privacy “is not binary, not on or off — it’s a continuum,”
from http://gigaom.com/2011/02/17/jarvis-publicness-needs-its-advocates-just-like-privacy/

Just as Jeff Jarvis says in the above quote and in the video,  re: privacy-publicness,  I think that the debate sparked by Sherry Turkle’s book Alone Together is not a “binary” yea or nay,  but a continuum we should keep under constant surveillance.  The human;  the “us”  is somewhere between the cyber utopian of the possibilities to the skeptics’ worries about the effects on what might be instilled in us as humans.  Yes,  the way in which we express and articulate our humanity is ever-changing,  but Sherry Turkle does say something to this effect (and I wish she would have said it far more often in her book)  :  This is not a call to get rid of technology.  It  is rather a call to be careful to steer it (or to attempt to keep assumptions about hyperconnectivity as all positive from lulling us to sleep to the extent that we start taking on the darker aspects of hyperconnectivity.

Yes,  the privacy-publicness continuum is one of those very examples that play with our conventional notions of privacy and public-ness.  It is one of those areas where we find ourselves able to extend both privacy AND public-ness,  as well as to sense dangers of trespassing or exaggerating these beyond our comfort zone.  And this extends into that mallable area where our inclinations about being social and being ourselves is in flux,  for good and for bad.  I lean heavily toward the good,  but want to give the bad less of a chance  to grow or dominate.