Regarding the rest, bear in mind that during Newton's era, many mechanical analogies/metaphors were made, then later it was steam engine analogies/metaphors that were made, and now we live in this digital age and predictably it is computational analogies/metaphors that are made.
Science and technology is really the best chance we have as a species. It is really our only distinct feature and evolutionary advantage. Our ability to create languages allowed us to do science and technology. Our limited brains were transcended by the ability to write down something as simple as recipes, law, or history. This augmented our ability to remember in the same way blockchain technology is an advantage.
The problem we face is we don't have an ability to be rational, or moral, or become inherently better. The brain has it's limits and these are hard limits. Neuroscience proves that our brains are limited in how they can be wired and only by thinking outside of the brain can we get beyond those limits.
So if ignorance and bias are two of the main problems there is no hope of resolving it be relying on the same brains that inherently create it. It's going to take externalizing, and symbolic methods, to do the logic outside of our brains in the same way we used pen and paper to do logic, math, or calculators, or computers to run simulations, all stuff which people can do inside their heads with limited accuracy but with the help of technology this accuracy which is most critical is what is improved.
Either way, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed reading your article, but at least from my perspective there are several strange assumptions built in, which derails the whole thing. I'd have to try and pick all of them apart, and I just left a monster reply in @dan's article that you linked which took the better part of 1h20 to write, so for today is enough; I leave you just with this:
The difference is I recognize my own bias and my limits as a human. I don't think Dan's article is recognizing these human limits. Without transcending our human limitations, more transparency does not make the world more moral, or smarter, or less ignorant, or better, as the same brains, personality flaws, etc, are going to exist even if you make it completely transparent. The same ignorance is going to exist whether society is transparent or private so what improvement are you actually going to see is the question I ask in my article.
My solution involves improving the decision making capacity of humans by augmentation via AI. If humans are going to have to make decisions of increasingly higher quality, as is required or expected with this transparency, then the tools to make these decisions have to be spread, otherwise we will have just as many human errors, ignorance, bias, and bad decisions as we do now, only we will see it more clearly, more often, and have more behaviors to punish.
You have enough material possessions to not have to worry about the basics.
Information has precious little to do with it.
Information which I turned into knowledge and acted on, is the only reason I have anything. It is the only reason I'm not in prison right now (knowledge), it is the only reason I'm able to do anything under capitalism. If we are talking for example about Steemit? Without access to information I would not have learned about it early on, because I would not have the information to know it exists, and without that I could not post and earn on Steemit.
Decision making is the key to every success in life. Low quality decisions are the only thing separating good and bad outcomes in life. It has little to nothing to do with moral outlooks, or how you feel about it, but to do with your decisions and the consequences you receive in exchange.
Go outside in a sunny day, without a worry in the world, you have water, you have food, you have good air, and you're surrounded by Nature.
None of this is given, none of it is guaranteed, nothing you mentioned is anything which cannot be lost due to bad decisions. Low quality decisions could mean you can lose access to all of that. For that reason it is in my rational interest to seek to make the highest quality decisions I can make throughout my life, as that is what determines if I have more of the life I want.
Assumption
I should have said freedom for the individual depends on the individual maintaining privacy (independence of thought) and having transparency. If you are not free to think for yourself without being coerced, judged, ranked, rated, then you're not an individual. If you have no transparency at all then your rights which allow you to stay alive and have freedom cannot be defended, so the transparency in my opinion only functions to protect life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, rather than for its own sake. The same goes for privacy, it protects life, liberty (for the individual), and is nothing more than a means to certain ends.