Radical Transparency removes almost all potentials for conflict. Why?
Conflict requires secrecy by some people (bad guys), which is why neither utopian nor anti-utopian novels try to describe such a society in which everything done by everyone – individual, corporation, government – is completely transparent. When everything is out in the open, conflict is difficult to do.
It is hard to write a gripping novel without conflict. Who will read a lyrical ode to a perfect society? Readers need good guys beating up on bad guys in the Final Battle.
In many dystopias, transparency is one-way, i.e., a powerful entity (corporation or government) which is itself totally secretive can know everything about every citizen at every time.
But a two-way transparency makes conflict impossible.
Still, I’d like to see a SF novel giving it a try – even if it works around the problem by subverting the Radical Transparency society: exploring the way it works when it works, and what conflict happens when a group or an individual manages to opt out of it and keeps something secret.
And how do you achieve Radical Transparency? If it is mandatory, it is a dictatorship (or spying at a massive scale), or is there a benevolent way to do that? If it is voluntary, someone can always subvert it (pure Game Theory here).
Example: if what every government official says, does or types is immediately visible to everyone, it is impossible to plan a war as enemies will see the plans. Does it mean there are no wars, or that people subvert the transparency by planning wars in non-obvious ways – coded language, etc.