energy being bitter about it.