The One That Plays
What does privacy mean in the digital age?
In the first episode of Frasier, before you know much about anyone, Roz walks into the radio booth and tells Frasier a story about a dead woman. The scene runs about ninety seconds. Frasier is sulking, because his new life in Seattle has not arranged itself the way he pictured it, and Roz asks whether he has ever heard of Lupe Velez.
She was a movie star in the thirties, Roz says, and her career had hit the skids, so she decided to make one last stab at immortality. If she could not be remembered for her films, she would be remembered for the way she died. She planned a lavish suicide. Flowers, candles, silk sheets, a white satin gown, full hair and makeup, the works. She swallowed the pills, lay down, and imagined how beautiful she would look on the front page of the morning paper. The pills, unfortunately, did not agree with the enchilada combo plate she had chosen, of all things, as a last meal. She stumbled to the bathroom, tripped, and went in head first. That, Roz says, is how they found her.
Frasier asks why she is telling him this. Because things do not always happen the way we planned, she says, and they can work out anyway. He points out that Lupe was last seen with her head in a toilet. And then Roz lands the line the whole scene was built for. “All she wanted was to be remembered,” she says. “Will you ever forget that story?”
I never did. I watched that episode a long time ago and I have forgotten nearly everything around it, but I did not forget Lupe Velez, which is the first thing worth noticing, because the story is almost certainly not true.
So a woman who wanted, more than anything, to control how she would be remembered got the remembrance and none of the control. She is remembered for a death she may not have died, and I have just handed the wrong version to you one more time, which is the part I want to sit with, because I did not have to. I reached for the one that plays, the same way Roz did.
That is what this essay is about: the commodification of our private lives, and how much of it now happens without our permission, and sometimes against our will. It is about whether you keep any authorship of your own story once it has been shared, or once someone else has shared it for you.
Because the thing Roz does in that booth is small and old and ordinary. She tells a story about a person, to an audience, as an example, to make a point that has nothing to do with the person. We have always done this. A friend tells a story about you at a party. It is a little unfair, a little sharpened for the room, and it stays in the room. What changed is not the impulse. What changed is the room. The story a friend used to tell about your worst night, to a handful of people who would forget it, is now told online, about your troubles, as content, as an example, to strangers, and it does not stay anywhere, and you never agreed to it, and you may not even know it is out there.
Lupe was a public figure, or trying to be. That was supposed to be the trade. You reach for fame, and in exchange you give up some control over your own image. The rest of us never made that trade. And yet here we are, none of us quite public, and none of us quite private either.
It is tempting to think of privacy as something old, a basic human need that the internet is now eroding. It is more accurate, and stranger, to say that privacy is a fairly recent invention, that it has meant something different in every era that used the word, and that it has been rewritten, every single time, by a new machine.
For most of the next two thousand years the line kept moving. In the feudal world Habermas describes there was barely a public and a private at all, only rank. It was the eighteenth century that produced something we would recognize, and here is the detail I find lovely. The modern public sphere, the world of newspapers and coffeehouses and public opinion, was born out of the private one, out of letters and diaries and novels, out of people learning to perform an inner life for an audience. Habermas has a phrase for this new interior. He calls it a subjectivity that was, from the very start, “always already oriented toward an audience.” The private self, at the moment it was invented, was already half turned toward the room.
Then, in 1890, privacy became a right, and it happened the way these things always happen. It happened in response to a machine.
For most of the nineteenth century, having your photograph taken was a slow, consensual event. You sat still, you cooperated, you knew it was being done. Then Kodak released the snap camera, and suddenly a person could be photographed on the street, mid-sentence, mid-gesture, without warning and without permission. At the same time the newspaper business was discovering that gossip sold. The two inventions met, and a young lawyer named Louis Brandeis , with his law partner Samuel Warren, sat down and wrote what became the most influential essay in the history of American privacy law, published in the Harvard Law Review under the title “The Right to Privacy.” They argued for something the law had never quite named. A right to be let alone.
Get Karina Vunnam’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
This was written in 1890 and it is the exact anxiety of the present. A new device makes it trivial to capture people without their consent. A media business is hungry for what the device captures. And the two together threaten to take what was whispered in private and broadcast it. Brandeis was not describing TikTok. He was describing a camera and a tabloid. But the sentence has been waiting a hundred and thirty six years for the phones in our pockets, and it fits them better than it fit the thing he was actually looking at.
This is the pattern worth holding onto. Privacy has never been a fixed thing we are now losing. It has been redefined at every turn by whatever new machine made the old boundary impossible to hold. The Greeks defined it against the city. The eighteenth century defined it against the reading public. Brandeis defined it against the camera. Each definition arrived a beat too late, a response to a technology that had already changed what could be seen and by whom. Lupe Velez died into the world Brandeis was afraid of, a world where an image could get away from you and a press could sell it, and where the version that traveled was the one that played. What we have now is that same world, running at a speed and a scale Brandeis could not have pictured, and pointed, this time, not at the famous, but at everyone.
This is why your gut tightens at some disclosures and not others, and it is worth trusting that reaction, because it is not squeamishness. It is your sense of appropriate flow doing its job. The same sentence, my marriage is difficult right now, is intimacy when you say it to a close friend and a rupture when you say it to a camera, and you feel the difference in your body before you can explain it. Which means the real question is not why we stopped valuing privacy. We did not. It is why so many of us started letting our information flow to everyone, all at once, when the sense that it should not is still right there, still intact, still tightening the stomach. The answer is that we were offered something for it, and the price kept going up.
Here is what you get. Every like and comment lands on the same reward circuitry in the brain as other pleasures, and because the feedback is unpredictable, arriving in bursts you cannot schedule, it is the most habit-forming kind, the slot-machine kind. You get, in the short term, a real lift in self-worth. You get belonging, the sense of being seen and answered, which for an isolated person is not nothing. You get status, in a culture where fifty-seven percent of an entire generation would take the job of influencer if it were offered to them. And sometimes you get money, though the money is a lottery, with the median creator earning almost nothing while a tiny fraction takes almost everything.
But the deeper change is not about money. It is that the negative feedback stopped landing. Kendra Hilty is the clearest case, and not because she earned anything. She told a painful, unflattering story about falling in love with her psychiatrist across more than thirty installments, she drew an enormous amount of pushback, and she did not fold. She reframed her critics as predator protectors and kept going, larger than before. The shame that would have stopped someone in 2013 did not work on her, because in the current system disapproval is just another form of engagement, and a pile-on can be absorbed as proof that you are brave and everyone else is complicit. Either way the audience grows. This is the part the old warning could never have anticipated. It assumed shame was a working currency, that enough disapproval would eventually cost you enough to make you stop. What shifted is that disapproval lost its bite.
So the warning did not become false. It became obsolete. Some people are still simply harmed and stay harmed, and it still describes a real danger. But it rested on two assumptions that quietly stopped being reliable, that exposure could only cost you, and that shame still worked, and once both of those loosened, the deterrent dissolved with them. That is why we sold it. Not because we stopped caring about privacy, but because the thing that used to make the sale dangerous, the near certainty that it would cost you and sting, quietly stopped being dependable.
So if we have sold nearly everything, what is left that is still private? The answer is stranger and smaller than you would hope, and it follows directly from Nissenbaum’s idea that privacy is about flow. If privacy is information kept in its proper context, then what stays private in a life lived publicly is whatever the public flow has no use for. And it turns out there are only two things the flow does not want.
The first is the mundane. We do not film ourselves flossing, or waiting on hold, or staring at the ceiling at three in the afternoon, not because these things are secret but because they are worthless. They will not travel. There is no audience for the unremarkable, so the unremarkable is left alone, which means the last reliably private region of a life is not its tender center but its dead air, the parts too dull to sell. That is a strange inheritance. We used to keep the mundane close and share the momentous with the few people we trusted. Now the momentous is inventory, and the mundane is the only thing safely ours.
Which means the private residue is not only the boring. It is also the calculating, the part of you that watches yourself perform and decides. That is a colder place to locate the private self than we might like, because it is not a sanctuary, it is a control room, and it never rests. But it is also, and this is the part worth holding onto, the one place a person is fully honest, because there is no audience there to perform for. It is the songwriter alone with the unfinished song, the writer with the bad draft, Machiavelli watching the court and deciding what to write down and what to keep. He sold The Prince. He never sold the mind that saw what the court was doing, because that faculty could not be handed over. It was not the product. It was the thing that made the product.
So what is left, after everything is sold, is the dull and the deliberate. The parts of a life too mundane to want, and the act of making that cannot be shown without collapsing. Everything in between, the momentous and the intimate and the shareable, which is to say almost everything that used to be called private, has moved onto the market. Privacy did not disappear. It shrank to the two things that will not sell.
There is one more turn, and it is the hardest, because everything so far has assumed you were the one choosing. You are not always the one choosing.
This is the part that is new, and it changes how people behave. If your privacy is only as safe as the least discreet person you interact with, then discretion becomes something you have to screen for, in friends, in dates, in strangers. People now search a footprint that other people partly wrote before they will trust you. You catch yourself quietly assessing whether the person across the table is the type to post the conversation you are currently having. That is a real shift in the texture of intimacy. Privacy used to be access you granted to people you trusted. Now it is something the people you trust can spend on your behalf, without asking, which means trust itself has to be vetted earlier and harder than it ever was.
Which brings us back to Lupe Velez, dead for eighty years and still remembered for a death she probably did not die. She wanted to author how she would be remembered, and the moment she became public she lost the pen, and the version that survived was not the true one but the one that played. That used to be the private tax of fame. It is now the ordinary condition of having a life near other people who have phones. We are all a little bit public now, our momentous shared and our mundane the only thing safely ours, our stories open to revision by anyone who was in the room.
I do not think the answer is to disappear, and I do not think disappearing is available anyway. The forces here are structural, built into the machines and the incentives, and no amount of personal caution repeals them. But the workshop is real, and it is yours, and it is worth knowing that it is the last thing that is. The private self did not die. It retreated to the one room the market cannot enter, the room where you are still making the thing instead of selling it. What happens in there is the last part of you that is not for sale, and that may be reason enough to keep a door on it.
Originally published at https://karinaqueries.substack.com.
